Exposure in HDR

I have a question regarding HDR, when you have to add or subtract an exposure marking, such as +1, 0, -1, is that done by changing the aperture of shutter speed value, by the exposure setting in-camera, or by the exposure setting in the RAW editor being used? I have tried doing the changes in Camera RAW with the exposure, and the result is normally way overexposed, and looks nothing like what other people make with theirs.

mknabster wrote in post #10624373
I have a question regarding HDR, when you have to add or subtract an exposure marking, such as +1, 0, -1, is that done by changing the aperture of shutter speed value, by the exposure setting in-camera, or by the exposure setting in the RAW editor being used? I have tried doing the changes in Camera RAW with the exposure, and the result is normally way overexposed, and looks nothing like what other people make with theirs.

Look in your menu settings. On my 40D at least, there's an AEB setting to bracket the exposures, then it will automatically take three shots at those settings (+1, 0, -1... or +2/3, 0, -2/3... whatever you choose).
If your camera has no such thing, take your shot as normal, then add and subract an f-stop on the next two shots (may have to be in manual mode).

A true HDR uses different exposure settings in camera. You can take a single RAW shot and change the exposure in a RAW editor to make an "HDR" but it is not a true HDR. You will get an HDR-like effect but you will not benefit from the true purpose of HDR. If you're doing this and it's turning out overexposed, it's probably something in your HDR settings, since it is possible to do this and result in a decent looking image.

It's generally advised to change the shutter speed, not the apeture - since changing the aperture will result in different depths of field.

usukshooter wrote in post #10624464
It's generally advised to change the shutter speed, not the apeture - since changing the aperture will result in different depths of field.

True. I stand corrected

I'm not sure if the 30D has an AEB setting, I don't see why not if the 40D does. But, i'll look into that and give it a shot. Yea, I was wondering about the depth of field with changing the aperture, shutter speed it is then. So which would give a truer HDR then, changing the shutter to be the appropriate exposure stops, or use this AEB setting? Also, is there a certain type of subject that would render good HDR results?

One more question I forgot to add, I noticed a lot of people use Photomatix, is this better to use over Photoshop HDR?

mknabster wrote in post #10624518
Also, is there a certain type of subject that would render good HDR results?

I've seen everything done in HDR... even people, if you like that look. There's an HDR section in this forum, have a look-see to get some ideas.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=130

I use Photomatix; don't have photoshop

I prefer Photomatix, it's much easier to use in my opinion. I could not get a decent result from PS at all.

High contrast images are ideal for HDR since the purpose of an HDR is to obtain a greater tonal range which a single shot could not capture. So any time you're in a situation where you want to capture a scene with both strong highlights and strong shadows but can't expose for one or the other without under or overexposing part of the image, HDR is ideal. The image with the archway in this article is a prime example: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ls/high-dynamic-range.htm

On the other hand, HDR can also be useful for dull, grey, flat images since it can help colors really pop out.

Well, I know what i'll be doing this weekend . Thanks for the links as well as the tips, I'll give Photomatix a shot, and post up what I get over the next couple of days. Thanks!

usukshooter wrote in post #10624464
You can take a single RAW shot and change the exposure in a RAW editor to make an "HDR" but it is not a true HDR. You will get an HDR-like effect but you will not benefit from the true purpose of HDR.

The terms "true HDR" and "false/fake HDR" used depending whether you shoot once or several times at different exposures, are basically nonsense semantics. The only important thing in HDR imaging is to be able to capture all the dynamic range of the scene (i.e. highlights preserved plus shadows with detail) and then process it, no matter how many shots you needed for that. The number of shots made doesn't provide a definition of HDR by itself.

For instance, the only difference between shooting just once preserving the highlights, and doing extra shots at higher exposure, will be more noise in the shadows in the first case. It will be as much a "true HDR" or a "fake HDR" than when shooting extra exposures, it will simply be a noisier HDR and noise will be the only difference between the two results.

Regards

"The real HDR shooting method consist in taking multiple exposures of the same scene, at different durations (by making “bracketing”), for successively collecting different part of the scene (in term of brightness/chrominance​), and then merging these exposures in only wide one. We can, for example, shoot once under expose by 2 stops, another one at neutral metering, and a third one over exposed by 2 stops. The under exposed shot will give us high-lights informations, over exposed one shadows informations, and neutral one will enable us to join the whole around average information. Here, each shot containing entire sensor dynamic range, with three shots, we get three times the sensor dynamic range (not exactly as each exposure intersect others) !"
from http://www.nicolasgene​tte.com …rticles/HDR/ind​ex_us.php/

Just about everything else I've read about true HDR involves taking multiple shots. Even making several versions of single raw file, neutral, under, and over exposed, and then merging them, is not considered HDR.

Opinions may vary.

_GUI_ wrote in post #10627687
The terms "true HDR" and "false/fake HDR" used depending whether you shoot once or several times at different exposures, are basically nonsense semantics. The only important thing in HDR imaging is to be able to capture all the dynamic range of the scene (i.e. highlights preserved plus shadows with detail) and then process it, no matter how many shots you needed for that. The number of shots made doesn't provide a definition of HDR by itself.

For instance, the only difference between shooting just once preserving the highlights, and doing extra shots at higher exposure, will be more noise in the shadows in the first case. It will be as much a "true HDR" or a "fake HDR" than when shooting extra exposures, it will simply be a noisier HDR and noise will be the only difference between the two results.

Regards

Taking one shot that captures the full dynamic range of the scene is just a photograph of a scene with a small/low dynamic range. Just a normal picture, not an HDR. The very word "High" in HDR means the scene had a dynamic range beyond what the sensor could capture and therefore you have to combine multiple exposures to capture the full range. I have never read anything contrary to this.

mknabster wrote in post #10624518
I'm not sure if the 30D has an AEB setting

It does, 5th option down [AEB] on the menu in between "Shoot w/o card" & "WB SHIFT/BKT"

usukshooter wrote in post #10629867
Taking one shot that captures the full dynamic range of the scene is just a photograph of a scene with a small/low dynamic range.

If you can capture the full dynamic range of a scene in a single shot, there is absolutely no improvement nor difference in what you could achieve by doing one million extra shots over the same scene at different exposures. Just make copies of your original shot at different exposure values (they won't have noise in the shadows since we assume to have captured all the scene's DR), and feed them into your favourite HDR tone-terrifying software. The result will be the same as shooting many times. In fact the single-shot result will probably be better because we won't have any ghosting artifacts nor sharpness loss due to missalignment. In addition to that we will save time and disk space.

usukshooter wrote in post #10629867
The very word "High" in HDR means the scene had a dynamic range beyond what the sensor could capture and therefore you have to combine multiple exposures to capture the full range. I have never read anything contrary to this.

The definition of HDR doesn't involve any particular number of shots (a Fuji S5 Pro in a single shot can capture the same DR as any 4/3 camera in 3 shots 2EV apart for instance), and is not defined by going beyond camera's DR either (a small sensor compact camera with a low DR, let's say 4-5 usable stops, doesn't make a 6 stops scene HDR).

The definition of HDR cannot be in the number of shots, nor in camera's DR. The number of shot needed (>=1) will depend on camera's DR and scene's DR. Camera's DR is constantly improving with technology and depends strongly on sensor size.

The definition of HDR is just that: a scene with a High Dynamic Range that was properly captured and processed to be displayed in the output file. And what is high? I would consider >12 stops as a suggested reference. The day a camera can capture >12EV in a single shot, shooting more than once in 12EV HDR scenes will be unnecessary. A single shot will then allow us to capture all the dynamic range contained in scenes that can be considered HDR to human eye and output devices, throwing away the nonsense general belief many users have today about the definition of HDR.

Regards

_GUI_ wrote in post #10633362
If you can capture the full dynamic range of a scene in a single shot, there is absolutely no improvement nor difference in what you could achieve by doing one million extra shots.

If

Today is not that day.
Your definition of HDR photography isn't necessarily the definition of HDR photography.