RAW and HDR

astevens54

I was wondering what kind of results I might get if I post process a picture and saving 3 or more variations of that picture. Instead of bracketing it via post processing verses actually when taking the picture??? I would appreciate anyones thoughts on this.
Thanks

Candid Arts

astevens54 wrote:

I was wondering what kind of results I might get if I post process a picture and saving 3 or more variations of that picture. Instead of bracketing it via post processing verses actually when taking the picture??? I would appreciate anyones thoughts on this.
Thanks

If I think I understand what you're saying, which I'm about 90% sure I don't, I try to do as much as I can to the picture that I want done with the actual picture. So if that requires doing the bracketing in camera and taking three pictures, then so be it. The less pp you can do, the better IMO.

Icebear

The whole idea of bracketing is to get more data to work with on either end of the histogram. You cannot manufacture data you don't have by post processing.

jfriend

Icebear wrote:

The whole idea of bracketing is to get more data to work with on either end of the histogram. You cannot manufacture data you don't have by post processing.

But, if you have better tools available for dealing with high dynamic range images in an HDR tool, it might give you better results if you use the HDR tool with two RAW developments from the same image rather than not use the HDR tool and try to solve the problem in your one RAW image with your other tools.

I'm not suggesting that using two RAW developments from the same image is creating data, but it is putting the full spectrum of data in the RAW file in a format that the HDR tools can use. If you don't have any better tools for dealing with high dynamic range images, then it might be your best option post shoot. It's just a matter of using the best tools you have for a specific job. If you have the chance, capture more data initially with more images, but if that didn't happen for some reason, you do the best you can with the tools you have and know how to use.

Candid Arts

What I (and I think we) are saying is, if you take the bracketed pictures at as close as you can to what you want, the less editing you'll have to do in post processing. The less editing, the less the photo will degrade. So instead of taking one photo and adjusting the hell out of it to make it what you want, take three, pic the closest one to the one you want, and do minimal adjustments on the one. Make sense? All these files that I'm talking about (the three closest to what you want) take in RAW. That is the ONLY way I shoot. It's going to give you the most information, but even in RAW too much editing will degrade the photo.

Hope that helps...maybe?

astevens54

Thanks guys, I really like HDR and was looking for an alternative if I didn't have 3 shots. BTW Candid how do you like the D50? I'm thinking about getting it for my next camera, I'd like a 5D, but cannot justify the cost.

Candid Arts

astevens54 wrote:

Thanks guys, I really like HDR and was looking for an alternative if I didn't have 3 shots. BTW Candid how do you like the D50? I'm thinking about getting it for my next camera, I'd like a 5D, but cannot justify the cost.

I love the 50D. I haven't been pressed with high ISO quality, but then again I haven't printed anything out that uses a higher ISO, and it looks differnt printed vs on the monitor. I was having some "error" issues with it, but I just updated it's firmware last night, so hopefully that fixes it. I don't think there is anything that I don't like about it that I've found so far, and somehow I already have about 8500 clicks on it. I think I've only had it for about 2 months or so. Yeah I want the 5DmkII as well, and could justify the cost, I just don't have it beings I'm going to school and only working less than part time. Have you played with the 5DmkII at all? It is oh so worth it. If you got the money, go for it, otherwise the 50D is a GREAT (I don't wanna say compramise) but yeah. It's an amazing body.

dbd

astevens54 wrote:

Thanks guys, I really like HDR and was looking for an alternative if I didn't have 3 shots.
...

As Icebear said: "You cannot manufacture data you don't have by post processing."

What you -can- do is to keep all the data you have by not funneling it through a narrow holder like .jpg. HDR processing software like the current Photomatix allow you to input a single RAW or 16 bit .tif image to allow you to use the tone mapping and local contrast enhancement tools on the best data you have. Even if the rest of your processing workflow is 8 bit, you can feed the full resolution from the camera to the HDR software.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

kdog

astevens54 wrote:

I was wondering what kind of results I might get if I post process a picture and saving 3 or more variations of that picture. Instead of bracketing it via post processing verses actually when taking the picture??? I would appreciate anyones thoughts on this.
Thanks

Yes, you can increase the dynamic range of your images by doing exactly as you suggest. I don't know about the Nikons, but Canons newer cameras have about 10 stops of dynamic range in RAW mode. A straight JPG conversion only ends up with about 8 stops of range. So you can gain about two stops using HDR tone mapping. Two variations of the image is all you need. Photomatix will actually accept a single RAW image and make an HDR from it saving you the trouble of making multiple versions yourself. However, you can get a little better control of the noise reduction if you convert in Adobe ACR or the like (which may or may not be important depending on your image). Make them 16 bit TIFFs.

Of course by taking multiple exposures of the same scene, your gains in dynamic range are unlimited. On the other hand, single RAW file HDRs win in situations where there's a lot of motion in the scene, like a flying bird for example.

Regards,
-joel

RAW-Shooter

astevens54 wrote:

Thanks guys, I really like HDR and was looking for an alternative if I didn't have 3 shots. BTW Candid how do you like the D50? I'm thinking about getting it for my next camera, I'd like a 5D, but cannot justify the cost.

Most HDR software, like Essential HDR, Photomatix etc are capable of creating a "pseudo" HDR file from a single RAW image. The outcome is not as impressive as if you use 3,5,7 or nine bracketed shots - still you will like what you get.

I was thinking about stepping from a 40D to a 50D, but decided to buy better lenses instead. The 40D is a very good camera and the prices are currently pretty low.

Just my 2 cents.

BoKo
Canon 40D | Tamron 19-35 | Canon 28-138 IS | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 100-300 f/5.6L

astevens54

What camera are you using now?

RAW-Shooter wrote:

Most HDR software, like Essential HDR, Photomatix etc are capable of creating a "pseudo" HDR file from a single RAW image. The outcome is not as impressive as if you use 3,5,7 or nine bracketed shots - still you will like what you get.

I was thinking about stepping from a 40D to a 50D, but decided to buy better lenses instead. The 40D is a very good camera and the prices are currently pretty low.

Just my 2 cents.

BoKo
Canon 40D | Tamron 19-35 | Canon 28-138 IS | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 100-300 f/5.6L

RAW-Shooter

astevens54 wrote:

What camera are you using now?

40D...