How is this style of HDR created?

They are over processed. Bad examples of the HDR process which sadly seem to have found a following. HDR is supposed to enable us to capture a 'higher dynamic range' and yet all of those images that I looked at have blown highlights. What's the point in using HDR then? You can get that look without using HDR.

Also I don't think these shots are true HDR, I think they're simply tone mapped from differently exposed copies of a single image. If you look at some of the images they have elements in them that would have been moving considerably and so true HDR would not be possible. This method doesn't give as good an HDR effect as true HDR does.
 
Hmmm interesting post :) , maybe its just me but i love this style of processing .Kinda like some people liking and buying artwork spending thousands , that i think a child could draw.
 
Right location and light is key to most of those shots it seems. Also wide angle lens to give that effect to the sky would be my guess, then cropped into a square format. The first few look like the temperature slider has been ramped up, in I am guessing photomatix. Good chunk of saturation too. Some of them look like they might have used an ND grad to get such a dark blue sky too.

I think they are great shot, but processing wise nothing you shouldn't be able to do with the right photos to start with :)
 
Yep, not HDR's of a series of images because of the moving elements within them but done by tone mapping from a single image.

Start with one wide angle, cropped shot. Adjust the sliders to make different exposures and run through photomatix would be my guess too.

As for evercooking the processing. In my view it's impossible to overcook processing. Images are an artform and exist at all points of the spectrum. So long as it the choice of the photographer/digital artist then that's all that matters. :)
 
I don't think they are overdone at all. He has clearly used HDR to really give himself a style that I think works really well.
Its heavily done but its not overdone.
The overdone look is when people are trying to force an HDR to be HDR without sufficient source files and input.

edit: some of his work more deeper in his portfolio is a little overdone but the first couple of pages are just really good.
 
I think they're overcooked in places.. certainly that has it's place and appeal...
"Goodnight" looks good as does "Skater Girl" to me
however, the HDR has given everything an unearthly glow. which looks cracking on "goodnight" but doesn't look at all real.
the nicest most subtle HDR there is, I think, "For Sale", a little bit rich but is more to my tastes than the others. Overcooking HDR looks surreal and abstract. not an unworthy direction to take, but not used solely "to extend the dynamic range of a digital sensor"
 
Mark.A said:
They are over processed. Bad examples of the HDR process which sadly seem to have found a following. HDR is supposed to enable us to capture a 'higher dynamic range' and yet all of those images that I looked at have blown highlights. What's the point in using HDR then? You can get that look without using HDR.

Also I don't think these shots are true HDR, I think they're simply tone mapped from differently exposed copies of a single image. If you look at some of the images they have elements in them that would have been moving considerably and so true HDR would not be possible. This method doesn't give as good an HDR effect as true HDR does.
Click to expand...

And it is impossible to display a 'true HDR' image, since there isn't any (I don't think) display in existence that can display a 'true HDR' image.

So all 'HDR' shots are tone-mapped, as HDR is just slang for tone mapping.
Saying they are 'over-processed' is a matter of opinion.

Perhaps converting a colour image to a black and white one is overprocessing?
Or even cropping? Or cloning out an unsightly object?

And sorry but the quote in bold, how does that make sense?
 
I really like some of those, and others I think are a little overdone to my tastes (and that's the key isn't it ?) I'd love to be able to produce images like some of those.

FP... isn't that where you take one RAW file, load it into ACR, adjust the exposure slider by say +2 stops, then save the image, adjust again by -2 stops from the base and save again, then use HDR on the three images.
 
I'm not a huge fan but it's reallt interesting to look back through his portfolio and see how his style has developed. He really has worked hard to perfect his technique and has created a very distinct style of his own, ignoring the HDR work his compositions are very good he clearly has a great eye for a shot and even more so for one that will work with his processing style.

Back to the OP I think the key to these photos is rather than just processing them he gets the right image in the first place with really good light.
 
:agree:
I had a look back through his portfolio and you can see where he has developed his style. It's still comes down to composition rather than relying on a technique to save a poor photo
 
So would you guys recommend doing 3 exposures and good light , then working from there?.


Oh and thanks for all the replies , very interesting ones ;)
 
jgs001 said:
I really like some of those, and others I think are a little overdone to my tastes (and that's the key isn't it ?) I'd love to be able to produce images like some of those.

FP... isn't that where you take one RAW file, load it into ACR, adjust the exposure slider by say +2 stops, then save the image, adjust again by -2 stops from the base and save again, then use HDR on the three images.
Click to expand...

It must be what he means but to say that you're changing the exposure on a single image is just... wrong!

If you can PN, take 3 (or heck, even more) exposures, as quickly as possible (to stop anything in the frame moving) to give you the highest dynamic range in your images.
Taking a raw file and then getting 3 images from it is really a worst case scenario, i.e. if your subject moves too much (animals, people, clouds, water, windy foliage etc etc).

Try it yourself!

Go outside and get a scene that ranges WILDLY in dynamic range.

Take a series of shots:
1 raw
3 raws bracketed
5 raws bracketed

Now, create a tone-mapped image from 1 raw>3 jpegs, 3 raws>3 jpegs and 5 raws>5 jpegs.

You really will notice the difference, however you'll also notice the difference in 'ghosting', where artefacts are left behind in the image.

In most of the guys images it doesn't look like things move too quickly and so bracketing is what is likely to have been done here.
 
I have tried to follow Pete's Vanilla skies page but this seems far beyond that , i have tried it with 3 exposures bracketed raws. But it still doesn't come out right lol , i'm only good with hdr then to black and white.

Why do you need to raw>jpeg?

Thanks
 
Yeah I know what you mean. I've tried the single image trick and the result was noisy as hell... I get much better results with AEB but I'm still rubbish at it. AEB +/- 2 stops, continuous mode is how I take them.
 
I never use single images and i never use exposure changes from a single raw , it's all done via bracketed shots. But it would be nice to know , what software is used / How many bracketed shots & what time of day :)

He should do a tutorial but i bet he wouldn't share his secrets :D
 
foodpoison said:
Now, create a tone-mapped image from 1 raw>3 jpegs, 3 raws>3 jpegs and 5 raws>5 jpegs.
Click to expand...

raws are always going to be greater than Jpegs - if taking multiple exposures from one RAW (pseudo) then I would export/save them as tiffs not jpegs, much more detail is saved in the tiff and allows you much more control when tonemapping.

On that note, 1 raw @ 100 iso with good light and not a massive shadow/highlight difference will give you a very similar results to 3 raws if you do it carefully. The only time this can fall down is if the difference between shadows and hightlight isnt stored cleanly in the original raw (IE if you have to over expose by 4 stops to get shadow detail and it becomes noisy and vice versa if you cant recover the blown highlights from the 1 raw etc).
 
Pirate Neilsouth said:
Also would you say these shots are all done in the evenings late?
Click to expand...

Most of them recent ones do look like that have been taken in the "golden hour" when the sun is low and the light supposedly at its best. Also one of the elements that makes some of these shots is the clouds. I have heard Pete (Carr) refer to the clouds you see in a lot of these photos as "good HDR clouds". They seem to appear on the coastline and do work well with HDR/tonemapping.
 
Yes yes I understand that Tom, but a raw file isn't actually an image, it's a data file (isn't it?) so you need to convert that data into an image.
I always used to use TIFF files but then switched to JPEG for storage. No idea why, thanks for mentioning that :thumbs:

Pirate Neilsouth: as far as using photomatix goes, it really is down to trial, error and practise.
It's extremely important that you know what you want out of an image before you start messing around with it, as I'm sure you're already aware.
 
IMG_9602_3_4.jpg


XL
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/NeilsouthPhotos/HDR/IMG_9602_3_4XL.jpg
 
It looks very pleasant and airy :)

If that's what you're going for, great :)

I'd clone out the blue on the left though!

Also, can I ask was this straight out of photomatix? or did you tweak in photoshop at all?
 
Photomatix , adobe elements , corel paint shop pro , nik software editing. Needed alot more than just photomatix ;)
 
The flickr images are good, but a little over exposed for my taste, personally i would have brought down the gamma.
The one posted above is a lovly scene if its what you were looking for then you have got it.
personally i feel there is to much green, the blue and greens just don't look good together, i would clone out that brick work to the left..
I use bracketing with 3 jpgs, or just one raw.it works well for me...

But its just my 2 penith.............:thumbs:
 
Hmmm interesting post , maybe its just me but i love this style of processing .Kinda like some people liking and buying artwork spending thousands , that i think a child could draw.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it all comes down to personal taste. It would be a dull world if we all had the same taste.

As for evercooking the processing. In my view it's impossible to overcook processing. Images are an artform and exist at all points of the spectrum. So long as it the choice of the photographer/digital artist then that's all that matters.
Click to expand...
A very good point actually. I think 'overcooked' may be the wrong term to use. I think they can be better described as being 'unrealistically processed'? The high saturation and HDR processing gives them an unreal, fantasy look. If you like that look and it's what you want then, as you say, that's all that matters.

And it is impossible to display a 'true HDR' image, since there isn't any (I don't think) display in existence that can display a 'true HDR' image.

So all 'HDR' shots are tone-mapped, as HDR is just slang for tone mapping.
Saying they are 'over-processed' is a matter of opinion.

Perhaps converting a colour image to a black and white one is overprocessing?
Or even cropping? Or cloning out an unsightly object?

And sorry but the quote in bold, how does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Not sure how you work out that a true HDR can't be displayed. Mine are true HDR and I have a couple of them displayed on the forum. :lol:

AFAIK, and this is from listening to Pete Carr and others who seem to know a bit about HDR on here, 'True HDR's are HDR's created by taking multiple images at different (bracketed) exposures, which are then combined in photomatix or similar programs and tone mapped. Tone mapped images, or 'Pseudo HDR's as I have seen them being called lately, are created from a single Raw file that is processed to create three different copies of the same image, each copy of the image being a step or two different in exposure. These images are then combined in photomatix or similar programs and tone mapped.

HDR is not slang for tone mapping. That's like saying Beer is slang for fermenting. Yes, all HDR images are tone mapped but tone mapping is only a part of the HDR process. True HDR's are combined from three or more original images, not copies of the same image with the exposure adjusted.

I agree about the 'over processing', totally down to personal tase, as I said above.

The quote you don't understand 'differently exposed copies of a single image' - I'm not sure how else to explain it. You open a Raw file and expose it 1 or 2 stops under exposed and save the resulting image - that's the first copy. You open the same Raw file again and expose it correctly and save the resulting image - that's the second copy. You open the same Raw file yet again and expose it 1 or 2 stops over exposed and save the resulting image - that's the third copy. Now you have three differently exposed copies of the same image.

They are bloody lovely shots and I'd love to be able to produce them myself.. Stunning work.
Click to expand...
I really like some of those, and others I think are a little overdone to my tastes (and that's the key isn't it ?) I'd love to be able to produce images like some of those.
Click to expand...
I think that too much emphasis is put on the processing techniques that have been used to 'create' a look, when the images themselves need to be good in the first place. You're right that these are great shots. Ignoring the processing there are a lot of well composed, interesting images there. It's the fact that the images are good that makes these images stand out not the way they have been processed. Their 'fantasy' HDR processing is just down to personal taste. It's not to my taste but I can still appreciate the great images beyond the processing.

I'm not a huge fan but it's reallt interesting to look back through his portfolio and see how his style has developed. He really has worked hard to perfect his technique and has created a very distinct style of his own, ignoring the HDR work his compositions are very good he clearly has a great eye for a shot and even more so for one that will work with his processing style.

Back to the OP I think the key to these photos is rather than just processing them he gets the right image in the first place with really good light.
Click to expand...
Ha! I needn't have typed that last bit. My thoughts exactly.

So would you guys recommend doing 3 exposures and good light , then working from there?.
Click to expand...
How many exposures you need to use depends on the range you want to capture. The more contrast in a scene the more exposures it will take to get good detail in the highlights and shadows.

It must be what he means but to say that you're changing the exposure on a single image is just... wrong!
Click to expand...
Yes, it was what I meant as I've explained above. Don't see how saying it as 'differently exposed copies of a single image' is wrong though. Seems exactly right to me. You have three copies of the same image, each has a different exposure. :shrug:

If you can PN, take 3 (or heck, even more) exposures, as quickly as possible (to stop anything in the frame moving) to give you the highest dynamic range in your images.
Taking a raw file and then getting 3 images from it is really a worst case scenario, i.e. if your subject moves too much (animals, people, clouds, water, windy foliage etc etc).

Try it yourself!

Go outside and get a scene that ranges WILDLY in dynamic range.

Take a series of shots:
1 raw
3 raws bracketed
5 raws bracketed

Now, create a tone-mapped image from 1 raw>3 jpegs, 3 raws>3 jpegs and 5 raws>5 jpegs.

You really will notice the difference, however you'll also notice the difference in 'ghosting', where artefacts are left behind in the image.
Click to expand...
Exactly, with the True HDR's the ghosting is normally visible to some degree, even in images with little movement. There's none evident at all in any of those images which is why I would think they are not True HDR's and are just tone mapped.

If you look at those images a lot contain elements that have motion (the sea, waves, ripples on water) that would not be so clear and in focus if they had been done with AEB and True HDR. Some of the images contain elements that would be absolutely impossible to capture using AEB and True HDR, such as a hand glider in flight.

Pirate Neilsouth - I'm really liking your image. Not the 'fantasy' look of the others but more a painterly feel to it. Almost looks like a classic constable painting. :thumbs:
 
I think by saying that true HDR can't be displayed, foodpoison is referring to the fact that an image with high-dynamic range requires must be 32-bit to cover the range, whereas to display on a screen/print etc, it must be tonemapped down to 8-bit. Thus, the HDR itself cannot be displayed. Only the tonemapped, 8-bit interpretation of the HDR is viewable on current hardware.
 
Sigh.

Mark.A said:
Not sure how you work out that a true HDR can't be displayed. Mine are true HDR and I have a couple of them displayed on the forum. :lol:

No they're not. True HDR cannot be displayed on a digital monitor.

Wikipedia said:
One problem with HDR has always been in viewing the images. Typical computer monitors (CRTs, LCDs), prints, and other methods of displaying images only have a limited dynamic range. Thus various methods of converting HDR images into a viewable format have been developed, generally called "tone mapping".
Click to expand...

AFAIK, and this is from listening to Pete Carr and others who seem to know a bit about HDR on here, 'True HDR's are HDR's created by taking multiple images at different (bracketed) exposures, which are then combined in photomatix or similar programs and tone mapped. Tone mapped images, or 'Pseudo HDR's as I have seen them being called lately, are created from a single Raw file that is processed to create three different copies of the same image, each copy of the image being a step or two different in exposure. These images are then combined in photomatix or similar programs and tone mapped.

Yes that is one way to achieve a HDR image. The way in which you display it however is not an HDR image. It's a tone mapped image because the only way you can display it digitally is for you to tone map the image.

HDR is not slang for tone mapping. That's like saying Beer is slang for fermenting. Yes, all HDR images are tone mapped but tone mapping is only a part of the HDR process. True HDR's are combined from three or more original images, not copies of the same image with the exposure adjusted.

Not sure what you're getting at with that analogy :thinking: I understand the process of HDR and what it involves but no image you see is a true HDR. It is all tone mapped.

The quote you don't understand 'differently exposed copies of a single image' - I'm not sure how else to explain it. You open a Raw file and expose it 1 or 2 stops under exposed and save the resulting image - that's the first copy. You open the same Raw file again and expose it correctly and save the resulting image - that's the second copy. You open the same Raw file yet again and expose it 1 or 2 stops over exposed and save the resulting image - that's the third copy. Now you have three differently exposed copies of the same image.

Differently exposed? That doesn't make sense. You cannot change the exposure of an image. The exposure is recorded at the time of capture. You can bring out the highlights or shadows of an image by brightening or darkening an image respectively, but you cannot change the exposure.
Click to expand...
 
I think by saying that true HDR can't be displayed, foodpoison is referring to the fact that an image with high-dynamic range requires must be 32-bit to cover the range, whereas to display on a screen/print etc, it must be tonemapped down to 8-bit. Thus, the HDR itself cannot be displayed. Only the tonemapped, 8-bit interpretation of the HDR is viewable on current hardware.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I gathered that's what he was talking about but in general conversation on this photography forum (and most other photography related sites), when a member talks about an HDR image it generally refers to an image that has been processed using the HDR method that we are discussing. I know that, you know that and he knows that. I think he's just being pedantic for the sake of argument.

Sigh.
Click to expand...
...and now he's being rude and condescending too.

No they're not. True HDR cannot be displayed on a digital monitor.
Click to expand...
The 'True HDR' that you are referring to cannot but the 'True HDR' I am referring to can. We both have different definitions of 'True HDR' so we are not going to be able to agree on what 'True HDR' can or cannot do.

Yes that is one way to achieve a HDR image. The way in which you display it however is not an HDR image. It's a tone mapped image because the only way you can display it digitally is for you to tone map the image.
Click to expand...
Tone mapping is part of the HDR process that I know. We seem to have very different ideas on what HDR is so there's no point in arguing with you over it.

To me, and to most other members on here from the content of their posts, an HDR image is an image that has been created using one of the post processing procedures that we have been discussing. If you want to try and get everyone to think of HDR as an image that cannot be displayed and that has not gone through one of these post processing procedures then that's up to you. To me the images I know as HDR will remain as HDR for me. By the way - you might want to let Pete Carr know that he's been calling them the wrong thing all this time and that he will have to re-write his book. :p

Not sure what you're getting at with that analogy
Click to expand...
An HDR image (the one's I know as HDR!) is created by a process that tone mapping is a part of. Beer is created by a process that fermentation is a part of. Simple really.

Differently exposed? That doesn't make sense. You cannot change the exposure of an image. The exposure is recorded at the time of capture. You can bring out the highlights or shadows of an image by brightening or darkening an image respectively, but you cannot change the exposure.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you can change the exposure of an image after it has been taken. That is one of the benefits of shooting in Raw, the exposure settings used to capture the image are not 'set' and can be changed when processing the Raw file. If you were shooting in JPEG then you would be correct but in Raw you can change the exposure when you process the Raw file. I haven't got time to go into exactly how at the minute but if you look it up you should be able to find the imformation or I'm sure someone else here will know what I'm talking about and be able to explain it.
 
Pete Carr - Vanilla Days said:
HDR, high dynamic range. The concept is simple. Take 3 or more bracketed photos, merge them together and then tone map them to re-compress the data into a useable image. Going back to the numbers a typical sunny day has a contrast ratio of 100,000:1. A 16bit TIFF file has a contrast ratio of 65,536:1. So quite a bit of data is lost from that sunny day. A 32bit HDR image has a contrast ratio of 4,294,967,296:1. Its clear that a 32bit HDR image can hold an incredible amount of data. Numbers aside, what this means is that you can bring back detail in the shadows and highlights. The highlight detail isn’t clipped causing over-exposed areas, and the shadow detail isn’t turned into noise. This is all a bit complex sounding so I’ll use some examples. You use your DSLR inside your living room and the outside will generally be blown out, lost detail in the highlights. Using a HDR technique you would instead take 3 bracketed photos and merge them together. Once merged you then compress that image back down to something you can see and you’ll hopefully have no blown out highlights. You’ll be able to see inside and outside perfectly, something along the lines of how you really saw that scene. Another example is the sunset. Using this technique you can bring out all the detail that is normally lost and appears as silhouettes. Buildings suddenly become visible. Landscape photographers can enjoy perfectly exposed images without the need for an ND grad filter. No more darkened mountain tops due to the filter. Sounds great eh, lets get to work.
Click to expand...

That's more or less what I was trying to say.

I apologise for my 'sigh' comment, I was very stressed at the time and while that is not an excuse, it is my reason for being an arse.

What I'm trying to say is, yes I know most of the 'hdr' images you see are achieved using a high dynamic range process, and that they are achieved using the true way of creating an HDR image. However, a 'true hdr' image is 32 bits, which must then be tone-mapped down to be displayable.

What I mean by true hdr is the absolutely raw image before the tone mapping process.
What I think you mean by true hdr is a tone-mapped image achieved by using the hdr process.

I think we're all in all on the same level and on the same playing field, however our choice of words are slightly differing.

As far as the raw goes, I did not know you could change the exposure and I still don't believe you can. It is like a 35mm negative, once it's done, it's done, but you can still over/underexpose your print depending on what you want to bring details out in...

I always saw JPEG as a flat piece of paper. Raw is a thicker piece of paper with a lot more detail. But you can't get information from that piece of paper if it isn't there.

And also, if you are saying you can change the exposure of a raw, then surely by increasing/decreasing the exposure by 1/2/3 stops you can create a 'true hdr' image? ;)
 
That's more or less what I was trying to say.
Click to expand...
I did understand what you were saying and it's not your fault that this difference in definition is there to cause these disagreements. The definition or general understanding of what HDR is when someone mentions it is not very well defined. I say HDR and you think of a true unprocessed HDR image (32 bit) but the next person thinks of the kind of HDR images that fill out the explore pages on Flickr. When I say HDR I'm referring to the kind of HDR images that fill out the explore pages on Flickr. To me true HDR is the HDR images that have been created using multiple bracketed exposures. The ones that haven't are the 'pseudo HDR' or just tone mapped images.

I apologise for my 'sigh' comment, I was very stressed at the time and while that is not an excuse, it is my reason for being an arse.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted. We can all get stressed and I know not everyone deals with stress the same way.

What I'm trying to say is, yes I know most of the 'hdr' images you see are achieved using a high dynamic range process, and that they are achieved using the true way of creating an HDR image. However, a 'true hdr' image is 32 bits, which must then be tone-mapped down to be displayable.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the definitions are getting crossed. I've seen people like Pete Carr telling people that an image isn't a 'true HDR' because it was created from a single image, so it isn't a true HDR. Which is where I have picked up the term from. You are correct as well, that the unprocessed (32 bit) HDR image is also referred to as true HDR. Ideally we could do with one of these two being renamed. As I said above I have seen the HDR images that have been tone mapped from a single image being called 'pseudo HDR' lately so maybe we can come up with a more suitable term for the processed HDR images that have been created from multiple bracketed exposures. Maybe 'Full HDR' or something? That way it would stop the confusion.

What I mean by true hdr is the absolutely raw image before the tone mapping process.
What I think you mean by true hdr is a tone-mapped image achieved by using the hdr process.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that you mean that. I don't quite mean that though. What I am calling true HDR is the tone-mapped image achieved by using the hdr process on three or more images with bracketed exposures. The other HDR images, the ones that are more recently being called 'pseudo HDR' are also tone-mapped images achieved by using the hdr process but they are done on copies of the same image that have been exposed differently. I assure you that you can adjust the exposure in post processing for a Raw file, if you use photoshop there is an 'exposure' slider in ACR when you open a Raw file and in LR there is an 'exposure' slider in the 'Development' area. It only goes so far though. You can get around 1 to 2 stops under and 1 to 2 stops over the exposure that was actually used. If you open a high contrast scene (landscape with a nice sky?) that was captured in Raw and adjust the 'exposure' slider you will see that detail can actually be brought out in the highlights by lowering the exposure and brought out in the shadows by raising the exposure. All you do to create a HDR from a single image is open the Raw file, lower the exposure by 1 stop under, save the result. Open the same Raw file again and process it with the correct exposure that the image was taken with and save that result. Open the same Raw file again and process it with 1 stop over exposure and save that result. You'll then have the three copies that I was talking about and each of them has been exposed differently, you can now use those three images to create an HDR in photomatix or whatever.

As far as the raw goes, I did not know you could change the exposure and I still don't believe you can. It is like a 35mm negative, once it's done, it's done, but you can still over/underexpose your print depending on what you want to bring details out in...

I always saw JPEG as a flat piece of paper. Raw is a thicker piece of paper with a lot more detail. But you can't get information from that piece of paper if it isn't there.
Click to expand...
No, it's not like the 35mm negative in that way. JPEG is but Raw isn't, with Raw the settings that are used on the camera to capture the image (shutter speed, aperture, etc.) are only used as a guide for the Raw processing software to start at, you can then adjust the exposure up or down using the software. JPEG locks the exposure in to the settings that are used on the camera as it's processed in the camera. Raw is processed on the PC, all the data that the camera's sensor captured is still in the Raw file for you to use. That's the absolute best reason for using Raw in the first place.

This topic discusses processing Raw files and adjusting the exposure.

I took this quick snap to show you exactly what I mean. I think this shows vividly the main reason for using Raw in the first place. I deliberately over exposed this fabulous shot of my mates feet by a mile.



As you can see it is well and truly over exposed. I did this on purpose so that the detail would be totally lost in the paving, highlights, etc. In the next image below is what you would normally be able to rescue from a JPEG image (or from a Raw if you couldn't adjust the exposure ;) ) by lowering the brightness and adjusting the levels. I created this image by saving the Raw file as it was, with no exposure change, as a JPEG and then adjusting the brightness/levels in the JPEG.



Notice that there is no more detail brought back in the paving or any of the highlights. The colour of the skin has also gone way off too because of the adjustments. Obviously if this was an image you really wanted and you had over exposed it by mistake and were using JPEG it would be ruined and lost.

Now this next image is the same Raw file but this time I lowered the 'exposure' slider in LR by 1 stop. I've not adjusted anything else.



You can see how some of the detail in the paving has been brought back as well as in the other highlights. The original Raw was very over exposed though so 1 stop hasn't really given us a usable image from this level of over exposure. If the original image hadn't been so over exposed then this could well have been enough though.

This final image is the same Raw file again but this time I lowered the 'exposure' slider in LR by 2 stops. I've not adjusted anything else.



You can now see much more detail in the paving and the highlights. Raw has enabled me to take a well over exposed image and lower the exposure by 2 full stops from that used to capture the image, giving us a much more usable image. This simply could not have been done using JPEG and it's the main reason I choose to shoot in Raw. ;)

Hopefully you can now see that the exposure can indeed be changed after the image is captured when shooting in Raw. :thumbs: It works the same way for bringing detail back in the shadows on under exposed images. Try it , it's a very simple thing to test out for yourself and you will see the same difference in your images.

And also, if you are saying you can change the exposure of a raw, then surely by increasing/decreasing the exposure by 1/2/3 stops you can create a 'true hdr' image? ;)
Click to expand...
This is where the 'True HDR' (or should that now be 'Full HDR' :lol:) and 'Pseudo HDR' argument comes into the mix. You can indeed create HDR images from one single image this way but they are not considered 'True/Full HDR'. The HDR images created by adjusting the exposure in post processing and creating three differently exposed images from one image and then tone mapping those images are those HDR's that are being called 'Pseudo HDR' images or that are said to be just tone mapped and not 'True/Full HDR'. The only difference being that 'True/Full HDR' images are created by separate, bracketed images. To be honest in the end it doesn't really matter though. What matters is if you like the end result not how you got there. ;)

I will say that using the single image trick to get HDR images tends to produce the popular 'fantasy' look very easily but it is much harder to get a 'real world' look and it doesn't give you as much detail in the highlights/shadows as a 'True/Full HDR' does on scenes with really high contrast. The 'True/Full HDR' image tends to produce 'real world' looking HDR's much more easily, though you can still get the 'fantasy' look if that's what you want, and the highlights/shadows on scenes with really high contrast tend to have more detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top