witch is better RAW or HDR?

micromoh77

micromoh77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Mohammed
Edit My Images
Yes
hi
witch is better HDR or RAW? in photography technique i know they are different but can i use RAW to get results resemble to HDR?
 
Raw is a file of just data ie raw or think of it as a digital negative. Hdr is a blend of usually three or more copies of the same image, over, normal and under exposed with the intention of highlighting shadows and highlights hence the term HDR. this can either be done in camera by taking 3 or more images at various exposures- careful not to move the camera between shots or 1 raw file can be manipulated several times of you have compatible pp software.
 
Lynton said:
Raw is a file of just data ie raw or think of it as a digital negative. Hdr is a blend of usually three or more copies of the same image, over, normal and under exposed with the intention of highlighting shadows and highlights hence the term HDR. this can either be done in camera by taking 3 or more images at various exposures and then blending being careful not to move the camera between shots or 1 raw file can be manipulated several times of you have compatible pp software.
Click to expand...
 
You can get results that resemble HDR via the raw conversion. I do not think you can say one is better than the other though

stew
 
RAW isn't a technique as such. It's just the raw data from the camera's sensor, uncompressed with no loss and hasn't been processed into JPEG or whatever. It just file format that makes it possible to make and undo a lot of the in camera adjustments in software. As opposed to shooting JPEG, TIFF or whatever where what's in the file is what was shot and you have to work from there (e.g. if white balance was set to a level you didn't like you have to compensate for it, whereas in raw you just set the white balance because the reality is it hasn't been set).

HDR is not comparable. It's a technique of blending images shot with different exposures to combine into one image with literally High Dynamic Range.

Myself I shoot RAW always. HDR however I feel is like a heavy photoshopping session and the results look more like computer generated images or paintings. Look nice but lack a natural photo look.


You can get HDR from RAW or JPEG files. Just looks for HDR software.
 
Last edited:
thanks all

I Appreciate
 
Ahh now it's becoming a little clearer...

Is it best with HDR to 3 separate exposure then blend? If so what software is bend for the blending?
 
I'm not expert on HDR, but I think you can use the bracket function of the camera to get 3 exposures (-ve, normal, +ve). Then it's down to software, but I've no idea what's best. I think maybe you can get plugins for various packages that will do it also. Probably it's possible to do it by hand in Photoshop.

Anyway, I would guess you need to have the camera solid on a tripod to ensure the exposures are going to match.
 
rereg2010 said:
Ahh now it's becoming a little clearer...

Is it best with HDR to 3 separate exposure then blend? If so what software is bend for the blending?
Click to expand...

Set AEB to +2 and -2
Put camera on continuous
Shoot the 3 exposures (one click and hold should take all 3)
Download to pc/mac
Merge in HDR software (photomatix allow you to try their software, but they watermark the result)

It will deal with any people moving in the shot and any slight movements you make

Go play....
 
I like HDR but i'm not convinced that Photomatix or Photoshop hdr do anything different that Topaz labs adjust cant do.
They all have basically the same functions and tabs within them.
I shoot RAW and if i play around with an image in Topaz adjust i can get the same effects as Photmatix,only alot easier.
 
There's a function in Elements 8 to allow you to merge photos for HDR results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top