# HDR questions



## MyaLover

Can you do HDR photos in PS?  If so, how?  Or is there a special program needed?  Lastly, could you do something that looks _similar_ to HDR in PS?  Once again, if so, how?


----------



## Arch

what version ps do you have?


----------



## MyaLover

Well I have PS and image ready, both version 9.0


----------



## Arch

in that case its - File > Automate > Merge to HDR

If you can't see it you may need to click 'show more menu options'.


----------



## Arch

oh and theres plenty of guides out there, just go with one which you find easy to follow... here's one which was the first in a google search for 'hdr with cs3 guide?'.... but as i say there are plenty to choose from if you dont like this one.

http://www.tech2.com/india/topstuff/slr-digital-cameras/hdr-photography-in-photoshop-cs3/14011/0

If you want a more dramitc look to your HDR images you may want to try a seperate programme like Photomatix.


----------



## MyaLover

Wow, thank you for your help and quick reply!


----------



## MyaLover

Everytime I try, PS gives me this message that says " there is not enough dynami range in these photos to contruct a useful HDR"  How do I fix that?


----------



## Coldow91

I get the same thing


----------



## Arch

MyaLover said:


> Everytime I try, PS gives me this message that says " there is not enough dynami range in these photos to contruct a useful HDR"  How do I fix that?



you need to use shots with different exposures... ps doesnt like the 1 raw with different version outputs.


----------



## MyaLover

Heres what Im doing:  Taking a picture, then making 2 or 3 versions of it in PS by altering the exposure in PS.  Attempting to make the HDR, but it is still giving me that message.  How can I fix this?


----------



## Arch

yea making different versions of the same shot won't work in ps... when it says "there is not enough dynamic range in these photos to contruct a useful HDR" it is saying that becuase the images aren't from seperate exposures it can't increase the dynamic range. (you may be able to edit the shots to loose the exif data and trick PS but its not worth it)

So, there a few things you can do... one is to re-shoot, use a tripod and get say 3 exposures of the subject changing the exposure each time. So you end up with one correct exposure, one over and one under.
Bring the shots into ps and dont alter them in any way (if your shooting raw make sure they dont get the auro correct treatment) and save as tiffs. Then PS will recognise them as usable HDR images.

The other way is to download Photomatix (or similar) and just use the free to try version (you'll get watermarkes but its good for practice). This will give you more noticable HDR results, and you can try it with the 2 or 3 versions you made in PS, but this is not true HDR and will only give you a certain amount of dynamic range to play with.

For the strongest HDR results and to create the almost 'cartoon' look use the shooting method i suggested above and use Photomatix set to the strongest settings.

I should really sticky one of these threads.... if anyone wants to add links etc do so here and i'll stick it.


----------



## bango707

Archangel said:


> I should really sticky one of these threads.... if anyone wants to add links etc do so here and i'll stick it.



I think that is a great idea! The more information we have in an easy to locate thread would be ideal! :thumbup:


----------



## Fiendish Astronaut

Here's a good tutorial for Photomatix. Also touches on PS:

http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/


----------



## slowclown

Here are a few tutorials that I've come across:

http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/

This guy has quite a few links:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/audunbakkeandersen/1623320388/


----------



## osirus

you can take one pic, do levels adjsutments and save to make 3 different pics, then open in phomatrix and it will ask the exposure difference, say what one is 0 and one 2 and the other -2
then it will generate an hdr out of it.
not as good as a real hdr.. but better then what you can ususally do in PS adjustment wise.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

Use photomatix. It's alot easier, and gives better results.


----------



## LaFoto

Is it really possible to have the camera take only ONE photo (not produced as RAW, but directly converted into .jpeg in camera?), tweak that in Photoshop using the levels and THEN try to have Photomatix make a so-called "HDR" from it?

I always thought that if you wanted to go with one photo taken only (click camera just that once according to your one set of settings), you would NEED to photograph in RAW (at least THAT!) so that you could get to the data and at least PRETEND in the RAW-converter programme that you exposed with three (or five or seven) different settings? 

And after you have saved three/five/seven differently "exposed" (i.e. data altered to those different exposures) as TIFFs, you can transport them into Photomatix and have the programme create a HDR for you which you then tone-map !?!?!? 

Better results can be had when you actually set the camera to three different exposures to BEGIN with, of course, but ... one jpeg only and then HDR :scratch: - I don't get THAT.


----------



## Arch

osirus said:


> not as good as a real hdr.. but better then what you can ususally do in PS adjustment wise.



you can completely tone map an image in PS manually... and the results (provided you know what your doing) can be better than other software... reason being is that you have complete control over the image.
Software like Photomatix just makes it quicker but can be more clumsy.



LaFoto said:


> Is it really possible to have the camera take only ONE photo (not produced as RAW, but directly converted into .jpeg in camera?), tweak that in Photoshop using the levels and THEN try to have Photomatix make a so-called "HDR" from it?
> 
> I always thought that if you wanted to go with one photo taken only (click camera just that once according to your one set of settings), you would NEED to photograph in RAW (at least THAT!) so that you could get to the data and at least PRETEND in the RAW-converter programme that you exposed with three (or five or seven) different settings?
> 
> And after you have saved three/five/seven differently "exposed" (i.e. data altered to those different exposures) as TIFFs, you can transport them into Photomatix and have the programme create a HDR for you which you then tone-map !?!?!?
> 
> Better results can be had when you actually set the camera to three different exposures to BEGIN with, of course, but ... one jpeg only and then HDR :scratch: - I don't get THAT.



urgh... i really wouldn't recommend using a jpeg, you will probably get plenty of artifacts and not great results from it. If any extra detail can be drawn out of a jpeg if you think might be too dark or whatever you can do it a number of ways in PS and you shouldn't need to use a HDR programme to do it.

However like i mentioned above it would be quicker to use a HDR programme... which in a way is quite lazy of the photographer, especially if they have no idea about tone mapping in PS and will then avoid having to learn it.
Maybe one day they'll have a button which does everything else for you too 

Saying this, sometimes i will use a HDR programme for 1 raw just to see what the results are like and maybe use an area of it in the final image... its just wise to not rely on it somehow make an average image good just because its 'HDR'!


----------



## LaFoto

Well, then one more question, Arch. Given I had three different exposures, like I made in Stade that one day ... and assuming I did NOT have a HDR programme such as Photomatix, and only an OLD version of PS (I will work on PS 6.0 !!!) ... could I merge those three exposures via layer and work on something like "tone mapping" (it is no where called that in my antediluvian PS!), skipping all of Photomatix and the things it does for me?


----------



## Arch

sure... although its been a while since i used some of the older versions of PS.

This link Here will show you a way of combining the images. On page 2 (look for the tiny page numbers... dont know why they did them so small!) you would have to skip the first part where you choose 'Load Files into Stack' as older versions of PS dont have it. Instead just open the images up and place them onto the 'medium exposed' image as suggested.
You should then be able to follow the simple few steps to combine the images.
The advantage of this version as you can see on page 3 is that you get less artifacs and its usually sharper.... the downside for some... is that the effect may not be as strong as your use to from software such as photomatix.
The biggest advantage you have tho is the ability to completely control each layer, therefore eliminating things like ghosting.
This method would also probably require further steps in PS to achive the best results, like high pass filtering and curves adjustments.


----------



## Helen B

The way I used to do it in PS6 was to use layers and masks - selecting the areas from each layer that you wish to use. Because you are working with masks you can also make selective local changes to the contrast within each layer - ie apply different contrast adjustments to different areas of the same layer. In some ways this gives you more control than some of the more automatic programs, and it works well if you are looking for a natural appearance. I can't speak with much experience of the less natural end of HDR.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Garbz

LaFoto said:


> Better results can be had when you actually set the camera to three different exposures to BEGIN with, of course, but ... one jpeg only and then HDR :scratch: - I don't get THAT.



Of course you don't get it. That is because it's plain wrong. HDR = "High Dynamic Range" if you have 1 source image you don't extend it's dynamic range regardless of how you play with the image, and you simply can't argue this point. You can not create what is not there.

This HDR Look a like technique from a single JPEG is nothing more than tonemapping. Tonemapping is a method commonly used in HDR as it adjusts the relative brightness of pixels based on the ones surrounding it. In fact it is a compressor so if you want to get really technical the end result of a HDR image as seen on this forum and all over the web has no more dynamic range than any normal image, it just has more dynamic range (3 images to HDR) compressed (tonemapped) into the same image.


----------



## RacePhoto

Hey Garbz, lighten up please.

What Garbz is telling you is absolutely correct.

You can't make a HDR from one image. What you are making is a Tone Mapping.

Some people make HDRs from nine images, each a half stop apart. four above, four below and one in the middle, so they can get a really wide range. I believe the manuals say one stop over exposed (but use the same f/stop for all please) one stop under and one right on.

Here's another tip. QTPFSGUI for Linux and Windows, free. http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/ It does nice small images, but for myself, when I try to make them larger they self destruct and get all kinds of strange artifacts.

Photomatix makes more striking images, Photoshop makes more realistic images. Big generalization, but that's about the size of it.

Big problem is aligning images.

Here is the coolest combination software, for layering, pano, HDR stitching from bracketed images, color correction, and it does a number of other useful photo editing procedures. Take nine small images and make one big picture, it stitches and blends horizontal and vertical, at the same time!  (no I don't work for them or anything) http://www.autopano.net/   				Autopano Pro

Here's the demo video. http://www.autopano.net/photo-stitching-solutions/autopano-pro/

Wonderful, a HDR sticky. Nice going.


----------



## Helen B

RacePhoto said:


> ...
> You can't make a HDR from one image.
> ...



If the single image contains the entire brightness range of the scene, then using multiple exposures will not expand the dynamic range. There are many scenes, including interior/exterior views, that have a  brightness range that is comfortably within the dynamic range of modern film. There's more of a discussion in  this thread. 

Best,
Helen


----------



## AlexParlett

HDR, it is simply the factor of adjusting the image so that it contains the higher and lower levels of visable luminance. When it becomes "too white or too black" then the image is out of the range of visiable luminance, which is around 85 to 110 dBs. There are sensors out there now that can collect all that data, made by omnivision, single HDR images are now possible.

Photomatix only make more striking images because people tone map in there, so its not just combining the 3 different ranges into one images, its also tonemapping, whereas in photoshop, you dont have the level of control over it if you use the merge to HDR function, just one basic curve you can change.


----------



## Patrice

MyaLover said:


> Can you do HDR photos in PS?  If so, how?  Or is there a special program needed?  Lastly, could you do something that looks _similar_ to HDR in PS?  Once again, if so, how?



Given the direction you are going with your self portraits, we should be seeing  some interesting results once you get into HDR. Your public profile does not indicate what camera you use but see if it allows automatic exposure bracketing. Most pundits of HDR say you need 3 or more exposures, I think it would be difficult to replicate the exact same pose multiple times if you had to get up and reset the exposure parameters for each.

Good luck with that.


----------



## brileyphotog

I just got interested in HDR very recently, so I don't know much about it, but I'm planning on giving Photomatix a try (but that costs money). So like you, I'm trying to see what I could with what I've got.

I don't have photoshop cs3 with the merge feature...so I tried to do something close in elements. As everyone has pointed out...what I'm doing is not true HDR, but rather, tonemapping. I think I got kind of close for my first attempt ever at 4AM. Even if it looks nothing like it I still liked the effect. It's the most recent article in blog (the link for my website is in my signature)


----------



## calledthestig

Just a quick question:

 took 5 shots for my HDR and shot it in RAW. I then created an HDR from the .cr2 files in Photomatix and then saved it as a .hdr -- I opened it in Photoshop and it looked nothing like it did in Photomatix

Any ideas? I also couldnt save the 32-bit image as a jpg and had to lower the quality.


----------



## Arch

calledthestig said:


> Just a quick question:
> 
> took 5 shots for my HDR and shot it in RAW. I then created an HDR from the .cr2 files in Photomatix and then saved it as a .hdr -- I opened it in Photoshop and it looked nothing like it did in Photomatix
> 
> Any ideas? I also couldnt save the 32-bit image as a jpg and had to lower the quality.



could be a number of things, difficult to know without knowing exactly what your doing. You should try and put the RAWs through PS first, make no alterations to them, and save them as TIFFs. Then bring them into photomatix to make your alterations, and save again as a TIFF.

You can only save jpegs at a 8bit from photoshop.


----------



## JerryPH

TIFF is just as lossless as RAW... and a good format to post process in no matter what format you finally output to.

Also the Photomatix program is likely seeing and processing a HDR that it made way differently than what PS would... the same way that Capture NX can directly read and use Nikon camera specific configuration settings that PS cannot.

I would suggest doing your HDR final outputting in Photomatix for best HDR results.


----------



## BradUF

Will HDR not work with film?


----------



## lextalionis

Sw1tchFX said:


> Use photomatix. It's alot easier, and gives better results.


 
I agree. I'm a very seasoned PS user and I have the latest version and even today, I can't achieve what I can achieve with Photomatix, plus I save a whole lot of time.

I wrote up a detailed tutorial here: Photomatix HDR Tutorial

-Roy


----------



## dklod

My camera can not shoot in raw, but it can shoot in TIFF. Although the obvious difference is the file size (almost 10x more than a jpeg), to be honest, I can not tell the difference between them. Everyone is talking about converting to TIFF so Im obviously better off shooting in this mode.  HDR images have facinated me since I have delved deeper into the photographic relm, and even though I have many pictures that I have taken using bracketing (hand held most of them) to get the best exposure, I have yet to attempt to produce an HDR from them mainly because I get halfway through a tutorial and it all seems too hard or I could not be bothered at that time. I am currently waiting for perfect conditions to produce my first HDR of an old church a couple of kms from me. It seems Im always at work on those perfect days.


----------



## lextalionis

howard_usabc said:


> lextalionis, have you tried Essential HDR. Which do you like better, Essential HDR or Photomatix?


 
I have yet to try Essential HDR and I suppose if I shot for HDR at least 10% of the time I would try it, but I see HDR in my work holding at about 2%.

-Roy


----------



## KhronoS

Hi there.
After reading some tutorials, i recently started to experiment with HDRs, but i encountered a problem.

Every time i make an HDR i have massive amount of noise. I make the HDRs with Photomatix, and the photos are shot with a canon 40D at an iso ranging from 100-300 ISO. So i can't understand why that much of a noise. It's something that every HDR has or what?

I'm waiting for answers.


----------



## Bifurcator

BradUF said:


> Will HDR not work with film?



This one got missed so I'll scoop it up.  But first I have to say that I'm really surprised at how much misinformation there is about HDRIs in this thread. 

Anyway, the latitude of film is usually pretty close to a 96 bit HDRI. Just scan the negs or transparencies at different exposure values and use those results for your multiple images. Additionally many scanners are 48 bit and at least one I know of (the HP 4050 for about $150) can scan at 96 bit for a one-pass film to HDRI solution - assuming the drivers allow the import of all 96 bits. Keep in mind most 48 bit scanners will be scanning in fixed point files and not the official (and rare) "16 bpc Half Float" defined in the OpenEXR HDR standards. 
(_*Note*: There are three kinds of 16 bit files: 16 Bit Unsigned Integer, 16 Bit Fixed Point, and 16 Bit Half Float._)


Some useful tools include:

PHOTOMATIX - http://www.hdrsoft.com/
Wukong - http://www.imagingluminary.com/product.htm
EasyHDR Pro - http://www.easyhdr.com/
ARTIZEN HDR - http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Artizen.htm 
HDRShop - http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/ (probably the 1st HDRI tool published. Free and Pro versions available) 
Photogenics - http://www.idruna.com/photogenicshdr.html
Photosphere (and tools) - http://www.anyhere.com/ (Mac and Linux only?)
PhotoAcute Studio - http://www.photoacute.com/technology.html (Maybe only Mac??)
EXR-Tools - http://scanline.ca/exrtools/
SILVERFAST HDR Studio - http://www.silverfast.com/48bit-hdr-software/ (This should actually be called RAW Studio!  There is a 16bit HDR format but this only uses the fixed point standard as far as I know.)
PFSTools - http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/pfstools/  (see: http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/ for a nice GUI front end)
The CinePaint Project - http://www.cinepaint.org/ (also see: http://www.cinepaint.org/docs/br2hdr/HDR_Tutorial-en.html )
Fusion 5 - http://www.eyeonline.com
LightWave 3D - http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/ (actually a nice HDR tool and the first 3D package (by a few years) to use HDRI files standardly.) 
Shake - http://www.apple.com/shake/


And the singular best file format to use and store HRDIs in is of course .EXR, the "Industrial Light & Magic" open source format officially called OpenEXR. Specs source and sample code for OpenEXR can be found here: ( http://www.openexr.com/ ). Next is probably .HDR or .HDRI, and then formats like RLA, Tiff 32 (Logluv), PSD 32, etc. and probably in that order. By "best" I mean robust... Convenience is another matter. If all you're using the files for is Photoshop and low dynamic range output (to jpeg or other) obviously PSD 32 is all you'll need to concern yourself with and etc..

And finally if you get confused by the contrasting and varied opinions in this thread and want a brain-straightener on the topic visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging and don't forget to visit the links listed at the bottom of that page.

Three final points of clarification: 
8 bit files are also called 24 bit files. Luckily for us (see No. 3 below) besides the Targa company, not too many firms refer to 24bit+Alpha files as "32 bit files" even though they actually are. 
16 bit files are also called 48 bit files or 64 bit files. The terms are interchangeable except "64 bit" refers to the expected presence of an Alpha channel.
32 bit files are also called 96 bit files or 128 bit files. The terms are interchangeable except an Alpha Channel is expected (or padded) in a "128 bit" file.

- Enjoy!


----------



## JimmyO

Got a question:

How do you do an HDR when there is a moving subject?

Sorry if this has already been asnwered


----------



## Bifurcator

Hopefully you don't have to. There's wares to remove the moving element tho. Both standalone and built in to some tools. Basically I think if you want to do that you need something like thi$: http://www.panoscan.com/.  I guess there might be HDR cameras that are not set up just for spherical environment recordings though.  I keep looking for one in main-stream SLR feature lists... I figure that's GOT to be the next thing they start adding feature-wise.

I had a scare recently with the "Finepix S100FS" as it calls itself an HDR camera. :stun:  It might be... I'm kind of afraid to look. 

In the meantime I guess you could do something like

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1057/1295149696_b3a9bacb76_b.jpg
or
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1080/1272780397_01aaa49c70_b.jpg

Man I love that last shot!  (Graber _ROCKS!!!_)


----------



## Vautrin

Try looking up in your camera's manual "Auto Bracketing."  My EVOLT 510 will automatically take three pictures with different exposures just like you'd need with an HDR image.....  You've got to hit the button three times -- but it's quicker than changing the settings manually....


----------



## DaveTaylor

JimmyO said:


> Got a question:
> 
> How do you do an HDR when there is a moving subject?
> 
> Sorry if this has already been asnwered


take a single raw format image and edit it's exposure


----------



## Vautrin

DaveTaylor said:


> take a single raw format image and edit it's exposure




If you try doing that there won't be enough exposure info in the raw photo to make an HDR....  At least it doesn't work in photomatix...  Photomatix does have a feature to take a single image and make it look like an HDR


----------



## clupica

*About jpg*
It's not photoshop that limits jpg to 8-bit imagery, it is the jpg specification itself. There is currently an initiative underway by Microsoft (with Adobe as a partner) to revise the jpg standard with a new jpg+ that will allow for lossless jpg and well greater bit-depth.

*About single image "HDR"*
As has been pointed out, HDR means high dynamic range and that means the range between black and white; 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 in an 8-bit image such as jpg. You can't produce an HDR from a single image no matter what you do.  The range of the image remains the range of the image. To nit-pick, no image displayed as a jpg is really an HDR image, it is an HDR image tone-mapped to give a broader range of luminosity than the original.

*Psuedo HDR*
There are any of a number of ways you can do this. If all you have is PhotoShop you can create the same effect, more-or-less, by creating 3 layers and adjusting the layers differently; one dark, one where you think middle gray is and one light. Put a mask on each layer and then selectively remove the mask. I do this all the time in the context of doing a burn or a dodge. I seldom use the dodge / burn tool as it is destructive. I creat a "burn" layer and a "dodge" layer with inverted mask and then use a low-opacity brush to reveal / hide what I don't like. This really what you are trying to accomplish when you try to do an HDR from a single photo.

But creating a pseudo-HDR by hand is an immense time grabber.  You'd better really want to do it.

*About PhotoMatrix*
I think it works pretty well and it is easy enough to use once you understand the steps. My first real attempt was horrible. I couldn't figure out what was wrong, why I couldn't get a descent HDR. Two words: dumb user. After "generating" the HDR you have to tone map it to get it to look good on a monitor; duh.

*YUCK*
Just be careful with HDR and tone-mapping. 90% of what is produced is very evident that it was tone-mapped and looks bad to anyone not an affectionado of unreal / over-processed / over-manipulated images. A light touch can produce some intersting photos but go just a bit too far and you've got 1960's velvet paintings of Elvis.

Charlie


----------



## laurentharari

MyaLover said:


> Can you do HDR photos in PS?  If so, how?  Or is there a special program needed?  Lastly, could you do something that looks _similar_ to HDR in PS?  Once again, if so, how?


Hello
I use a great software photomatrix pro. The result of four different apertures shot after hdr process ? Click here


----------



## Bifurcator

The *"About single image "HDR" "* and the above post are about Tone Mapping and have little or nothing to do with HDR - which is just a file format.


----------



## Kalikala

Ok, so my brother just recently showed me how to do an hdr.  I expermented with it a bit, and have the general consept down.  However, sometimes, the program doesn't line up the images exactly for some reason.  Is there a way to manually adjust the images on PSPX2?


----------



## reg

Are you using a tripod?


----------



## Kalikala

Yes, which is part of the reason I was confused that they didn't line up?


----------



## Night Hawk

Hey everyone, been looking on this site for about a week now and finally went to take some pictures today and try the HDR developing world out. Upon editing my photo's (using Adobe PS CS2), I ran into a problem. Whenever I go to process all three images in the beginning to convert them to 1 image before the editing process, it comes out blurry. I've checked all three images and they are sharp and clear, no blurryness what so ever. Is there something i'm doing wrong??? I'm basically clueless as to what's going wrong...

Also, after completing the editing part, I went to save it as a 16bit .tiff file and it wont open up in Adobe Bridge to further edit it under camera raw but yet it just opens back up in PS C2? What gives???


----------



## MacDuff

So I'm new here, but I've been lookin' around the site and I though I'd give the HDR thing a try and I took a few pictures with the different exposures, with my new Nikon D40X, and when I went to merge them as an HDR in photoshop (its either CS2 or CS3, I don't remember right now) but I got an error message saying, 

"*Error 48: File or Folder does not exist. *
Line: 38 
-> $.evalFile(g_StackScriptFolderPath + "LatteUI.jsx"); "

What does that mean, and is there a way to fix this? Thanks for the help!

-Harry


----------



## Horsephotogr

MacDuff, I've found PS's HDR merging inferior to Photomatix. I also understand that tone mapping and HDR's are different, however, it depends on what effect you desire. I am looking for fuller colors, not necessarily to reveal the shadow and details in highlight/blow-outs. With that said, I also shoot in low-light conditions w/fast moving subjects. This leads me to my reason for being here. I would like to hear other thoughts on this objective, to shoot in low light conditions w/out a flash. One camera over another? I am looking to buy another body, leveraging the hole I found in my profession. Very few photogs will work in these conditions, therefore, little competition, however, to produce something reliable and will sell I need to do this better than average too. Any thoughts?

Here's something from my last work that sold:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3189519063_835ccf7f33.jpg

Flickr: Horse Photographer's Photostream


----------



## mayhem7

You can do it in Photoshop, but I would recommend "Photomatix Pro 4". It takes some time to learn to use, because of render-time, but it's fairly simple, and the results are amazing.


----------



## Red_John

You can also open Bridge, and select the different exposures you want to merge to generate the HDR, then select "tools" and then select "Merge to HDR Pro"
But I would go with photomatix. It's the best software for HDR. PS doesn't do a very good job in HDR Photography (just my opinion)


----------



## KmH

Holy _*2008*_ Batman!* Biff!* *Pow! **Whack! KaBoom!*


----------



## Vautrin

ZOMBIE THREAD!  ITS ALIIIIIIIIVEEEEE


----------



## donny1963

MyaLover said:


> Can you do HDR photos in PS?  If so, how?  Or is there a special program needed?  Lastly, could you do something that looks _similar_ to HDR in PS?  Once again, if so, how?


Yes You Can, And I Have A Video On Just How To Do That..
You Can View This Here.                             




And If you need help on creating an HDR image using your Camera using Bracketing mode here


----------

