# Old single Raw pictures processed HDR



## Provo (Oct 28, 2009)

These are old RAW images from my old camera that I just processed
what are your thoughts? Shot using fuji e900 I wanted to preserve the realistic feal  in photomatix and in photoshop withought feeling like an oil painting


----------



## Bynx (Nov 4, 2009)

I like both your shots, particularly the sky. Nice job not making it look like an HDR. I would crop your first shot from the bottom just at the tip of the tallest cactus. They dont benefit the picture and look more obtrusive than helpful. Besides that they are chopped off and make the pic look incomplete somehow.


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 4, 2009)

This is not HDR.. its tonemapping.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

McNugget801 said:


> This is not HDR.. its tonemapping.


Been thinking about that, actually...

A RAW file contains enough data to pull about 3 stops out of it.

Global exposure changes can thus be used to render out 3 images that show them; 1 underexposed, 1 overexposed, 1 neutral.

Those three differently exposed (in post) images made from the RAW are then combined in an HDR editor program, JUST LIKE three differently exposed images made by the shutter, in order to produce a result that displays more dynamic range than any one of the three alone can.

How's that not HDR?


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 4, 2009)

Buckster said:


> How's that not HDR?



So I guess that means that every photo shot in RAW is already HDR? 

From HDR soft. (Photomatix Help - Working with RAW files)


> Photomatix also allows you to process a single RAW file into an image stored with a 32-bit HDR image format. Please note though that an image created with a single RAW file can not really be considered High Dynamic Range. It is a rather a pseudo-HDR image. The important characteristics of this pseudo-HDR image is that it is unprocessed. Its dynamic range however is not much different from the range of an already converted file. If you want to produce a "real" HDR image, you will need to combine differently exposed shots.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

McNugget801 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > How's that not HDR?
> ...


Well, I think maybe we could say that it has the information and potential to be used to produce an HDR image.

I mean, if we just bracket by one stop each, and then use those three files as is to output TIFs or JPGs for the HDR editor, do we get any more information than using the three stops we have built into the middle neutral RAW file?  I don't know, but I'm not seeing it.

Let's put it this way - suppose the three shots were JPGs straight out of the camera, where we couldn't really adjust exposure the way we can with RAW.  So, we're stuck with what we got in those JPGs.  But we could still make an HDR from them.

But we CAN adjust the RAW file to get those 3 JPGs as output files, and aren't we then in the exact same place?

And really, the end result is all that really matters, isn't it?  What we end up being able to actually see in the end version?  If the resultant image reveals more dynamic range in the image to our eyeballs than any of the individual 'straight up' photos, haven't we achieved the whole point of the exercise?

Think about this...

On the one hand, we could take three separate photos and bring them together and still work the HDR settings so that it doesn't 'look' like an HDR at all - or we can go totally overboard.

On the other hand, we could take three images from a single RAW, bring them together in and HDR editor and do the same thing.

So, what's the real difference if we get to the same place?



McNugget801 said:


> From HDR soft. (Photomatix Help - Working with RAW files)
> 
> 
> > Photomatix also allows you to process a single RAW file into an image stored with a 32-bit HDR image format. Please note though that an image created with a single RAW file can not really be considered High Dynamic Range. It is a rather a pseudo-HDR image. The important characteristics of this pseudo-HDR image is that it is unprocessed. Its dynamic range however is not much different from the range of an already converted file. If you want to produce a "real" HDR image, you will need to combine differently exposed shots.


Yeah, I just don't know that I'm buying into that notion.  We can't even see RAW files.  We can't post them, we can't look at them, they don't exist to us, except as digital information.  We can only see an interpretation of them, which is the tone mapped image.

So now we're back to the idea that what we have as an end result is really all that matters - to our actual eyeballs - no matter how we got there.

If we use multiple files that individually deliver detail in shadows, highlights and mid-tones that none of them can do all by itself, from any source be it 3 shutter actuations or 3 RAW exposure conversions, and then we pull them together and tone map them to deliver a single image that displays all of them, I can't see the difference.

Saying one is HDR and the other isn't seems like little more than semantics to me.

Your mileage may vary, of course...


----------



## McNugget801 (Nov 4, 2009)

Whatever floats your boat man 

Do you honestly thing you are going to get better results from a single RAW image compared to multiple exposures :lmao:


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

McNugget801 said:


> Whatever floats your boat man
> 
> Do you honestly thing you are going to get better results from a single RAW image compared to multiple exposures :lmao:


I don't recall saying "better", but I'd be willing to say "equal" - in many cases.

Do you honestly think that 3 JPGs straight out of the camera provide more information than a single RAW?

Every time we make an exposure of a high contrast scene, we make a choice to expose for the highlights, the mid-tones or the shadows, based on what we think is important to deliver the message we're trying to convey with that photograph.

That said, if the scene isn't _*extremely*_ high contrast (black dog wearing a black velvet sweater standing in fresh white snow at high noon with no clouds, for example), all the detail information for all three is often in a single RAW file.

As long as we can pull out three exposures that give us the detail from shadows through highlights, how is it "better" (to use your word) to get them at the shutter with three JPGs rather than in post from a single RAW?


----------



## Bynx (Nov 4, 2009)

Instead of hijacking this thread why not start your own on what is an HDR? Technically a raw file processed as an HDR is not a true one. Technically. But optically what's the difference?


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

Bynx said:


> Instead of hijacking this thread why not start your own on what is an HDR?


He asked what our thoughts are, and we're giving them.  Those thoughts were sparked by his submission, so I think there's a good chance they're relevant.

If it's really that big a deal though, I'm sure a mod can move them.  



Bynx said:


> Technically a raw file processed as an HDR is not a true one. Technically. But optically what's the difference?


Hey!  Why don't you start your own thread to put out your opinions on what RAW is (technically) instead of hijacking this one?!

j/k


----------



## NateS (Nov 4, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of hijacking this thread why not start your own on what is an HDR?
> ...



Considering that I take my bracketed exposures 2 stops apart for a total of 6 stops of exposure "spread", yes, I can get more out of 3 jpegs than I can from a single raw.  Granted I always shoot raw, but when doing a HDR< I just do a straight conversion of the three shots into three Jpegs.

As for the images posted.  If this was with a single raw file, you could have gotten the same results (probably much better) but doing a proper edit on the single file than by doing a faux-HDR with the single file.  The data is there either way, but doing an actual edit gives you more control over how the final scene looks.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

NateS said:


> Considering that I take my bracketed exposures 2 stops apart for a total of 6 stops of exposure "spread"...


So, you prefer a 'shotgun' approach to shooting, rather than exposing specifically for the highlights, the shadows and the mid-tones.

Whatever works for ya...  :thumbup:


----------



## NateS (Nov 4, 2009)

Buckster said:


> NateS said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that I take my bracketed exposures 2 stops apart for a total of 6 stops of exposure "spread"...
> ...



Yup.  Because at the times of day I shoot, if my middle exposure is correct for midtones, the highlights and shadows are always right at 2 stops apart from that middle.  I'm sorry to hear that you can't plan well enough to know about how many stops apart your scene is.

Granted if the 3 shots 2 stops apart doesn't work, I will shoot the 3 shots manually exposed, but usually the 2 stop span works well when shooting in the evening light.  If I need less than 2 stops apart (say 3 shots with 1 stop apart each) then I'll just shoot one file and I can recover the highlights and shadows both during post.

In any sense, it doesn't really matter if I use a shotgun approach or not, and you can attempt to belittle me with your smilies all you want,....the point is that you can not recover 6 stops of data with a single raw file.  Good job at avoiding the issue though :thumbup:


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

NateS said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > NateS said:
> ...


That's cool.  If it works for you, it works for you.  My posts did say however that IF the contrast was not too great, etc., so...  yeah - if it's within about 3 stops, 3 exposures from the RAW shouldn't be any worse than 3 exposures from the shutter.

Unless there's some kind of dark magic I haven't taken into account?  :er:



NateS said:


> I'm sorry to hear that you can't plan well enough to know about how many stops apart your scene is.


No need to feel sorry sweety.  

No, see, I actually _*meter*_ the highlights and the shadows and shoot accordingly, so I _*do*_ know how many stops apart I need to shoot for a particular scene.  I even carry around and use a Sekonic L-558R for lots of that stuff.  If I only need a range of 3 stops to cover the shadow and highlight details, I know it and don't shoot a range of 6.

But hey, that's just me.  Your mileage may vary...  Ratchet that exposure from one end to the other, and I'm sure some of them will turn out.  :thumbup:


----------



## Bynx (Nov 4, 2009)

Buckster said:


> No need to feel sorry sweety.


Is it your intention to purposely piss people off? I dont speak for NateS, but Im offended by your alteration of his name from NateS to sweety.


----------



## musicaleCA (Nov 4, 2009)

Camera sensors have dynamic ranges around 12 stops at the best of times (a very high quality sensor at ISO 100). The human eye has around 20. HDRI approaches or exceeds this 20-stop dynamic range, and then is tone-mapped so that it can actually be displayed on current media. A single RAW file cannot produce an HDR image, period. And furthermore, an actual HDR image will produce better detail in the shadows than a single RAW exposure, every time.


----------



## ccarollo (Nov 5, 2009)

Raw files have between 12 and 14 bits of precision.  A jpg has 8 bits.  A series of bracketed raw files has up to 32 bits of precision, depending on how well you've bracketed the scene.

So yeah, tonemapping a raw file down to 8 bits is a reasonable thing to do.  It's just not a whole lot of dynamic range to start with, so it won't work with any scene with a lot of dynamic range.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 5, 2009)

Bynx said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > No need to feel sorry sweety.
> ...


It's a term of endearment, just to lighten the mood a little.  Heck, we're just shootin' the breeze here with opinions anyway, right?  No need to take any of it personally, and certainly no need to be offended over any of it.  Say "CHEESE"!  :mrgreen:

I just see things a bit differently maybe.  As mentioned a couple times now, if the scene doesn't have too wide a range to begin with, three acceptable frames that deliver the detail necessary for an HDR combo to show them all is possible.

And when we look at the end result, if we're not told the method, it would be nigh impossible to discern, in most cases, whether the end result image we're looking at was made with three shutter actuations or three RAW outputs, so what's the real difference?

I'm also going to throw this out there...  Most of you would agree that a well-made HDR image is not one that looks 'cartoonish' but, instead, looks acceptably 'real'.  And how is that achieved?  By not going overboard with it.  That means we let some of the darkest shadow areas stay very dark, and we let some of the brightest areas stay very bright.  I'm not talking photographic black or photographic white - totally blown out.  I'm just talking about a reasonable degree of contrast remaining in the image that allows our brains to see it as 'natural' looking.

Well, if that's the case, we rarely need or want or should use _*all*_ the possible dynamic range that is available. You know the old saying, "just because you _*can*_, doesn't mean you _*should*_". In the same way, just because it's available doesn't mean we should necessarily be using it.  We're not trying to make everything in the scene become 18% gray in the resulting image, after all - that's how we get cartoonish mud.

So, again, I think this comes down to a perception issue between the viewer and the end result image - not necessarily _*how*_ it was achieved.

It's like looking at a B&W photo in someone's hand.  If we're not told, we don't know if it was captured with color that was discarded in post or if it was made as a B&W at the moment the shutter snapped.  Why should any of us rear up like the B&W police and say, "that's not a real B&W", when what we're looking at is, indeed, a B&W image - no matter how it got there?

Again, that's just how I see things.  No sweat if others don't.  :thumbup:


----------



## ccarollo (Nov 5, 2009)

> And when we look at the end result, if we're not told the method, it would be nigh impossible to discern, in most cases, whether the end result image we're looking at was made with three shutter actuations or three RAW outputs, so what's the real difference?


Given the limited dynamic range of a single RAW image, I'd wager that that's typically not true.  It's pretty rare that tonemapping down a RAW image is going to look nearly as good, or natural, as a bracketed series of exposures.  In certain scenes, absolutely, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

I agree with your statement about making HDR images look natural, but at the same time, if you're not capturing _all_ of the possible dynamic range, than you _will_ necessarily have photographic white or photographic black.  Which may be fine, depending on what you're going for.  But you can't not capture the full range of a scene and at the same time avoid clipped whites/blacks.


----------



## Aeb (Dec 10, 2009)

I must say this thread contains such a wealth of in-depth information on the subject of HDR by the participants that will absolutely benefit not just any HDR fan, but I would say all digital photographers. In particular, the disagreements put forth are highly beneficial and they provide even greater insight to all on the subject.

Whilst it is true that working with the content of RAW files can be technically more satisfying than working with 'flattened' JPEGs, from the point of view of getting the final desired result, it may however be just be a matter of using different ways of skinning the cat.

The existence of RAW digital storage formats is such a wonderful development in the history of photography that it literally changed the world as see it. And with further advancement in optical sensor technology which will enable even more data information to be digitally recordable via suitable storage formats, the future is sure to be more exciting.

If one may use a sound analogy, one may say that a RAW digital file is able to provide 'timbre' and 'harmonics' playback, which JPEGS or other similar 'flattened' formats can't, regardless of bit depth used.


----------

