# HDR from single raw



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

Usually I'll shoot multiple exposures but this time I thought from a single raw and see what works.




By dsrphotography





By dsrphotography


----------



## kidchill (Jan 27, 2008)

Not too shabby.  What program did you use for that?  I was trying some HDR composites with photomatix and also in CS3, but it didn't seem to come out right.  Maybe I can try with 1 raw file instead...


----------



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

kidchill said:


> Not too shabby.  What program did you use for that?  I was trying some HDR composites with photomatix and also in CS3, but it didn't seem to come out right.  Maybe I can try with 1 raw file instead...



These were both photomatix.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 27, 2008)

Hate to burst your bubble but this is not HDR. It's simple tone-mapping.


----------



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> Hate to burst your bubble but this is not HDR. It's simple tone-mapping.




End result is all that matters.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 27, 2008)

Be testy if you like, but don't go around contributing to the misinformation mess on the web by incorrectly describing your techniques.


----------



## RKW3 (Jan 27, 2008)

Yeah Max is right, technically you should call this "tonemapping".

Doesn't mean you can't achieve the same effect of an HDR though. Of course you can't bring back blown highlights or anything, that's why this shouldn't be called an HDR.


----------



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

I stand corrected. I'm sorry I offended you by calling it HDR, when it should actually be called tone mapping.

Better tell these people as well.

http://flickr.com/groups/raw2hdr/


----------



## Alpha (Jan 27, 2008)

domromer said:


> I stand corrected. I'm sorry I offended you by calling it HDR, when it should actually be called tone mapping.
> 
> Better tell these people as well.
> 
> http://flickr.com/groups/raw2hdr/



You didn't offend me. People like that Flickr group offend me...who don't even understand what exactly it is that they're doing yet go around posting tutorials and pretending to speak with authority.


----------



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> You didn't offend me. People like that Flickr group offend me...who don't even understand what exactly it is that they're doing yet go around posting tutorials and pretending to speak with authority.




Either way I didn't mean to come off like an ass. I didn't know I wasn't using the correct nomenclature. Next time I do something similar I'll say HDR effect achieved through tone mapping.

Then everybody will be happy.


----------



## domromer (Jan 27, 2008)

Here are 2 I was just working on. One is true hdr, another is tone mapping. Can you tell which is which.




By dsrphotography




By dsrphotography


----------



## Patrice (Jan 28, 2008)

I'll guess the first is HDR.


----------



## Arch (Jan 28, 2008)

yup its the fist one no question


----------



## Helen B (Jan 28, 2008)

Despite what Max says, there is nothing to stop a single exposure, whether digital or chemical, from being an HDR image if the entire brightness range of the scene is within the native dynamic range of the sensitive medium. That is, in many ways, preferable to multi-exposure HDR.

Best,
Helen


----------



## domromer (Jan 28, 2008)

Wow! I thought you guys would get it right away. The bottom one is the  true HDR. The top was made from one raw.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 28, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Despite what Max says, there is nothing to stop a single exposure, whether digital or chemical, from being an HDR image if the entire brightness range of the scene is within the native dynamic range of the sensitive medium. That is, in many ways, preferable to multi-exposure HDR.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



I'm sorry but this is incorrect. As I've stated many times, HDR is fundamentally based upon extending the dynamic range of an image beyond what one captures with a single exposure. This is entirely regardless of what is technically possible to capture in a single exposure. If someone composites three exposures and produces a final image identical to what I capture with one, the composite is HDR and the single exposure is not. HDR is defined by the final image being _beyond_ the dynamic range of an individual exposure. The technical concept of HDR is not based upon theoretical definitions of native sensitivity, but upon the end-result single exposure and its range. Extending _that_ makes it HDR, regardless of whether or not that extension falls within the medium's native sensitivity.


----------



## Arch (Jan 28, 2008)

domromer said:


> Wow! I thought you guys would get it right away. The bottom one is the  true HDR. The top was made from one raw.



The top image has the better dynamic range, therefore it IS the true HDR, either that OR you have deibaralty edited it badly so i'd guess wrong.... there is no way that one exposure can have a better dynamic range than a combination of different exposures. So what im saying is if i am wrong, then you made it look that way.


----------



## Alpha (Jan 28, 2008)

Archangel said:


> The top image has the better dynamic range, therefore it IS the true HDR, either that OR you have deibaralty edited it badly so i'd guess wrong.... there is no way that one exposure can have a better dynamic range than a combination of different exposures. So what im saying is if i am wrong, then you made it look that way.



I think it's obvious that at the very least the highlight range is much better in the second.


----------



## domromer (Jan 28, 2008)

Archangel said:


> The top image has the better dynamic range, therefore it IS the true HDR, either that OR you have deibaralty edited it badly so i'd guess wrong.... there is no way that one exposure can have a better dynamic range than a combination of different exposures. So what im saying is if i am wrong, then you made it look that way.



If I did it was unintentional. The pics are the same scene taken a few minutes apart. The light changed a lot. They were both tweaked in ps. So I guess it's not apples to apples since there is variables involved. Next time I post them same thing with both pics straight out of photomatix no PS tweaking at all.


----------



## Arch (Jan 28, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> I think it's obvious that at the very least the highlight range is much better in the second.



yes, but look at the blown out area of the snow... not to mention the blown out sky... this simply would not happen in a well processed HDR. The highlights are better in the second but im not saying the dynamic range is particulaly good in either if them... all i can say is the test doesn't really hold up if they are edited badly.


----------



## domromer (Jan 28, 2008)

Archangel said:


> yes, but look at the blown out area of the snow... not to mention the blown out sky... this simply would not happen in a well processed HDR. The highlights are better in the second but im not saying the dynamic range is particulaly good in either if them... all i can say is the test doesn't really hold up if they are edited badly.



jeeze I didn't think my editing was that bad!


----------



## Arch (Jan 28, 2008)

lol.... i didnt mean bad as in the image is bad (i actually quite like it) just 'uneven' editing then... i think given time you would have worked on the sky and blown out snow area, right?... your works good tho im not saying anything against it


----------



## domromer (Jan 28, 2008)

Ok, I'll dry my tears now.


----------



## Helen B (Jan 28, 2008)

MaxBloom said:


> I'm sorry but this is incorrect. As I've stated many times, HDR is fundamentally based upon extending the dynamic range of an image beyond what one captures with a single exposure. This is entirely regardless of what is technically possible to capture in a single exposure. If someone composites three exposures and produces a final image identical to what I capture with one, the composite is HDR and the single exposure is not. HDR is defined by the final image being _beyond_ the dynamic range of an individual exposure. The technical concept of HDR is not based upon theoretical definitions of native sensitivity, but upon the end-result single exposure and its range. Extending _that_ makes it HDR, regardless of whether or not that extension falls within the medium's native sensitivity.



Max,

Your definition of HDR sounds more like a definition of exposure blending. Where does your definition come from? An insistence on multiple exposures doesn't fit with the sense of HDR as I read in articles in things like the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. To me, the essence of HDR imaging is the use of almost absolute (in terms of the range of human perception) luminance and chrominance, and the way that information is stored and displayed.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alpha (Jan 28, 2008)

I'm afraid you're confusing a few different things here. One does have to do with issues of luminance and chrominance and high bit-depth display and the like. These are theoretical engineering quandaries that are misplaced in this context. If the HDR to which I am referring were based solely on such qualities, none of the images we call HDR would truly be HDR because when push comes to shove they have normal 16-bit depth no matter how you hash it. 

Given that, the only way to define HDR in our context is simple semantics. High Dynamic Range specifically implies that the dynamic range is higher than normal. Again, this has nothing to do with native sensitivity. Rather, it defines an HDR image as a composite image whose dynamic range is greater than the dynamic range of any of its parts.

And oooooh you read the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. That's nice. Let's not get into a pissing contest, alright?


----------



## Helen B (Jan 28, 2008)

Max,

_" And oooooh you read the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. That's nice. Let's not get into a pissing contest, alright?"_

 Why that snotty attitude? I didn't mention JIST as part of a pissing context. It seems fairly evident that you and I have different concepts of what HDR means, so I thought that some context was appropriate. I'm not mixing anything up, I just have a different viewpoint from your narrow (in my opinion) definition.

I'm not going to persuade you, and you aren't going to persuade me, so let's leave it at that. You can continue to promote your definition, and I'll continue to disagree with you. Is that OK with you?

Best,
Helen


----------



## shorty6049 (Jan 28, 2008)

its ok with me! ;-)


----------



## Alpha (Jan 28, 2008)

I am not disputing what you've said about HDR, but whether it has any relevance to this discussion. My attitude is not snotty. Quite the contrary. I'm trying to clarify the practical terms of a technique that is discussed here regularly. I understand what definition you're citing perfectly well. But you are not providing any context for _this_ discussion. Rather, you're starting off on an unrelated tangent that has far more to do with optics and theoretical engineering questions relating to bit depth, than you are participating helpfully in a discussion of a technique with a specific functional definition as far as this group of forum users is concerned. If there's any snottiness here, it is in your tone, not mine. You know perfectly well that there are most likely no readers of that journal here, and that few, if any members would have any idea what to make of luminance and chrominance even if they looked up the definitions. It is this that I find pretentious-- your need to make such statements-- to start discussions that you know few are equipped to engage you in, and that I disagree with. You wanna talk theory? Start another thread.


----------



## domromer (Jan 28, 2008)

Ok so here is an apples to apples comparison. One pic is 3 raws, the other is made from one of the three raws. Both are straight out of photomatix no tweaking at all. 

If I didn't do it I couldn't tell which is which.




By dsrphotography




By dsrphotography


----------



## Arch (Jan 29, 2008)

max and helen you should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. In my experience i started using the digital HDR programmes fairly early on after their release so iv seen all the arguements that go with it. One of the most notable is the difference between the term HDR as its used now (for digital software) and the use of the words High Dynamic Range as they were used traditionally.
These two expressions get confused as you might have said to increase the dynamic range even by using tone mapping is giving the image a higher dynamic range.... were as nowadays its the cool trendy HDR programmes that are most associated with the term. So in a way i think you are both right.

domromer, if you are happy to use one file to produce an image with a higher dynamic range than you can achieve manually then fine, have fun with it.
But im affraid your tests dont mean anything, you can post similar looking shots all day long but the fact is a multi exposure HDR has MUCH more range than single exposure. If you like i can process two images properly and show you the difference, but its probably not even necessary.


----------



## Helen B (Jan 29, 2008)

Archangel said:


> max and helen you should just agree to disagree and leave it at that...




That's what I suggested in my previous post, so I'm happy with that approach.

Best,
Helen


----------



## domromer (Jan 29, 2008)

Archangel said:


> max and helen you should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. In my experience i started using the digital HDR programmes fairly early on after their release so iv seen all the arguements that go with it. One of the most notable is the difference between the term HDR as its used now (for digital software) and the use of the words High Dynamic Range as they were used traditionally.
> These two expressions get confused as you might have said to increase the dynamic range even by using tone mapping is giving the image a higher dynamic range.... were as nowadays its the cool trendy HDR programmes that are most associated with the term. So in a way i think you are both right.
> 
> domromer, if you are happy to use one file to produce an image with a higher dynamic range than you can achieve manually then fine, have fun with it.
> But im affraid your tests dont mean anything, you can post similar looking shots all day long but the fact is a multi exposure HDR has MUCH more range than single exposure. If you like i can process two images properly and show you the difference, but its probably not even necessary.



I'd be interested in seeing that if you have time.


----------



## Helen B (Jan 29, 2008)

I posted an example in this thread of a single-exposure tone-mapped HDR that included the full range of the scene - which had a very high brightness range to begin with. That is a case in which making multiple exposures could not increase the range, because the full range of the scene was already recorded by one exposure.

Best,
Helen


----------



## domromer (Jan 29, 2008)

Thanks for the link Helen. I had no idea this conversation had been so  enthusiastically   discussed before. I'm going to bow out of my own thread now. I think it's a wasted argument. The end result is what matters. Whether it comes from one raw or three.


----------



## abraxas (Jan 29, 2008)

Sheesh, ... semantics.  If it feels good, do it.


----------



## kidchill (Jan 31, 2008)

Word...


----------

