# Taking HDR in raw



## IDLaxStar (Sep 8, 2010)

Should you always shot your hdr shots in raw format? This might be a stupid question but I am new. Please no one be mean.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 8, 2010)

No problem asking a sensible question IDL. You can make what they call a pseudo HDR from a single Raw file. This is good if it can cover the lighting situation and there is lots of movement in the scene like people, traffic, or trees blowing in the wind. Otherwise shooting 3, 5, 7 or 9 shots jpeg is the more acceptable way to do it. Tripod and no movement is preferred. But your dynamic range will pretty well be covered.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 8, 2010)

oh ok . I just saw provo took 6 raw shots to compile one of his hdr's so i thought i would ask


----------



## ann (Sep 9, 2010)

there is always more than one way to do something.

i only use RAW files, others use jpeg's.

the RAW files gives one more control of the image with a lot of latitude if an error has been made, but they are more labor intense.

Try both and see which works best for your workflow


----------



## Bynx (Sep 9, 2010)

Quite right Ann. My main camera is a Fuji and it only shoots jpeg so I dont think Raw yet. My Nikon shoots Raw but I dont use it much.


----------



## Provo (Sep 9, 2010)

Below is a comparison between Jpg VS Raw


*JPEGs are:*




Faster to shoot
Faster to Save
Smaller in file size, consequently you                         can save many more panos/images on a                         drive.
Can be opened/edited in just about any                         graphics program
Cross-platform
Little or no learning curve
Anyone or almost any camera can shoot                         JPGs
_8-bit files (only 256 color per                         channel)_
Limited ability to color correct
Generally, you need to bracket in ONE                         f-stop increments.
Very limited in overall detail, but                         especially in highlight and shadow                         details
(in other words darks go black quickly                         and highlights go completely white                         quickly)
Better for shooting "journalistic" or                         fast moving/changing scenes, especially                         with people in them.
 
*RAW files are:*




Slower to shoot
Slower to save (More bits = bigger file                         size = more hard drive space needed = less                         images can be saved to a hard drive)
Larger in file size (14-bit RAWs are                         about 25% larger than 12-bit RAWs)
_*12-bit files have 4096 colors per                         channel and 14-bit files have 16,384!*_
Are "proprietary" per camera                         manufacturer and even within a single                         manufacturer
(i.e.: Canon) they have multiple RAW                         formats (i.e.: .CR2 and .CRW)
Generally, you need to bracket in TWO                         f-stop increments.
Much more exposure latitude,                         consequently fewer photos to cover a large                         exposure range. (i.e. 3 RAW files can cover                         a range that 5 or 6 jpegs would be needed                         to cover) - This also means less                         bracketing!
Much more ability to change color                         temperature after its been shot
Have to be "processed" in a digital                         darkroom (i.e.: Adobe Lightroom) and then                         saved as secondary file such as Tiff, JPG,                         EXR, etc.
Are Non-destructive! At this point, RAW                         files cannot be saved. Therefore you can                         always go back to the original and make                         additional corrections.
Are naturally a bit "soft" looking. RAW                         files are INTENDED to be sharpened, so some                         photographers have a hard time switching                         for that reason alone.
Raw captures more data and more of the dynamic range more information result's in a better image quality for HDR. 
The catch is upon processing you still have to come back down to jpg for printing
and for posting on the web but you can still see the processing advantage the raw has over jpeg.

And last I will say this almost 95% of all HDR tutorial's out on the web talk about using Raw the the optimal method of choice.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 9, 2010)

Alright. Thanks for the info provo. That helped me out a ton. I will go try and HDR when i get home from school tonight. One more question though. If you take 3 shoots in raw and make an hdr out of them, do you lose the detail and color range if you change that into a jpg?


----------



## Bynx (Sep 9, 2010)

In a simple word. No.


----------



## Provo (Sep 9, 2010)

IDX to give you a better understanding between raw vs jpg I created this to show you

*Click here to view*


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 9, 2010)

Thanks for that. It really helps but personally i liked the jpg picture better.


----------



## Bynx (Sep 9, 2010)

The jpg image was made from the Raw image. The jpg is globally darker so the shadows are plugged in.


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 9, 2010)

So the raw on there was the original hdr and the jpg was that same raw image converted into a jpg correct?


----------



## Bynx (Sep 9, 2010)

Yup


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 9, 2010)

Ok thanks for clearing that up. I will try a hdr shot in raw and then in jpg and post it up on here tonight


----------



## Provo (Sep 9, 2010)

As a member mentioned on another forum

_*A RAW file. It is essentially unedited until you open it* (and you can only open it in ACR, not directly in PS). The jpeg file has been edited in-camera according to whatever settings you have made in the camera menu, and it is not unusual that it *may appear better than the RAW file before you have made any adjustments to the latter. So, as you suggest, the object is to make edits in ACR so that the image looks just as good (or perhaps better) than the jpeg*. The advantage to the RAW file is that you have a great deal more lattitude for making the desired adjustments than you have with the jpeg file._

_LOL for the sake of this thread already just use Raw _


----------



## IDLaxStar (Sep 9, 2010)

So when taking multiple raw shots for an hdr, do you have to go edit each shot before you compile them?


----------



## Bynx (Sep 9, 2010)

The workflow might vary here, but I would compile the raw files in Photomatix or similar program then when the HDR tiff is made I would then make my changes in Photoshop to that tiff file. When the changes have been made then I would convert to jpeg.


----------



## ann (Sep 10, 2010)

If you have PS, you can take all the RAW files and make all the correction; i.e.dust to one image and apply it to all of the files at one time.

I change mine to Tiff and then use what ever software needed and leave them in Tiff thoughtout the whole process including printing.

Others may wish to change to jpeg, which of course is ok and their decision.

If you are having noise issues, it is best to run the files through a noise reduction program BEFORE using your HDR program.
we all have different methods of working, and as i have said before there is always more than one way to work . 

I always tell my students; put 5 photographers in a room, ask them a question and you will get 10 answers and everyone will fight to the end "theirs" is the best answer


----------



## MCPorche (Oct 19, 2010)

My opinion of Raw vs Jpg is this...

My camera is going to capture every single image in Raw format.  Eventually, I'm going to end up with a JPG

The question is...Do I want my camera to convert it for me?  Or do I want to be in control of the conversion myself?


----------

