# Is using layers in Photoshop considered HDR?



## batmura (Jan 23, 2014)

Since using layers in Photoshop allows users to select different portions of different images in order to lighten the shadows or bringing back the details in highlights, does this mean they are actually doing HDR? If not, what is the difference between this and performing manual HDR in a software rather than using an automated program to merge images?


----------



## weepete (Jan 23, 2014)

If you are combining multiple exposures to increase the dynamic range beyond your cameras capabilities it's HDR despite if it's a manual blend or letting a program do it for you. If you are using a single file for the source your dynamic range is the same so it's not really HDR (sometimes called pseudo HDR or HDR effect) even if you save two or more different exposures from the single raw file. In the end if the effect is similar then there's not much real difference to the final image in real terms but using proper HDR when taking the photo can enable you to get data on the whole scene.

Or in other words in "proper" HDR source files there will always be some clipping of the highlights or blacks or both. 

That's my definition anyway

Doing it manually lets you control the blend of images with more precision at the expense of time and effort and HDR programs tend to do global adjustments where as Photoshop allows more local control of areas and exactly where the adjustments are applied.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jan 23, 2014)

There are many uses for utilizing layers in Photoshop other than for an HDR effect. So, in that sense, the answer would be No. 

Layers are primarily used by me to make multiple edits to one photo without being destructive, as the layers can always be deleted.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 23, 2014)

HughGuessWho said:


> There are many uses for utilizing layers in Photoshop other than for an HDR effect. So, in that sense, the answer would be No.
> 
> Layers are primarily used by me to make multiple edits to one photo without being destructive, as the layers can always be deleted.



I'm of the same opinion. 

For me, HDR photos involve multiple different images which each having different exposure settings.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 23, 2014)

If you're increasing the DR of your photo, no matter the method, it's HDR.

If I add a layer to a photo in PS and draw a picture of Big Bird, that's not HDR.

If you take the same photo with multiple different exposures, load them in Photomatix, and manipulate it in a manner that makes the image look like you drew it with crayons in order to impress people on Facebook instead of increasing the DR, that's not HDR.  Even if you call it HDR; it's still not.


----------



## xj0hnx (Jan 23, 2014)

weepete said:


> Or in other words in "proper" HDR source files there will always be some clipping of the highlights or blacks or both.
> 
> That's my definition anyway



Using a single RAW at different exposures produces the same clipping 

When using a single file it depends on the file, some captures, RAW or not just aren't going to have it, some will. I don't have a functional tripod right now, so all my recent HDR pics have been made from single RAW files at different exposures, and I'd safely bet my house there isn't a human alive that could tell the difference.


----------



## KmH (Jan 23, 2014)

batmura said:


> [h=2]Is using layers in Photoshop considered HDR?[/h]


Why would you care if it was or wasn't?

A HDR is any composite of 3 or more photographs of the same scene that exceeds the dynamic range on the sensor in the camera used.

Making an HDR has noting to do with what graphics program was used to produce it.
However, only using Photoshop layers would be a much more labor intensive way of producing a HDR than using a graphics program dedicated to the making of HDR.


----------



## batmura (Jan 23, 2014)

KmH said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > *Is using layers in Photoshop considered HDR?*
> ...


Because I do. Why does this question bother you?


----------



## KmH (Jan 23, 2014)

I didn't say it bothered me. I asked why it bothered you.

I'm still wondering why it matters to you.


----------



## batmura (Jan 23, 2014)

KmH said:


> I didn't say it bothered me. I asked why it bothered you.
> 
> I'm still wondering why it matters to you.


I just do. There is no particular reason for it.


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 23, 2014)

Im wondering why it bothers you, that it bothers him, that it bothers you, as to why it bothers me, which then bothers the OP, which gets me thinking why it bothers anyone,  especially since it may or may not bother this forum, thus retuning to my original thought.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 23, 2014)

Ok, so using layers in photoshop is not HDR, unless your using it to do HDR, in which case it is HDR.  So I'm going to go with Yes and No.  Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 23, 2014)

Parker219 said:


> Im wondering why it bothers you, that it bothers him, that it bothers you, as to why it bothers me, which then bothers the OP, which gets me thinking why it bothers anyone, especially since it may or may not bother this forum, thus retuning to my original thought.



This whole sentence bothers me.  I hope that it doesn't bother you that it bothers me.  I'm pretty sure it will bother the OP whether it bothers you or not, which strangely enough doesn't bother me a bit.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 24, 2014)

batmura said:


> Since using layers in Photoshop allows users to select different portions of different images in order to lighten the shadows or bringing back the details in highlights, does this mean they are actually doing HDR? If not, what is the difference between this and performing manual HDR in a software rather than using an automated program to merge images?


There is no difference in editing a digital picture in one software or another. Trying to define what makes a good picture will depend on the viewer and nothing else, trying to define what editing will accumulate the overall effect into what could be called HDR is an impossible task as every photographer will have an opinion.

Some pictures I prefer to leave untouched and some I edit to the extent that the original image is unrecognisable. This is what makes me happy.

Is HDR the same as tone mapping?  

Can of worms.........open........run away........


----------



## batmura (Jan 24, 2014)

407370 said:


> Is HDR the same as tone mapping?
> 
> Can of worms.........open........run away........


Well, is it? If not, why not?


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 30, 2014)

Who actually cares, so long as the image is what you intended it to be?


----------

