Mahesh, I'm glad to see someone teaching the correct use of HDR instead of what we normally see, where the resulting image is overdone and looks like something from a sci-fi movie. Thanks for taking time.
By the way, for those that want more than 3 bracketed shots, simply shoot in manual mode. Keep Aperature where you want and simply change the shutter speed. Watch in the viewfinder and start with it at -3.0 and increase by less than 1.0 for each shot... very easy to do, but make sure you have a good tripod and ballhead and that they are both LOCKED tight before starting this.
Also, for those that want to print this whole thread, there is a "Print Post" button in the top left corner.... click that and see what happens.......
Hi Mahesh - thanks for this intro to HDR in photoshop - I've always struggled with CS2's HDR in the past and as a result prefered Photomatix, but I've just managed to produce an HDR image in CS2 using your guidance which is at least as good as the Photomatix result. Thanks. Paul.
thapamd wrote:
You have to use unprocessed RAW files to create an HDR image. JPEG is not even an option.
Are you sure the RAW files have to be unprocessed? I started playing around with HDR yet again the other evening, and about the time I was giving up on it (yet again ), it occurred to me it might be worth trying to 'process' each RAW exposure in ACR, *then* start the HDR process.
But I had no clue if it would actually use the 'Image Settings' after processing each RAW, or whether it would ignore those and just use 'Camera Raw Defaults'.(?)
Thank you, so much, for this post and the one below! Absolutely amazing! I have been hoping to try out some HDR photography. Now, I can have a hand to guide me in my 1st trials.
Fo Tollery wrote: thapamd wrote:
You have to use unprocessed RAW files to create an HDR image. JPEG is not even an option.
Are you sure the RAW files have to be unprocessed? I started playing around with HDR yet again the other evening, and about the time I was giving up on it (yet again ), it occurred to me it might be worth trying to 'process' each RAW exposure in ACR, *then* start the HDR process.
But I had no clue if it would actually use the 'Image Settings' after processing each RAW, or whether it would ignore those and just use 'Camera Raw Defaults'.(?)
Does that even make sense?
Yes, I think the HDR tool takes the RAW, unprocessed, image and does it's magic, no matter what presettings you may have applied.
ashwinrao1 wrote:
Thank you, so much, for this post and the one below! Absolutely amazing! I have been hoping to try out some HDR photography. Now, I can have a hand to guide me in my 1st trials.
BTW, are you in Seattle? Do you offer work shops?
Thanks, Ashwin! Yes, I do live in Seattle, and no, as of yet, I do not offer workshops. I would happily go shooting with fellow FM'ers at mutually convenient times, however. Send me a PM.
ColinSmith wrote:
How do you rate the advanatges and disadvantages of making an HDR image compared with bracketing raws and blending them in 16 bit layers?
Hi Colin,
I only use HDR if the dynamic range of th scene is "very high." Often times, I can get often "get away" with doing a 3 bracketed exposure shot and manually combining them is PS. I suppose that I've found HDR to be most helpful in scenes such as backlit sunrises or sunsets. Hope that helps!
marschp wrote:
Hi Mahesh - thanks for this intro to HDR in photoshop - I've always struggled with CS2's HDR in the past and as a result prefered Photomatix, but I've just managed to produce an HDR image in CS2 using your guidance which is at least as good as the Photomatix result. Thanks. Paul.
Glad to hear it, Paul! I'm happy the little tutorial helped.
Now here’s the image I decided to create. As you can see, I’ve sacrificed the sky detail for the sake of FG detail. It doesn’t really matter how you convert. I just chose this at random.
You say this is the image you are trying to create and it is different from your final picture. Also, this image still appears over expossed. Did the process of converting it from 32 bit to 16 bit make the difference in what turns out to be your final image?
I guess what I am wondering is how did you know the above image is the one you wanted to create without saving it out as 16 bit and reverting back to this to see how it would end up. I don't think I am explaining myself very well here but maybe you get my meaning.
Now here’s the image I decided to create. As you can see, I’ve sacrificed the sky detail for the sake of FG detail. It doesn’t really matter how you convert. I just chose this at random.
You say this is the image you are trying to create and it is different from your final picture. Also, this image still appears over expossed. Did the process of converting it from 32 bit to 16 bit make the difference in what turns out to be your final image?
I guess what I am wondering is how did you know the above image is the one you wanted to create without saving it out as 16 bit and reverting back to this to see how it would end up. I don't think I am explaining myself very well here but maybe you get my meaning.
Greg
Greg,
When I claimed that the above image was the I wanted to create, I meant that it was the image I created in 32 bit. As you can see from the next sentence, I also claimed that it really doesn't matter what you decided as the created image in 32 bit...I chose the above image at random. When going from the 32 bit to 16 bit is when the detail in the sky will be brought out. I hope I've explained myself.
When I claimed that the above image was the I wanted to create, I meant that it was the image I created in 32 bit. As you can see from the next sentence, I also claimed that it really doesn't matter what you decided as the created image in 32 bit...I chose the above image at random. When going from the 32 bit to 16 bit is when the detail in the sky will be brought out. I hope I've explained myself.
), it occurred to me it might be worth trying to 'process' each RAW exposure in ACR, *then* start the HDR process.
