HDR from a single exposure

<p>I make what I call "fake HDR" images by combining not three separate exposures but three TIFF files -- "normal", "dark" and "bright" -- made from a single raw file. For this purpose my software, the GIMP, has an option called Exposure Blend. One can either use the defaults or else adjust any or all of the three layers. An increase in contrast is usually needed, together with a lowering of the darkest tones.<br>

First, the "normal" one.</p><div></div>

<p>Next, the three "exposures" combined. My aim is simply to bring under control a too wide tonal range, which is common under the bright Indian sun. HDR does not interest me.<br>

I shall be surprised if others too do not use this simple and obvious method.</p><div></div>

<p>How surprised would you be if not too many want the results you show using this technique?</p>

<p>It doesn't look natural to me and it appears you changed the character of light from a point source spot to diffused going by the extremely reduced contrast.</p>

<p>Should we not wait to see how many others say that they do not now and then run into unmanageable tonal range? If you are not interested, that is of no importance to anyone but you.<br>

I chose this example -- the only one available at midnight -- as an illustration. Most of the results I get with this technique do not look too artificial.<br>

I did nothing to change the "character" of light. I wouldn't even know how to do that.</p>

<p>What do you hope to share with others on this subject when others weigh in? Are you planning on offering a tutorial on how to do what you did using Gimp?</p>

<p>What is it you like in the results of your posted before and after sample?</p>

<p>I have already said what I did. Clearly it is not for you. You are wasting my time and your own.</p>

<p>I know the technique, there is special software to produce a "HDR" from a single RAW image and some people like the end result. Personally I don't like the idea; it is contrary to HDR since no extra information is used to broaden the dynamic range. It should be possible to get the same result in PS/Gimp by using the original RAW file without generating 3 (or more) TIFFs.<br>

On the other hand, if you like the result use this procedure and be happy.</p>

<p>"It should be possible to get the same result in PS/Gimp by using the original RAW file without generating 3 (or more) TIFFs." I could not find such a method, so I opted for the multiple TIFFs approach. I shall be glad if you can find that method and explain it to me. While you are correct in saying that I use <em>no</em> <em>additional</em> <em>information</em>, it is also true that I use <em>more of the information</em> <em>contained in a single raw file</em> than a conversion at one level of brightness uses. Finally, since I get the results I want I do not stop to think of the idea underlying. I know of no rule which says that HDR may only be obtained by using more information than is provided by a single exposure. As you kindly permit me to go my way, I do not come in the way of those who approach HDR with multiple exposures.</p>

<p>I don't have Gimp but I do have Photoshop and to me this image looks very similar to image helped by using 'Shadows & Highlights' in Photoshop.<br>

I use 'Shadows & Highlights' a lot in my high contrast shots , but not to the extent that your example shows.</p>

<p>Jeff, the GIMP has a plug-in which does what PhotoShop's Shadows and Highlights feature does. That is what I try to manage with. When stronger effects are needed I combine three conversions: which is the merging of three layers and can therefore be done on any software which handles layers. There is complete freedom to make the "HDR" effect pronounced or barely visible.</p>

<p>I think this could be achieved also by simply boosting darks and/or shadows in Lightroom and PS and/or by fiddling with the input/output curve. I don't think it is necessary to combine 3 files from the same source: seems a more complicated solution to me?</p>

I'm afraid that, like others, I don't much like the change you have produced. I can see a case for slightly lightening the

shadows but not to the extent of virtually losing all contrast. I would have started off trying to use shadow tools or similar

in LR or PS and don't think I'd need a plug-in

<p>Like Robin stated, the current PSCC ACR is quite capable of creating the look of HDR simply maxing out the "highlights" and "shadows" sliders. I have to be careful sometimes when adjusting an image to avoid getting the HDR look without wanting it. </p>

<p>I shall repeat a few of the things I said.<br>

1. I chose this example ... as an illustration. [Clearly the wrong one.]<br />2. An increase in contrast is usually needed, together with a lowering of the darkest tones.<br />3. [shadows and Highlights] is what I try to manage with [add Curves]. When stronger effects are needed I combine three conversions.<br />4. There is complete freedom to make the "HDR" effect pronounced or barely visible.</p>

<p>HDR is an abbreviation of High Definition Range. Subsequent processing includes tone mapping and range compression, so the results can be viewed as a normal TIFF or JPEG image file. The starting point can be multiple images with varying exposures (bracketed) or a single image.</p>

<p>You can't increase the dynamic range of a single image, but you can process it in a variety of ways, including tone mapping. This produces the effect often associated with HDR images, often overdone to produce surrealistic results. Like so many techniques, what started as bold and innovative has become trite and reviled. Quoting Junior from "The Incredibles," "When everybody is super, nobody is."</p>

<p>HDR from bracketed images can be very useful without being obviously distorted. You can extract detail from an overcast sky or deep shadows in bright sunlight.</p>

<p>HDR didn't used to have anything to do with definition. Must be a new development.</p>

Some/many (lost track) cameras do this in camera. HDR (which stands for High Dynamic Range, by the way) in the conventional way, combining differently exposed images.<br>And from one single exposure as Mukul did in post (Nikon calls that ADL - Active D-Lighting). Nikon's ADL is also available in post, during raw-processing. So no need for Gimp or PS as far as that goes. Don't know about Canon (or Sony, or...)

<p>Mukul, yes, exposure blending. Photomatix has an option for this, capture the whole range of tones. Seems to me it amounts to compressing the tonal range over most of the image in order to include the extreme bright and dark. </p>

<p>Can certainly be interesting in some instances. In general, I prefer in shots with very high tonal range to use HDR which makes area adjustments to preserve local and micro contrast. </p>

<p>Mukul, I did experiment in the past with this method when I was shooting with a D2x that didn't have the dynamic range of my subsequent bodies, although it was more normal for me to bracket three exposures intentionally for HDR purposes when taking them.<br>

I agree your example was a quick one and unfortunate for demonstration purposes. <br>

I have just found a shot I took in April 2010. I created three exposures from the original and combined them in PS under the Tools drop-down menu and HDR Pro. I'll post the original and the HDR version. </p><div></div>

<p>and HDR version</p>

<p>it would have been a miracle to have worked the first time...</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I shall repeat a few of the things I said.<br /> 1. I chose this example ... as an illustration. [Clearly the wrong one.]<br />2. An increase in contrast is usually needed, together with a lowering of the darkest tones.<br />3. [shadows and Highlights] is what I try to manage with [add Curves]. When stronger effects are needed I combine three conversions.<br />4. There is complete freedom to make the "HDR" effect pronounced or barely visible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what is it you want us to learn from your short tutorial? I don't have to do as much work shooting Raw and editing in a converter of choice which I've done at least 100's if not thousands of dark, contrasty scenes working in ACR/LR. I never have to do tonal adjusts in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Here's just one from my gallery... http://www.photo.net/photo/12335292</p>

<p>Here's one I just re-edited from improved processing in CS5 ACR 6.7's PV2010 previously edited in CS3's PV2003.</p><div></div>

<p>You are right, Sebastian, it is one way of bringing the extremes into a manageable range.<br>

I have read about this in-camera manipulation, Q.G., but as neither of my cameras has it I must do what I can on the computer.<br>

Good work, Gup. Shows the value of the method. My "bad" example had the advantage of making things abundantly clear. It was not a finished photo and was not meant to be treated as one.<br>

Those who need to learn nothing, or who are incapable of learning, shall learn nothing.</p>

<p>I don't think that what you are trying to do makes any sense. If you only have one file then you can't extend the dynamic range.</p>

<p>Using TIFF also makes no sense. You have three massive files, and for what?</p>

<p>With Lightroom CC you can play with not only all the sliders but you have an unlimited number of local (non-destructive) adjustment options.</p>

<p>Plus, the gradient tool now lets you brush out bits that you don't want gradient-ed (if that is a correct word). you may also know that the gradient tool can start not only from the top but also from the bottom. You can make things darker from the top or lighter from the bottom, and everything in between.</p>

<p>Throw in Luminance, Hue, Dehaze and God knows what else, and you have a program that can do whatever is that you want from a SINGLE file.</p>

<p>And the best thing is that whatever changes you want/make are in a sidecar which is the size of a few hundred KB.</p>

<p>More than one file? Now that's an entirely different story.</p>

<p>Andrew, the idea is not to <em>extend</em> dynamic range but to <em>compress</em> it. The fact that the Shadow slider brings up much detail in shadows tells us that <em>that detail is there</em>.<br>

Here, from several years ago, is one of the first photos on which I used the method I have outlined.</p><div></div>