How to blend three or more images from the same RAW file

[georges_walker]

Hi there,

 

I will appreciate someone explain hot to blend three or more images from the

same RAW file; each of them has different Exposure, Shadows, Brightness and

Contrast settings. Then work with them in PS.

 

For doing this, do you recommend TIFF files rather than JPGs?

 

My objective is to emulate a HDR image.

 

Thanks

[phule]

I'd like you know how you have a single RAW file with three different exposures. Seems to me that exposure is determined at time of shutter trip by Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO.

[emre]

You can emulate the tone-mapped look by aggressively setting the amount of correction with the Shadow/Highlight tool. Less work than creating a faux HDRI.

[ronald_moravec1]

See the video on blended exposure,

 

 

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-video.htm

 

Do the two darkest, then the result with the brightest one.

 

You can also work with the layer stack and "blend if" mode. I have not mastered that myself yet.

 

HDR looks fake to me and I never use it.

 

I also take highlights from the darkest image with a slightly featherd selection and move them on top the blown highlight of a darker image. Use the move tool and hold down shift key for perfect alignment. Temporary change the blend mode to difference. It should go all black, but if there is misalignment it shows as a color. Use the arrow key to nudge it.

 

Did I say I don`t like HDR. Fake

[georges_walker]

Of course from a single RAW file what I have is only one exposure but when the file (RAW --> NEF) is opened with the PS module I certainly can play with the exposure in PS terms but not in real photographic terms.

 

I don't know if I would like HDR images by the end of the day but for now I want to play with them. Some of the images that I've seen look a kind of fake, I agree, but others captivate my sight.

 

Thanks everybody.

If you have more comments I will appreciate them.

[mendel_leisk]

The layer mask techique here:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

 

outlines a method for blending *two* images, say two tiff outputs from a single raw file.

 

With the version of Adobe Camera Raw that comes with CS3, I find the following quite effective for "increasing" dynamic range, and more natural looking:

 

1. Let ACR make all it's auto-adjustments. In the case of an image with deep shadows and bright skys, this will likely recover all or most of the sky detail, at the expense of shadows.

 

2. Raise the "fill light" slider, as needed to improve shadow detail. Try not to overdue.

 

3. Raise "contrast" to a value roughly equal to the "fill light" value.

[Ed_Ingold]

If necessary, recover missing highlights in ACR.. Beyond that, there's nothing to gain from blending several versions of the same file that you can't accomplish with Levels, Curves and Masking. All the information you need is in the one file.

[studor13]

There are a number of ways to skin a cat.

 

If I just want a quick test version I duplicate the layer and then adjust the exposure (Image, Adjustments, Exposure) in one of the layers and mess around with Masks and Brushes.

 

If I want to zone in on something in particular, I open the same RAW file twice with the exposure (plus White Balance and maybe pump some colours) set for the areas I want to work on.

 

After this it's back to Masks, Brushes and so on.

 

In the image below the one file was opened with a slightly cooler WB to give the water a slight blue flavor. I did this not to deceive the viewer, but because the water is actually very blue/green.<div></div>

[phule]

[[HDR looks fake to me and I never use it.]]

 

Our brain grows accustomed to what we know film or digital images should "look like." So, when we see an image with more dynamic range than our what brain has been trained to "know" should be there, it reacts (often poorly).

 

Of course, there is a lot of really poorly done HDR. But there's also a lot of good stuff out there.

 

Example:

 

http://www.whateverland.com/yesterday/2008/01/30/class_dismissed/

[keith_durnford]

A round about way of doing it is,

 

Open your raw file and set the exposure to, say -2, then open.

 

Save the open jpeg/tiff somewhere.

 

Do the same again using 0 and + 2 exposures, saving the jpeg/tiff both times.

 

Then click file - automate - merge to hdr, select the three files you have just converted from raw click ok and there you go.

[robert_fisher4]

If you want to work with the idea of HDR, why not just use HDR generation software? CS2 and CS3 have the capability. There are numerous other purpose-built HDR programs like Dynamic Photo HDR, Photomatix and FDRTools.

 

Using three versions of the same RAW file with different exposure settings isn't the same as using three differently exposed RAW files but it will give a sense of what the software can do and some practice. All have trial versions available to download and evaluate.

 

If you do want to try it, use 16 bit TIFF files tagged ProPhotoRGB. This preserves as much information as possible from the RAW file and gives the software as much information as possible to work with. Dropping down to 8 bit JPEGs just loses too much.

[Ed_Ingold]

HDR is different! An HDR merge is a way to combine two or more DIFFERENT images into one, 32 bit/channel image using Photoshop. Unfortunately, HDR Merge doesn't give consistent results, mainly because if anything moves from one shot to another you get strange colors or outlines in the results.

 

If you wish to combine exposures, the best and most consistent way is to use masking and compositing.

[studor13]

As Ed has said you CAN NOT do HDR with one file. Just try it!

 

Two years ago I thought that Photomatix was the duck's nuts and I was doing it everywhere. When I started to know what I was doing my eyes finally worked out that it just isn't a natural effect.

 

Some people like it and that's fine. But if anyone wants to say that HDR looks better than what can be done from layers masking, they need to have their eye's tested.

[robert_fisher4]

Well, no Edward that's not quite right. You don't have to use PS to do the merging. And while it's not true HDR there are numerous people doing exactly as the OP is thinking of. Additionally, HDR programs are becoming increasingly sophisticated with their anti-ghosting algorithms. Not 100% effective yet but getting there. In addition, there are times when movement is effective. For example, I'm using HDR software to create impressionistic photos with 12 and more original RAW files where I've purposely moved the camera in between shots.

 

Andy, if you were shown a well made tonemapped HDR file, that didn't have the whacked out colours and exaggerated contrast you wouldn't be able to tell if it were done via HDR or through layers and masking. I guarantee it.

 

And let's get some terminology straight while we're here since what some people are referring to as HDR isn't. An HDR file is a 32 bit floating point file created with different exposures of a scene from original image files. Those files can be RAW, TIFF or JPEG. The effectiveness and aesthetic of the merge will differ depending on the type and quality of the input files. What we view as people's results in print, on a web page or wherever else are NOT HDR files. They are tonemapped HDRIs that have been converted to LDR (8 or 16 bit). After that tonemapping and conversion they are no longer HDR.

[studor13]

Robert, what is the point of using an HDR program if you can do it all using layers where you have total control? From what I remember in using Photomatix there were only a few options.

 

There is also something that I can guarantee you. There are images for public viewing and for critique in my portfolio.

[robert_fisher4]

LOL! Andy, where in anything I wrote did I say anything denigrating or negative about your photography? Nowhere is the right answer. Where in anything I wrote did I say that your method was wrong? Nowhere is the right answer. Where in anything I said did I suggest, intimate, hint, imply or otherwise indicate that your skills were substandard? Nowhere is the right answer. I simply said that done by someone with the proper skill you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Does that skill develop overnight? No and I never said it did. Did I intimate that your method (which I've also used and continue to use) was simple or that the skill to do it was easier to learn and develop? No I did not. And yet here you are getting your knickers in a twist and your ego all bent out of shape. Too funny. So now that we've cleared that up, put on a clean diaper and go about your business. ;)

 

Who says everything has to be done in Photomatix? It doesn't. Few skilled users of HDR do just work in one program. There are some fairly extensive options for 32 bit editing in CS3. And quite honestly you have more control with 32 bit floating point than you do in fixed 16 bit. You don't need all the extra image layers which means file sizes are smaller and easier to work with as well. Did PS have all the bells and whistles 5 years ago that it has now? No. Similarly HDRI is a relatively new technique for the mass market (it's been used in movies for many years). Tools will develop over time and probably quite quickly.

 

Look, I don't really care what methods you or anyone else uses. As I said I have used and do use both. Use whatever works for the job at hand or whatever floats your boat. To dismiss a tool or technique out of hand because one doesn't understand it or isn't as skilled at it as another technique is a mistake in my view. You don't like it, don't use it. No problem. But don't say it's not as good or a bad choice just because you don't have as extensive a knowledge set of it.

[georges_walker]

Gentlemen,

 

First of all, thank you for your time in answering my question.

The reason because I asked how to blend images from the same RAW file was because I already took those pictures (last January) and I do not have the chance to go back to the place for taking the proper RAW with real different exposure. As a beginner in this subject, I though that generating different TIFF files from the same RAW one could give the chance to blend them so I could get something better but definitely not a HDR.

 

I'm quite sure that all of you have more experience than myself and the good thing in this thread is the share of knowledge, something that I really aprreciate it.

 

Thanks :-D

[studor13]

I say HDR is no good and it's a bad choice because I used it for 6 months solid.

 

Robert, you said a lot, but no photos to show?

 

Don't tell us about how many bits there are up a duck's backside. Show us some photos.

 

Here is a shot using simple layers. Somewhere between 8-10 stop latitude. I could also show you the HDR version - which stinks - but I'm sure you know someone who could do a great job on in.<div></div>

[robert_fisher4]

'Show us photos, show us photos, show us photos.' The age old siren song of the person who has nothing more to add. LOL!

 

Andy, you've really got a bug up your arse about HDR. I don't know why but for some reason you do. You're almost as anti-HDR as some film users are anti-digital. And you both have something in common: You're speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

Simply doing something for any period of time does not automatically translate into knowledge or competency. You say you used it for 6 months straight but who knows when. Software is improving at a rapid pace and there may have been significant improvements in the technology since you gave it up. Based on what you said earlier it sounds like you tried to do everything in Photomatix. Photomatix is one program and there are others that may do a better job or do the job differently enough that it would work better for you. As I mentioned previously, an HDR-software only workflow is not something that (m)any people who are serious about using HDR for more than just creating comic book effects use. Hell, I know someone whose written a book on HDR who will use 3 different programs on one photo. I don't think he's used 4 yet. And yes I know you'll say why go to all that bother when you can do it all in Photoshop with layers and masking. Why? Because you can. And because since HDR is still relatively new there may not be one software app. that can do all that needs to be done. If the HDR part of PS were improved significantly then perhaps people could stick to one program if they wanted to. And lets be clear on something else, not everyone who doesn't use HDR uses PS (or their editing app. of choice) exclusively either. There are other standalone programs that get used in an editing workflow in addition to PS so this isn't a workflow that pertains to HDR only.

 

Andy, you seem to feel that I'm attacking you personally for not using HDRI. I don't know where you get that impression but it's somewhere in the far reaches of your fragile mind for certain. You captioned the photo above as "No HDR Required". Nowhere in anything I've written have I suggested that HDR is "required". I will reiterate that it's simply one tool in a very large toolbox. You, on the other hand, have told the OP that it's useless and that he shouldn't even bother trying it. Well, if we all took that stance then we'd have no progress in anything.

 

You don't like HDR. That much we're clear on. I will say again: That's fine, no problem. You don't want to use it, don't use it. But don't tell others not to use it or that it's a waste of time or that it's a bad technique simply because you don't like it or don't fully understand it. That attitude leads to a lot of bad things. Book burning, segregationism, ethic cleansing are a few that come to mind.

 

Jorge, yes, creating TIFFs out of three differently processed RAW files will give you something to work with in HDR software. It's not a true HDR approach as you know but it will let you practice and become familiar with some of the software and techniques so that you'll be ahead of the game a bit when you have multiple differently exposed RAW files to work with if you want to take it further. If you really get interested in HDRI then "The HDRI Handbook" by Christian Bloch would be a good book to get as would the ebook "HDR: An Introduction to High Dynamic Range Photography" by Jack Howard.

[studor13]

The purpose of photography is to take photographs.

 

The image below was taken around 6:30pm TODAY after I finished work. (nothing special, but I take my chances and wait for the light. Tonight it didn't come)

 

Robert, no wonder you have no photos to show. You're busy doing other things.

 

Perhaps I am ignorant in regards to HDR, perhaps not. Perhaps there is even a plug-in in one of those HDR programs where you don't even need a photo.

 

 

BTW, did you read the bit where the OP says "so I could get something better but definitely not a HDR"?

 

Think I'll go and do some night shots. I bet we all know what you're NOT going to be doing, Robert.<div></div>

[robert_fisher4]

Oh bloody hell Andy, grow up already.

[photo_dark]

I swear this argument comes up 50 times a day.

 

here's my take:

 

Option 1) bracket 3 exposures on a tripod (the ole fashioned way). Then use masks in photoshop to merge them

 

Option 2) bracket 3 exposures, then merge using photomatix or photoshop HDR

 

Option 3) create 3 different versions from the same raw file using the exposure slider in whatever raw conversion software you are using, then merge in photoshop using masks.

 

Option 4) Ditto ditto ditto ... just use photomatix instead of manual masks.

 

Option 5) use a GND filter... still my favorite method.

 

Option 6) Disregard all previous examples, get off the internet, and go take some pictures.

 

Personally, I prefer option 6.