Are people using HDR software as a standard workflow step?

[joseph_m3]

<p>I ask this question because I only recently learned about the ability to use single RAW images with Photomatix, and to get some of the same tone mapping features into pictures not taken in sets of 3. Most of my pictures are travel shots - only taken once without a tripod - so being able to have the ability to manipulate images in this way is very appealing to me, even if it's not the pure 3-shot method.</p>

<p>I have put two samples in my portfolio. One is a single RAW file processed with PS curves, and the other is a single RAW processed in Photomatix. I would be interested in knowing if people are using this type of software as a common part of their digital workflow these days, since the results seem so much better than I could ever achieve in PS. I think the Photomatix photo looks pretty realistic - I didn't go overboard on the sliders.</p>

<p>Link:<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=902952">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=902952</a></p>

<p>The only issue is that the tone mapped image is much softer than the RAW edited in PS. (Can't tell on photo.net, but it's clear with the full res file.) Maybe the tone mapping has a side effect of softness, or maybe Essential HDR is better?</p>

<p>I would appreciate any comments on the photos, the workflow issue, or the merits of different HDR software. Thank you.</p>

[bob.velkov]

<p>If you shot RAW you may export jpeg or tiff at -1, 0 and +1 and then photomatix those three images. Works wonderful.</p>

[beartooth1]

<p>Bob is right...However I shoot lots of landscapes some hand held and still shoot bracketed so I always have 3 images to work with...</p>

<p>Single file looks ok on some images but I prefer 3 or more.....</p>

<p>I use Photomatix and Dynamic HDR from Mediachance..... The plugin from Dynamic does a better job on single files in my opinion....but I prefer Photomatix for the real deal.</p>

<p>These images...<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=793185 .... are all hand held 3 shot comps with Photomatix....</p>

 

[joseph_m3]

<p>So, just to clarify - in Photomatix, when you use a single RAW file, it processes it differently than if you give it the same RAW at different exposures? I would have thought that when you feed Photomatix a single RAW file that it would split it internally so that it could process it as it does other (sets of) images.<br>

<br /> I just gave it a shot. Interestingly, I wasn't able to make the 3-image set look as nice as the single RAW, but the photo generated by the 3-image set was actually a little bit sharper.</p>

[beartooth1]

<p>Both Photomatix and Dynamic HDR....give you a Psuedo - HDR Image from 1 file....<br>

Sharpening should not be an issue...I do it as the last steps....USM and Smart Sharpen at about 50% in that order.</p>

<p>This image is from a single file done in Dynamic HDR....</p><div></div>

[beartooth1]

<p>Another thing that can keep the image from looking too "cooked" is taking the middle exposure "0" and use it underneath the final HDR product and lower the opacity of the HDR image a bit to let the original come through....</p>

[mpd]

<p>HDR is an integral part of my workflow. I almost always take three exposures of my landscapes, -2, 0, +2. These are then processed in Photomatrix or Picturenaut. These results are then edited in PS. I do occasionally blend the 0 exposure image and the resultant HDR in PS just to take the edge off the HDR version.<br>

pat</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I used to shoot HDR, but, here's the thing. Suppose you shoot 3 JPG files, at -2, 0, +2, make an HDR then use tone mapping (e.g. curves) to make an 8-bit image. Now, suppose you shoot 1 raw image and you know that your raw file has 2 stops more dynamic range in each direction than your JPG (as most raw files do). You use curves to do shadow/highlight recovery.</p>

<p>In many or most circumstances the second method will give you better results and take less work, you don't need a tripod, you don't need to plan ahead and you can do it on things that aren't perfectly stationary. The reaon it works is that the 2 stops in each direction are capturing the same information as the +/-2 exposures. The raw file <em>is</em> HDR.</p>

<p>If you need more than 2 stops in either direction, HDR is usually the better choice.</p>

[grant_hagen]

<p>I usually bracket landscape shots (even shooting RAW) just so that I have the option of blending exposures -- whether that's using Photomatix or manual blending with PS and layer masks.</p>

<p>Photomatix is fast, but a lot of the time I like the result of manual blending better. I save the manual stuff for shots that have greater than average potential and might turn out to be worth the extra trouble.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Yes and no; in my view there are two uses of HDR: taming the contrast range or getting that effect that looks like an illustration. I don't do the latter and the former is usually handled quite nicely by judicious use of a raw converter and Photoshop, so I rarely need it for the former. But this depends a lot on the type of subject and and the intended result.</p>

[joseph_m3]

<p>Thanks so much everyone. There are a number of good tips here on how best to use this technology and I appreciate the examples.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>I use Photomatix, and my workflow starts in LR or DxO to convert the RAW files to tif, then to PM, then to LR for further editing, including sharpening.</p>

[peter]

<p>I would not say I use it as a standard step but can use it where a photo has too wide a range to be able to reproduce properly. In this case I might do two developments from the RAW image - one targeting the darker areas of the pic and one the lighter areas. My preferred tool - Paint Shop pro Photo X2 has a HDR tool that allows me to combine these for best result. But it does tend to produce the overblow colors etc that are typical of HDR so it always needs extra work after to lower saturation etc. after the fact.</p>

[frans_waterlander]

<p>Test; please ignore.</p>

[bob.velkov]

<p>Ken, what camera do you use? Of course using a fast camera gives the ability to shot handheld and bracket. </p>

[huperetes]

<p>My understanding of HDR is that it is a substitution for the limitation of film and digital reproduction of available luminance values.<br>

Therefore, if a single raw image is used, and digital capture having about a maximum 400 cd/m<em>2</em> , and film about 1K cd/m<em>2</em> , how can this be expanded to the human perception of 10K cd/m<em>2</em> using a single image?<br>

Once the luminance is captured, it is captured. By using "curve" there is some lost, either in the shadows or highlights at the spot we are impacting.<br>

What HDR tools do is combine the additional captured luminance for the same spot.<br>

This also implies that to get a full human-eye DR it would take 10 bracketed frames in film, and 25 in digital.<br>

I could be completely off, but this is my understanding.</p>

[beartooth1]

<p>@ Bob -- D300.... the Expmple pic was done with a D50....</p>