raw conversion

[saulzelan]

<p>apologies if this is a total newbie question. i am a newbie! thus far in working with digitally captured files, i have imported the file to PS and then used a lot of burning and dodging to bring out shadow detail. i tend to underexpose a bit to prevent highlight detail from blowing out. i have tried working with HDR files but i don't like the look, so my approach has been my best way of coping with the fact that i tend to shoot in high contrast scenes.</p>

<p>now my question is: would i get higher quality results by doing multiple raw file conversions, e.g. one to preserve highlights, one for shadows and one for midtones as opposed to my current approach which is to do one conversion and then burn and doge a lot? would i end up with more detail in the end product by using a multiple raw conversion approach? </p>

<p>or is this something that would vary from image to image and there's no way to answer the question theoretically?</p>

<p>thanks!</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>It may help. In essence, that's a form of HDR. You're not getting a range beyond what the sensor can capture in one shot like you would if you shot a bracketed sequence and then did HDR on it. But by doing multiple RAW conversions, you can optimize each one for a different range, as you suggest. That switches the challenge from how to dodge and burn much of the picture into how to blend your multiple renditions into one seamless image. Either approach can work; one approach or the other may be better for some scenes and/or some photographers.</p>

 

<p>FWIW, when Canon's DPP RAW conversion software recently added basic HDR abilities, I briefly played around with doing HDR from one RAW file. Basically, this is an automated version of what you're talking about: it takes one RAW image, converts it multiple times with different settings, and then applies your selected tone mapping and other settings to produce one final image. It's not a full-blown HDR product and it lacks a lot of the control that you'd want if you were serious about HDR. And most of its presets have the HDR look that you don't like (and, for the most part, neither do I). But for some images, I have to admit that its automated HDR process from a single RAW file, using conservative settings, gives me a good starting point in less time than it would take me, a Photoshop user of limited skill, to produce something similar manually.</p>

 

<p>So I'd say go ahead and try blending multiple renditions of the same RAW file together and see how it works for you. If you're comfortable with taking multiple layers and blending them into a final image, as I think you probably are, I suspect you'll find it's a workable method for high-contrast scenes.</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>I hope that I am misreading the question, but it seems that you are having to do this for every image you shoot, and that just should not be necessary. Assuming you are using matrix or center-weighted metering, have you tried not changing the exposure in-camera (making sure there are no exposure bias adjustments set) and then using the recovery and fill light adjustments in ACR? For that matter, you can try clicking the "Auto" button and ACR should be a pretty good job of this. FWIW, I use Nikon's Capture NX2 as my RAW converter, but all programs are essentially the same at this stage.</p>

[saulzelan]

<p>thanks for the nudge in a different direction Curt. i have not been paying much attention up to now to the capabilities of the raw conversion process, probably because of my experience just transferring darkroom skills to PS. now i'm beginning to realize the added layer of complexity in digitial work. my workflow has been mainly to just accept the default on the raw converter and then do the work in PS. which seems to work fine, i'm used to lots of local control as someone who learned in the darkroom....i'll look into the approach you mentioned. thanks so much! </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Just wait till you discover the power of layers, blend modes and masks! :)

[mukul_dube]

<p>The GIMP has an extension called Exposure Blend which I sometimes use when the brightness range in a photo is too great. I make three TIFF files of different brightness from the raw file, and they are then combined by the software. Control over the opacity of the layers is possible.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Here is an example from today.</p><div></div>

[geoffs1]

<p>One other option is to use ACR to create a 16-bit file with only the white/black clipping that you want (typ. none on either end) and then use the normal PS tools (adjustment layers, etc.) to do the local adjustments.</p>

<p>I would highly recommend becoming comfortable/familiar with setting the exposure to just avoid highlight clipping for high dynamic-range situations. If you underexpose and then bring up the shadows extensively you may find yourself battling noise in what are now the mid-tones.</p>

<p>For static subjects I will often make multiple bracketed exposures and choose the brightest one without highlight clipping. Auto-exposure-bracketing (AEB) can also help here, but I generally find I can't predict the range I want to bracket beforehand.</p>

[saulzelan]

<p><img src="http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/24607253" alt="" /><img src="http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/867449/display/29016400" alt="" />Hi Geoff yes i find myself doing just the same, exposing for just the barest amount of overload in the bright areas in hopefully an are of the image where it won't matter too much and then bracketing a little below this point as well if i can. seems like with this approach the camera can preserve an amazing amount of detail in the shadows which really is astonishing for a former film shooter! </p>

[geoffs1]

<p>Saul: you don't say what kind of camera you have, but a few years ago manufacturers started using 14-bit analog-to-digital converters (ADC) vs. the previous 10-bit ADCs. That, coupled with better well-design in the sensors, increased the dynamic range that could be recorded.</p>