Technically "sometimes". It is possible to take a single RAW image and using the right software still tonemap it and get a pseudo HDR image. It's not really HDR though and any serious changes in contrast will kill shadows and highlights. But in some circumstances, and when used lightly it can produce good results. You really must use RAW though, JPG's at 8bit just don't have the dynamic range.Can HDR be done without multiple exposures?
what program allows this
what websites teach HDR well?
thanks in advance.
Let's just be clear here. They are not actually HDR photos, but pseudo HDR photos. HDR stands for High Dynamic Range, a single shot "HDR" has the same dynamic range as a normal photo, just "processed" to look like an HDR image, but without the depth of tonal range.Single shot can be used to produce an HDR shot - I have done so a couple of times.
Hmmm. the degeneration of pixels in a single image tone mapping can be so destructive that it is noticeable on a 800x600 screenshot, especially in the darker area’s. no need for a large printout. That said, there are times when you will get a nice effect that can improve the photo – especially in tonally flat images, but these are not as common as you make out. Especially as HDR is supposed to increase dynamic range in a photo with large contrasts between bright and dark area’s, the very photos that a single frame tone mapping fails the worst in.Fine, they're pseudo-HDR photos. Nonetheless, if you're not planning to produce a 30X45 cm print, a pseudo-HDR shot can be sometimes much nicer than a traditional photo.
Year, I know what you mean, and this can certainly be done. It is possible to process different versions of the initial RAW image. One for the highlights and one for the shadows. Then, you could technically run this through HDR software.What about if you shoot raw and make a HDR out of it? Raw files have the same initial DR as JPEG, but it has more "adjusting range". That is, you can sqeeze out more DR from a raw, if you choose to adjust it, which you can't do with JPEG. In other words, couldn't you marginally increase the DR of a raw image with making two different "exposures" of the same file?
Hope you catch what I'm trying to say.
Correct. Tone Mapping is a process used by Photomatix to even out the exposure. Think of it a bit like a more versatile "curves" option. The difference is, it can work with 3 or more exposures together which is where the HDR technology comes in.so tone mapping can be done by a single exposure with a RAW file in Photomatix...HDR is (3) RAW files together in photomatix?
I'm not confused but I'm going from a "traditional" stance to the more involved HDR - Hi Def stuff now, forgive me.
I think from another thread you mention you sell your work. Photoshop is made for people like you. So many people use photoshop, but few actually need it. However, in a professional environment it is a very useful tool.Also, I'm not running PhotoShop...though I have it, would it be a better option at this point or no? I currently using Microsoft Picture-it 10.
I'll be back with more questions soon I'm sure.
Pretty much.so tone mapping can be done by a single exposure with a RAW file in Photomatix...HDR is (3) RAW files together in photomatix?
LOL, I can't believe I fücked that one up. Just goes to show, one should look also at the context of the photo rather than just the technical side ;O)
hno:LOL, I can't believe I fücked that one up. Just goes to show, one should look also at the context of the photo rather than just the technical side ;O)
Year, all I had to do was see the stadium in the background.
Please forgive me here. Actually, I'm a little embarrassed ;O)