HDR from RAW???

[Desmond]

I had a thought.

With the RAW file format, that captures what the sensor sees, right? So you would therefore not have to capture it with different exposures, but in the RAW processing you could save that one image as different exposures and then HDR them?

Am I on the right track with that? Or no-where close?

Des.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Yep, you can do it that way. Overexpose one, underexpose another, and keep one just right. That's very basically how it can be done.

[Cannibalized]

I never have even shot raw. I need to shoot raw and I need to try this.

[Desmond]

Hmm, I will have to try this too. I was told that for HDR I would actually need to take the shots in each exposure, didn't make sense to me as RAW should take the image and I would just need to expose each version and combine.

I will see how some shots go later.

Des.

[lextc69]

If you significantly boost a RAWs exposure via software you will see noise... there is no free lunch.

Also note that if you take what your camera considers a "normal exposure" the sky will be washed out, so you will also have to boost the colours when you reduce the exposure for the sky. Shadow detail will be very noisy or completely absent when you increase the exposure for the lower tones.

Sure you can use this to achieve acceptable results, but it is no where near as good as 2 or 3 seperate exposures...

[Desmond]

Hi lextc69.

Thanks for the reply, I think also the same thing, but then I was told that using RAW it would mean that if I took the same photo on different exposures all the images would be the same as this is capturing what the camera sensor read, and exposure would not be part of that equation at this point...

Des.

[LuisV]

Hi lextc69.

Thanks for the reply, I think also the same thing, but then I was told that using RAW it would mean that if I took the same photo on different exposures all the images would be the same as this is capturing what the camera sensor read, and exposure would not be part of that equation at this point...

Des.

This could not be further from the truth.

RAW capture simply means the camera does no internal post process. It is still subject to the limitations of the exposure. For example, a RAW capture of a scene exposed at f/11 @ 1/500s will not look the same as a RAW capture of the same scene shot at f/5.6 @ 1/500s. The latter shot will be 4 times brighter and the RAW file will show that. If you try to adjust the first shot to look like the second you'll soon see that it won't work.

In the end, as mentioned. Shoot it correctly in camera so that you get the best possible shot to work with in post process. In this case, shoot one shot exposing for the darker area (eg. subject and foreground) and one to expose for the lighter (eg. the sky)

[Fijin01]

I'm a bit confused but that comes with being an ameteur heh.
Looks like i have some reading to do this weekend

[timtam]

I'm a bit confused but that comes with being an ameteur heh.
Looks like i have some reading to do this weekend

me too ... found i started snoozing and switched off....

[Toe Knee"F"]

I'm a bit puzzled too, I shot in RAW, but had to save it as a .Tiff...really couldn't see the difference. Could it be my software?