HDR should be shot in RAW, you are going to be doing a lot of post processing. What camera are you using? RAW mode usually disables all other in-camera processing.
How about posting your HDR images?
- Thread starter NikonThom
- Start date
HDR should be shot in RAW, you are going to be doing a lot of post processing. What camera are you using? RAW mode usually disables all other in-camera processing.
Rick, I have a D90 and a D600. The ADR is Nikon's Active D-Lighting (Adaptive Dynamic Range) which has several settings. I use this for jpegs when shooting theater productions because the lighting is always changing. Otherwise, without it, I would sometimes get overblown highlights or have some people in the shadows go really dark (and trying to lighten those areas at high ISOs also adds noise). ADR shows more detail in the areas that would normally be high contrast, and since I use a high ISO, I have much less editing for lighting when it's in use. It allows more detail to show up overall even when the stage has a lot of dark areas.
I haven't shot RAW yet and am wondering how the high contrast areas show up compared to shooting jpegs with the Active D-Lighting turned on. I know HDR is supposed to be for high contrast scenes, but if contrast isn't a setting when shooting RAW, then I guess my question should be geared more towards those who shoot jpegs for HDR.
edit: for clarification, I wouldn't use HDR for theater photos. I'm just wondering how the contrast is set for those who shoot jpegs.
Last edited:
Ok, I thought you might have meant active "D". I have not tried active D with HDR, but I suspect if the "normal" exposure of the bracketed series would benefit from active D it is worth a try. I have not attempted to merge Jpegs, another thing you might want to experiment with before an important shot arises, you know what you'll get with RAW.
I thought in camera sharpening, contrast, etc, including active D-Lighting doesn't affect raw files (?) If I'm wrong, which is very possible, I'm about to be educated
I believe you may be correct; however, I'm just wondering how jpegs with the Active D-Lighting on would turn out and if it would wind up being that much different than RAW HDR images.
I believe you may be correct; however, I'm just wondering how jpegs with the Active D-Lighting on would turn out and if it would wind up being that much different than RAW HDR images.
Interesting .... I did see that you shoot jpegs, but thought you were asking about what effect it might have on RAW. Trouble is, I'm curious now and want to go try it out, which shouldn't be a problem except that I should be packing to move house next week, not sitting glued to the forums and testing out whatever I read :shame:
I believe you may be correct; however, I'm just wondering how jpegs with the Active D-Lighting on would turn out and if it would wind up being that much different than RAW HDR images.
Since a JPEG tosses out 7/8'ths of the data in a RAW file to produce a JPEG file, I'm fairly confident it will be inferior to an HDR compiled from RAW files.
StandsOnToes
Senior Member
Not a True multi exposure HDR.... Light room FTW... Probably at least 9 separate sections "exposed" differently
Michael J.
Senior Member
Just tried a small figure made of Acrylic plastoc yellow transparen. Coz I rea dhere that HDR should taken in RAW I tried jpeg and RAW, 7 Frames. Merged with HDR Efex Pro 2 and only resized. No any other manipulation
Take alook
Made of 7 jpeg frames:
Made of 7 RAW frames
Coz I know my statue the RAW is almost it looks like.
Made of 7 jpeg frames:
Made of 7 RAW frames
Coz I know my statue the RAW is almost it looks like.
MelodyTregear
Senior Member
Wow Dave! This is gorgeous!
Thanks!!! This is really helpful to see the actual HDR differences between RAW and jpegs!
Here's another RAW question for anyone: in general, and not referring to HDR images, do RAW photos yield more detail? I keep seeing where members here say there is more resolution with RAW images. Does this mean a RAW photo, especially an enlargement, will be crisper and sharper? Just trying to understand the benefits of RAW overall. Thanks for any input.
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
here is a couple taken today along the Souhegan River in Merrimack NH
Both are 3 shots each., 1.7 bracket with the 35mm f/1.8
Pat in NH
Both are 3 shots each., 1.7 bracket with the 35mm f/1.8
Pat in NH
Very beautiful Pat! I also prefer the natural look (sometimes there are exceptions to the extreme, but for nature shots I like natural and you've nailed it! )
Here's one of mine from this week. Still very much a newbie to HDR and still trying to iron out some creases in my processing.
) Here's one of mine from this week. Still very much a newbie to HDR and still trying to iron out some creases in my processing.
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
Ted, thank you very much!! I appreciate those comments as that is what I going for. I think fuzzy dreamy has a place but for me it is not these time of scenic's
Pat in NH
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
Very beautiful Pat! I also prefer the natural look (sometimes there are exceptions to the extreme, but for nature shots I like natural and you've nailed it!
Here's one of mine from this week. Still very much a newbie to HDR and still trying to iron out some creases in my processing.
Lee, I appreciate the comments.. I do not do them that often.. I had seen that location before and often thought it would make a good shot and possibly HDR.. Today, the sun and the shadows, I had to give it a try.. I did not even know the little falls was there until I was heading back out to my truck!..
Pat in NH
MelodyTregear
Senior Member
I agree with you Ted. I'm also new to HDR, but definitely prefer the natural look. However, I think there is space for both. It just depends on the shot.
MelodyTregear
Senior Member
Wow Dave! That is stunning!