Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vixen" data-source="post: 285161" data-attributes="member: 21839">May not work well for 2 reasons a) those images are now jpegs and jpegs are no where near as good as RAW, so unless you processed jpegs in the first place....... b) the forum software may compress the files when uploaded, so they once again may have been degraded.The forum software must somehow be able to extract metadata from 1 file of the set. I was just curious about this, hence my asking.I think, if I am correct in thinking the top shot of the 5 was the 0 exposure, then it is a little underexposed. You really do need to get you base exposure correct to get the exposure coverage of highlights and shadows to give you the &quot;best&quot; HDR. It can be extremely difficult to get good coverage of exposure in all ares of your image. It is one area I struggle with especially with water shots <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vixen, post: 285161, member: 21839"] May not work well for 2 reasons a) those images are now jpegs and jpegs are no where near as good as RAW, so unless you processed jpegs in the first place....... b) the forum software may compress the files when uploaded, so they once again may have been degraded. The forum software must somehow be able to extract metadata from 1 file of the set. I was just curious about this, hence my asking. I think, if I am correct in thinking the top shot of the 5 was the 0 exposure, then it is a little underexposed. You really do need to get you base exposure correct to get the exposure coverage of highlights and shadows to give you the "best" HDR. It can be extremely difficult to get good coverage of exposure in all ares of your image. It is one area I struggle with especially with water shots :D [/QUOTE]

Verification