Not with the HDR function in Photoshop. It won’t allow it. Adobe says you don’t have real seperate exposed images. They justify this by telling us that while the human may not be able to see all of the data in the raw file the computer and software can. So by creating say three seperate exposures from the same Raw file you are just enabling the human to see the differences, the software already saw it all and the data in the three images your created from the one RAW is the same.
I don’t know if this is true or not. There are third party options that will allow you to do what you want. They are also as far as I am concerned more stable. Photomatix is one of them.
http://www.hdrsoft.com. Robert
Jody.
Open your image in ACR and adjust the Exposure and Shadow sliders so that the highlight areas are right. ie: nice and bright but without blown highlights. Don’t worry about detail in the shadows. Click "Open".
With the image now open in Photoshop, go FILE>PLACE and navigate to the very same file.
This will open in ACR again. This time adjust the sliders so that the Shadow areas are right. ie: good and punchy but with plenty of detail in the darkest shadow areas. Don’t worry about the highlights. Click "Open"
This new version of the image will now be "placed" as a new layer in the already open Photoshop document. Press Enter to get rid of the bounding box.
Now add a layer mask. Paint on the mask with a soft brush at 50% opacity to gradually reveal the correctly exposed highlight areas from the underlying layer.
This is a great technique for taking advantage of the exposure latitude in a RAW file to extent the dynamic range of an image.
Hope this is what you were looking for.
Chris.
Robert,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I guess I understand their logic…darn. Jody
Thanks Chris. That sounds like a good solution. I took a good photo of the temple at Tulum, MX that isn’t quite exposed correctly and it’s driving me crazy!
Jody
Not even close to an HDR image.
Robert
wrote in message
Jody.
Open your image in ACR and adjust the Exposure and Shadow sliders so that the highlight areas are right. ie: nice and bright but without blown highlights. Don’t worry about detail in the shadows. Click "Open".
Well, I understand it but I don’t agree with it. The other program I mentioned allows you to do it. Sure it isn’t a real true HDR image, but still Adobe should allow the user to do what they want and no force their own ideas on to people.
I just use the other program myself. Not that I do HDR’s a lot as I don’t really like the way they look. They look more like paintings than pictures. Real pictures don’t have every single area perfectly exposed even the best photographer can’t pull that off. So we are used to seeing some area lighter and some areas darker and some areas right on. Seeing all areas perfectly exposed makes out minds think painting.
Robert
Robert,
THAT is exactly why you should be working in HDR with Photoshop. You can then turn the picture into exactly what YOU want it to look like with a lot of options being open.
Not even close to an HDR image
The term HDR has, it seems, become the generic term for Those Pictures you are referring to Robert. They will be/have been done to death and the novelty has worn off.
In real terms HDR simply means High(er) Dynamic Range, which is exactly what Jody’s original question was about. That is: allowing the extended range of tones available within a single RAW file to be represented in the final Photoshopped image.
there is, of course, nothing new in this, as I know only too well, having spent a fair chunk of my life waving bits of odd shaped cardboard under the enlarger lens to eek out every ounce of detail from a negative.
Ah! Those were the days.
I do miss them
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
NOT!
Chris, i dont quite follow your technique there. usually i work on several versions of one file to get the result i want, but i usually duplicate the first opened image to allow the same file to open for the next adjustment. your file-place thing does not seem to make life any easier than the duplicate technique i use. am i missing something here, or are we talking different purposes?
One of the nice things about the "Place" command is that it allows you to quickly open the same RAW file more than once each with different tonal adjustments. And no need to make duplicates. You are also guaranteed perfect alignment of the layers.
If you make the first adjustments for as near normal values as possible, but (for instance) lacking in shadow detail. Then you open the same file via the "Place" dialogue and readjust the settings to provide the detail required in the shadow areas.
Now. Instead of just clicking "Open" you can hold the Alt key down to "Open a Copy". This will "place" the new version in your open document without altering the original settings in the RAW image’s sidecar file. Thus you still have a correct looking thumbnail when viewed in Bridge.
Is this a cs2 only feature,because i cant get it to do what you suggest?
HDR in Photoshop means a 32 bit per channel image. Ofcourse you cant extrapolate 32 bit information from a 16 bit image, just as you can’t extrapolate 16 bits of info from an 8 bit image.
So lets not kid ourselves when we are talking about HDR and Photoshop in the same sentence, please.
If you want to extend the visible dynamic range of a single capture, this is entirely possible, just dont call it HDR or all the peeps will get confused.
I have written up one way to do it with Shadow / Highlights here: <
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.1de5f905.3bbf8 b64>
Mathias
True if you enjoy doing everything manually. If you want something more automatic the PhotoMatix is a good way to do just what the OP asked about and why Adobe should also allow it.
Nothing can replace Photoshop, but it is a bit weak in a few areas. Some of which I am delighted to see will be strengthened in CS3 (way to go Adobe).
Robert
I have to disagree. Higher dynamic range is part of it but to get there you need 32-bits of data. Cutting and pasting or masking or whatever parts from several different images doesn’t give you that. In fact in the looks department it doesn’t even come close. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on who you are that is a good or bad thing. I don’t like the painting look of HDR images so that cutting and pasting is exactly how I go about it. That is before PhotoMatix which allows for a much quicker less painting way of doing it.
In the end I guess it really doesn’t matter as long as you get the end result you want. Photoshop’s HDR won’t let you do it from one RAW file. PhotoMatix will. But, strictly as HDR your method is not HDR. Otherwise every time someone masked off an area of an image and applied levels to it that would make it an HDR image as well.
Robert
The Shadow / Highlight tutorial is longwinded, sure. But its so easy to do what I describe in my last paragraph above, its almost ridiculous. And IMHO a much better approach than Photomatix.
Higher dynamic range is part of it but to get there you need 32-bits of data
? I thought you were arguing that one could use a single image in Photomatix and get a HDR image, but maybe I misunderstood you.
PhotoMatix which allows for a much quicker less painting way of doing it.
Check out the HDR pool <
http://www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/> on flickr… 90% of those are made with Photomatix. Those are the painterly HDR stuff (usually attempted with a single image), not what comes from Photoshop. I personally think most of that is pure junk, and excellent examples of how not to do it.
Is this a cs2 only feature,because i cant get it to do what you suggest?
Yes Donald. Prior to CS2 the "Place" dialogue could not parse RAW files.
Thanks Chris, i look forward to getting cs3 when it comes out.
If ACR can read all of the dynamic range from a RAW file, It can translate that into a format and color space that Photoshop can handle. For example, ProPhotoRGB color space in a 16 bit file should show all the dynamic range available in a RAW file.
When you do that, you get everything that is there. Of course, you can expand or shrink that range in Photoshop, just like you do regular editing.
As others have pointed out, this is NOT HDR. The whole point of HDR is to capture the full dynamic range of a scene that CAN NOT BE CAPTURED IN ONE EXPOSURE OF YOUR CAMERA! Because it can’t be captured in one RAW (or any other) shot from your camera, you have to capture more than one exposure.
This explains the "high" in HDR. The dynamic range is higher than regular. Regular dynamic range is exactly what your camera can capture in one shot. High Dynamic Range means a dynamic range greater than what you can capture in one exposure.
The 32 bit file, that is the result of making the HDR picture, is needed because you need that much space to define all the colors and shades. A 16 bit file cannot define all the colors and shades in that much dynamic range.
Keep in mind that an HDR file is pretty useless. You can’t see all those colors and shades. You also don’t have any hardware that can show it. Your monitor probably can’t show all the colors in a 16 bit picture. Your monitor is probably closer to the abilities of an 8 bit picture. Your printer certainly can’t handle 32 bits of colors either. The CMYK that your publisher uses can’t handle your 8 bit AdobeRGB pictures.
The reason that you do the Tone Mapping after making the HDR picture is to squeeze that 32 bit high dynamic range picture down to the 16 or 8 bit range to be workable for monitors, printers, publishers, etc.
Keep in mind that Tone Mapping can distort colors and shades. It is very hard to get really accurate colors and shading from HDR. If this is important to you, only use HDR as a last resort.
Therefore… regular dynamic range is the maximum of what your camera can capture in one exposure. If you don’t expose to capture the whole scene, it’s still regular dynamic range. Any regular dynamic range picture can be fully edited by Photoshop without using HDR and Tone Mapping.
Using HDR and Tone Mapping on a single exposure is not HDR. It is also not necessary. It could be distorting to the colors and shades – which you may or may not want.
If you have only one exposure, don’t use HDR. Stick to regular Photoshop editing; you’ll get better pictures.
Too much HDR experience,
Clyde
