Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

I took a picture yesterday, an ordinary picture, because white clouds contrasted against a good blue sky, caught my eye.
No big speech! Just compare, and decide if it's time *you* upgraded your picture taking skills, by using the RAW mode of your camera, and of course, using Qimage Ultimate to develop your raw shots easily and automatically.
... and you know, if you need help learning technique, loads of help right here.
Fred

Raining cats and dogs here in UK, well that's what my American Davis AWS reports :)

If it fines up will do a similar test.

Jeff

Good morning, Jeff.
Do I have to ask Terry what is an American Davis AWS?

Fred  :'( :'(

I will try again, having trouble with browser/keyboard to day doing this is text editor and cut and paste. :'(

I put that in for the English members.

AWS is automatic weather station manufactured in the USA by Davis.  It is very whimsical, when it rains heavy it reports 'cats and dogs' strong wind results in 'hold on to your hat'

I have Just posted a feature request - have another laugh on me. :)

Jeff

Is this software or hardware?

What happened to your "grumpy" icon picture?
Fred

Hope grumpy is now back, funny things happening today, I never touched it - honest :)

The AWS is hardware and stands in the middle of a field, radio connected to the console in the living room.  

There should have been an image here :)  I try again

(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p78327137.jpg)


Jeff

I assume the top image is the JPEG straight from the camera and the bottom image is the RAW/Processed image?  One might assume that the image with "(0001)" in the filename is the processed image, and if that's the case, I would say that the bottom image is much better as far as the sky/clouds go.

Sorry if the file name is confusing.
It was accidental.
Qimage created a JPG from the RAW in order to post it here. The second JPG was extracted from the camera and Qimage named that too. Then that was recreated when it was downsized, so Qimage made a file name addition to make sure you had all three JPGS.

The one with the clouds is right out of the (camera) and the default processing of Qimage. No additional tweaking.

Fred

Fred,

Sorry, but now I'm in a muddle.

_MG_9411(0001).jpg

_MG_9411.jpg

Which of the above has been developed by Qimage from raw?

Thanks,

Vlady

9411.jpg is the email size made from the Raw.
9411(0001).jpg is the original JPG shot as jpg

Great!  That makes sense.

Thanks

Neither one has been tweaked or fixed up.

Here is my little non scientific test

1st camera jpeg
2nd Ultimate conversion - no adjustments
3rd  Ultimate - with human adjustment
4th HDR - Photomatix default and adjusted in Elements

Comments - Ultimate without adjustment gave a blown cloud, camera jpeg avoided that.  Ultimate with adjustment (exposure on top right blown area and 9 on the fill) gave better result than the camera jpeg

HDR chucked in for good measure, I don't like the 'greens' and don't know how to correct it with the Sel.!!

Jeff



 
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v11/p728812043-4.jpg)
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v13/p892150015-4.jpg)
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p987665216-4.jpg)
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p538054532-4.jpg)

Jeff,
Just tick the grid box where the blown cloud resides, and QU will reset the exposure knowing that you want the cloud marked as the main interest.
Fred

Hi Jeff,
I have tried HDR with various software on a number of occasions and have found it does tend the distort colours not really do any better that QU for dynamic range when you expose correctly to retain the highlights. QU Fill does a great job but you first do as Fred said and click on the appropriate rectangle to "recover" the highlights.
I think most HDR software includes tone mapping which you can apply on any image without combining several. This produces a certain "look", often with colour distortion and noise when over-done. It's sort of interesting to play with but not exactly creative pushing a few sliders about  ::)
Terry.

Jeff,
It just occurred to me that a similar but far more radical condition exists in one of the sample images at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/raw.htm
If you look at the original on the left and decide that the clouds have to be retained, the a grid square is selected in Qimage Ultimate REFINE that will lock the clouds.
Then some fill light to taste, and all is well.

Fred

3rd image - just that

Jeff

I mostly shoot HDR for night shots, had such a shoot last Friday night and it was a disaster, all grossly under exposed and useless, so whilst I was doing the 'test' I through in the HDR. at least the exposure range was correct.  What went wrong on Friday I cannot think.  I got some quite good snow shots in HDR winter before last,  I will sort one out and post later.

Jeff     

Jeff,
Sorry I missed the text where you described the third shot as being Qimage Ultimate with the correct grid square ticked.
I was scrolling with my mouse wheel, and somehow was counting the snow picture as number one ... and so on.
IMHO, the Qimage Ultimate conversion is the most natural, and the best of all.

I would go back into Qimage Ultimate for 30 seconds, and straighten the horizon, and you have a winner!

Fred

Jeff,

I'm starting to get curious about what some people are calling HDR.  Your sample below for instance, doesn't really need HDR as evidenced by the Qimage raw sample being able to capture the same range in a single raw file.  Not that you did anything wrong... I'm just wondering how many people use HDR when they don't need it.  To me, raw files are already HDR.  They capture (at a minimum) four thousand times the number of colors than you can display on your monitor or in print, so in a case like this one below, you can easily just meter for the sky and then use Qimage's fill light to push the shades on the ground.  That alone (with one shot) gives you "HDR" without needing true HDR.  To me, the only time you need true HDR (multi-shot) is when you are trying to combine things that normally aren't combined like a night scene with a daytime scene, maybe a long (30 second) exposure of sky overlayed with people around a campfire, or perhaps the inside of a darkened room with the sunlit landscape outside in the background.  For things like that, I can see the benefit of HDR but some of the examples I've seen do make me think that perhaps a lot of people are using HDR for things like just being able to get cloud detail in a landscape: something that can be done easily with just one raw file by just metering for the sky.

Other than knowing the technical details behind HDR, I don't have much experience with it as I haven't found much real need for it.  So educate me if you will.   ;)  Anyone have any good examples of stuff you've shot that really required HDR (in the multi-shot sense)?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike,
Outback Photo seem to have some good stuff on this, I did a search with "HDR" on their site and got a lot of stuff:-
http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/index.html
It does seem that tone Mapping is an essential part of HDR.

Jeff, your bright green grass is also covered in one of the articles.
http://tinyurl.com/y9esp2j

Terry

Further to previous post.

I should have said that yesterday I tried the same comparison with some winter snow scenes and Ultimate working on a single raws came out best on every one.

Jeff

 

Jeff,

Thanks.  These are great samples!  To be honest, on the railway station I think the QU processed (one raw) is a clear winner over the HDR.  Maybe that's a bad example?  The HDR of that railway station just looks a bit "odd": almost like a painting.  The transition between shadows and midtones seems too abrupt in the HDR.  The QU processed single raw looks more natural and less "painterly".  Now on the Colmar station (first example) I see pros and cons but because of the sky, I'd say the HDR looks better.  On that one though, how did you process it in Qimage?  Did you click to meter the brightest part inside the building and then use fill light to get the sky back?  I probably would have picked a shot that showed the detail of the bright inside of the building just starting to blow out and metered for that bright spot and used maybe +15 or +16 fill.  I've found a fill of +15 or +16 to be the maximum you can use without adversely affecting saturation.  I just wonder if you processed it that way.

Mike

Hi Jeff,
I would not want to argue with your wife  :o
but I would think some more raw fill on the QU version would bring the 2 much closer - I've just tried it on the little jpegs posted.
Also, I suspect that most of the effect of the "HDR" images is due to the tone mapping rather than the combination.
How about, trying more raw Fill, converting to tiff and then just tone mapping, I think you can do that with Photomatrix.
Terry

Mike and Terry

I will have another go at the Ultimate's  and see if I can improve them, having looked again at them above in this thread I think the Colmar is a bit HDR ish.  We have guests coming for lunch so will have to be quick before I am called to do the tates. :)

Jeff

Hello

 - back again!

Reworked the images again, and I must admit I think there is an improvement.

I think the conclusion is going to be that Ultimate is a definite winner, also in term of processing time which is much less than fiddling with 5 shot hdr,s and all the subsequent adjustments.  I know you are all going to say I told you so.

In future with this type of shot I think I will try 3 shot bracketing, that will allow all options.

Thanks to all for the assistance, This is a great forum.

Here follows three reworks. Posted at larger size.

Colmar.  Meter on center or bottom center same exp (no difference) to get full sky detail required fill of 18 to 20 which blows rest of image, fill of 15 give sky just starting to appear.   WB +15 kills the excess warmth (shot on auto WM)   Ultimate /Edit - USM 3/300 all except sky slider to right.  Shadow noise on.  No other edits
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v14/p919437719-5.jpg)

Meiringen.   Selected less exposed image.  Meter on center, Fill 16  WB+10  Ultimate Edit USM3/300 all except sky.  Shadow noise on. No other edits
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v15/p564814905-5.jpg)

Meringen 2  Noise filtered again with 'Noiseware' to get rid of last bit of noise in sky.  difference may not show at these web sized images
(http://JeffMilan.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v18/p697322866-5.jpg)

Must now go and get the tates done :)

Jeff   -    Getting a little less grumpy, in fact I am quite pleased with myself.

Thanks Jeff.  That's what I wanted to see: the best job you could do with Qimage Ultimate on a single raw.  Does look like you were able to match or beat the HDR versions with QU, but that's not to say there isn't a place for HDR.  My purpose in asking the questions here and having you do the best you could with a single raw was to try to find out if a single raw could do the job of what many people are doing with multiple images in an HDR setup.  Of course, there will be some situations where the high dynamic range of a single raw still isn't enough and you may need multiple shots even though you didn't in the two samples you posted.

I think your idea of bracketing 3 raw shots is a good one!  That way, if you can't get the range of a single raw, you should still have enough ground covered if you actually need to go the HDR route.

Mike

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for sharing your progress  :)
This thread is getting interesting!
Perhaps we need some more of Mike's magic, eg. TT NR, or whatever is appropriate.  8)
Terry

Already have it!   ;D  Seriously, just use tone targeting, select the sky, and then use something like radius 4, strength -100.  Noise reduction is nothing more than softening/blurring so this should work really well in this shot since the sky is a unique color and you don't have anything in that sky that you need to remain sharp (like high contrast edges).  This actually may work better than Noiseware because it'll only noise filter the sky and will leave the rest of the photo alone.

So yes, Qimage Ultimate already has tone targeted noise filtering.

Mike

Number four is not the same shot as the other three.  The clouds have moved.

Hi Fred-

You cannot get what you don't have.  Only a bracket and HDR or merge will recover a bright sky behind an overcast foreground.  Of course you could burn in, but it would be unnatural.

You have hit the nail on the head.  That is the biggest gripe about over processed HDR.  They get surreal.  Kind of like "super real" paintings.  This is where less is more!

Hi Seth,
I couldn't agree more but it does seem to be the latest fashion. It has annoyed me that such images have been praised by competition judges who don't seem to recognise distorted colours, tones and introduced noise.
The worse examples of "HDR" seems to be the result over-done post combination tone mapping. Some of the examples on Outback Photo appear overdone to me.
Terry

It was a windy day, and the 'simple' raw was shot before the hdr set.

I do wish I had not included it, I only succeeded in clouding :) the issue. 

But then again it led me to all that follows and that was most instructive and forced me to think a little deeper.

Jeff

Technically, raw by itself is not even a photo.  It needs to be processed but you can process a raw in such a way that you get HDR imaging... from a single raw file.  Multiple separate exposures are not a requirement of HDR.  HDR simply refers to any technique that can give you a higher dynamic range than you would get from "standard" processing methods.  By metering for the brightest part of the scene and using judicious fill, you are creating HDR simply by doing that!  In reality, anything you do to a photo to "compress" it's dynamic range so that a higher dynamic range can be viewed than would normally be possible (on the given monitor/printer) is HDR.

Mike

Mike- Can we do that now with QIU?

If so, would someone give us the steps? Have always loved the beauty of various HDR photos; however, I have never attempted. I do not own software that would create that effect...unless you are saying QIU can do this now.

Yes.  All you have to do to create an HDR image out of a raw file in Qimage is to open the raw refine tool on a raw and move the fill light slider to the right.  Example: meter your shot for the sky/clouds on a daylight shot and the sky will likely look great but the landscape (ground) will be too dark.  Use fill (typically +10 to +16) to compress the dynamic range and bring the ground back into proper exposure.  Voila: instant HDR.

Now... as previously pointed out, a lot depends on the scene, the camera, and other factors.  You may notice some noise in the dark areas that got recovered with the fill light.  You may find that the raw didn't quite capture enough dynamic range to do it in one shot.  And so on.  That's why I think if you are headed down the path of HDR, Jeff's idea to bracket each shot is a good one.  Bracket it so you CAN do multi-exposure HDR if you need it, but try it first by seeing how much range you can get out of a single raw.  That way you can only go the multi-shot route if you need it.  If not, you save yourself a lot of time and your shot may look better with the single raw due to the limitations of meshing multiple shots together.

Mike

Thank you very much! Will try it soon on some shots I have already taken that may fit your description. Will get me to explore the other settings/tools within QIU.

Then I will take some new shots and "go to school".

Thank you again Mike!

Sure, RAW is not a photo--neither is a JPEG. It's a binary file.  You couldn't get HDR from film with standard processing either.  Either under expose/over develop or vice versa.  Or contrast masking and sandwiching.  You can tone map a RAW to get more dynamic range; that's a given.  

Still, you cannot put back what is not there!  An extremely high contrast RAW will not have all the values you need.  Sensors have EV range limits also.  In order to get a bright cloudy sky over a dark, backlit subject you need at least two images.  (RAW has a wider range than JPG, so you can get by with fewer.)

All sensors have saturation points.  You still cannot get what you missed.  (That's one reason pros use fill flash.)

Seth, you just repeated everything I just said.  But I think you are trying to place requirements on HDR that do not exist.  There are a number of methods of achieving HDR and taking multiple shots is not a requirement.  Some people do it that way but it is not always necessary: and the point of my post here, not as necessary as some people believe.  You could take several JPEG's and run a contrast reduction on them to create an HDR image.  When you do that, you are simply taking the dynamic range that exceeds that of a "standard" photo (one designed to be displayed on your monitor/printer) and compressing it so that it now fits into the smaller space of your monitor/printer.   Now a raw image has several stops more range than a JPEG to begin with so I could do the same thing with one raw and get the same results.


The dynamic range of the sensor is irrelevant.  And you are dead wrong that you can't expose for sky and still get good detail in the backlit landscape from one raw.  I do it all the time, and so do many others.  Here's a quick example first with standard processing and then with HDR done simply by using the fill light in Qimage's raw refine.  This is from a single raw, all processing done in Qimage Ultimate:

(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/hdr-before.jpg)
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/hdr-after.jpg)

The first shot is "standard processing".  That is: it maps dynamic range without compressing it.  The second one, even though it came from the same raw file, is now HDR because you are allowing the observer to view far greater dynamic range from the lightest to darkest areas of the image than the linear (technically gamma mapped) image.  As long as you end up with a photo that allows you to view subjects with a much broader dynamic range than you would get from the standard luminance curve, you have HDR.

It really doesn't matter how you got there!  Think about it this way.  You have a point and shoot that doesn't even offer raw and I have a Canon 5D Mark II.  You take five JPEG shots on your point and shoot and you end up with a decent landscape/sky shot that you call HDR because you merged multiple photos and "crunched" the dynamic range.  Now I take one photo from the 5D MKII and get the same shot with even better quality due to the sensor and the fact I used raw.  So you can call your 5 JPEG's HDR because they are multiple shots but I'm not allowed to call my (better) photo HDR?  Another example... you have a smaller dSLR with a small sensor and I have a full frame dSLR.  It takes you three raws on your "cheaper" dSLR to match the dynamic range of my one shot.  If you put your three raws together and I just do tone mapping (fill) on my one raw and the results are the same, yours from the cheap dSLR is HDR but mine isn't?  Doesn't make sense.  It simply makes no difference how you get there.  If you are able to produce a photo with significantly enhanced dynamic range from that of "normal" processing (meaning a non-modified tone curve), then you have HDR by definition.

Mike

Mike, Is there anyway with current QIU that I could keep the clouds and sky you captured in the 1st photo, in the second HDR photo? The combination of the two would be..well, Dynamic!

Just asking as I learn. Very interesting discussions.

It'd probably look a bit "odd" keeping the sky and clouds from the first shot.  Might look cool though.  The short answer is no: the current fill in Qimage was designed to remap everything so that it remains "connected".  Obviously the data is there to do it though because both renditions came from the same raw file, so with the right tone mapping it can certainly be done.  Hey maybe that'll be the next big thing in Qimage Ultimate: tone targeted contrast mapping.   ;D

Mike

You read my mind!

Trying to not be presumptious... but when this discussion started some time ago by others, I felt that more "accurate color" editing (like your tone sharpening) would be on it's way. A little less LR .. a little more QIU!

Now we can all act like kids, waiting for Christmas morning.

Thanks!

Oh, yes please!  8)
There are many occasions when I attempt to change the contrast in areas of an image with a curve, like a cloudy sky but in darker areas too. TT CM would not only make it easier but would, I think, do things that are impossible with a curve.
Terry

That would be really cool.

Mike

I have to respectfully disagree!!  No it is not always necessary, I agree here.  "Adjusting" your first image got your foreground at the expense of the clouds.  Two images (minimum) at 2-3 EV spread might have captured both.  Photomatrix or CS5 or Picturenaut would give you all.  Running gamma on the mid and shadows had to leave noise and a lesser rendition of all the greens in that landscape--they are compressed already.  Denoising is still "de-sharpening" to some degree. And, you lost the sky to get the foreground(?!?!)

.
   Oh, no. Not the point-and-shoot.  Their sensors cannot capture what the larger sensor can.   That's another story.   

And, how can you say sensor range is irrelevant?  That is like comparing the latitude of chrome film to the latitude of color neg.  It is a matter of physics.

Ahhhhhhh!  You mean tone mapping like the HDR software does.  ??? ::)

Surely you can see how that too is irrelevant!  The clouds only changed due to the curve I applied.  Obviously the full range of the clouds is there and the foreground too because they came from the same shot.  You could do the same thing with no change whatsoever to the clouds with just a different tone curve.  The two images are proof that the full detail exists for both clouds and foreground.


It is relevant only to the magnitude of the HDR but not relevant to whether or not you can do HDR at all on a single raw.  What I meant was that sensor range is not relevant in our discussion because ALL sensors have an EV range that far exceeds that capable of being reproduced on a monitor or printer.  Therefore HDR is possible regardless of the sensor.  Even cheap cameras that offer raw have at least twice the dynamic range of a monitor/printer.

Mike

Just to illustrate, like this for example.  I did this with a 10 minute mod to Qimage's fill light:

Original shot:
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/hdr-before.jpg)

The two HDR'd shots, one normal fill and one with a different tone curve to preserve sky/cloud detail:
(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/hdr-after.jpg)(http://www.ddisoftware.com/testpics/hdr-after2.jpg)

I still think the one that preserves full cloud detail looks a little surreal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  It's less choppy/surreal than many of the multi-shot HDR samples I've seen!

Mike

Hmmmm.  Now keep in mind I am at a disadvantage since my second image is Mike's already "worked" JPEG.  (Each took only 3-4 minutes).  BTW- These are worked in Adobe RGB so look a little less in sRGB here.
Your original worked:
(http://www.msrphoto.com/QImage/hdr-after.jpg)
PS CS5 on just this using ACR Recovery and some Sat.  The cloud info is still there:
(http://www.msrphoto.com/QImage/hdr-after_PS_recovery_sat.jpg)
PS CS5 HDR Pro using your two JPGs:
(http://www.msrphoto.com/QImage/PM_HDR.jpg)
Photomatix HDR.  Yes, looks surreal, but would be better with two RAW files:
(http://www.msrphoto.com/QImage/HDR1.jpg)
Photomatix Fusion setting.  Your two JPEGs.  Looks natural, saves both areas.
(http://www.msrphoto.com/QImage/HDR_fusion.jpg)

As I said, if I took the 10 minutes, they would be better.  Of course, a polarizer might have solved much of this from the get-go. 

YMMV.  ::)

BTW, I don't want to give the impression that I "invented" something here by doing HDR with a single raw file.  It's being done all over the world.  Many sites have tutorials on how to do it.  Here are just a few:

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/tutorials/raw-hdr-processing.html
http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/#singleraw
http://www.flickr.com/groups/raw2hdr/
http://mk87.deviantart.com/art/Single-RAW-HDR-Tutorial-128094667
http://tutorvid.com/photoshop-tutorial/creating-an-hdr-image-from-a-single-raw-file/

If you want more, just Google single raw HDR.

Mike

These are the only two I looked at but, EXACTLY what I said/did.  Use multiple variants of the same RAW!  (In the above case I had to use your JPEGs.)  My point exactly. ::) ::) ;) ;D  I have been doing that for years.

It is what I was explaining to folks.  However, that is NOT was proposed.  Thanks for backing me up.

 ;D  LOL.  Nice try with the backpedaling.  Might work for those who don't take time to read the entire thread but here is a quote from you in post 33:


And more from your post 41:

So, your position is exactly what again?   :P

Also, nice to note that Qimage can do HDR in one pass rather than having to use "variants".  You've proved my point quite well.  With the right software you can do HDR with a SINGLE raw photo.  Some programs might force you to make multiple copies from the same raw to get different exposures but obviously if the data is there and the software works properly, the software ought to be able to do that for you, in one pass, without the unnecessary "splitting".

Mike

 :)
I see your point Mike and even with my new Studio upgrade I can appreciate what can be done with a RAW file.  However, although you can do something HDRish with a single image there remain scenes with a dynamic range that exceeds the sensor range (which let's face it is only 8 or 9 stops at most. Unless you're disgustingly wealthy and own a medium format digital back).  The whole point of HDR is that it will take a range of values that are H(igher) than the Dynamic Range of the camera sensor and produce an image with a dynamic range that can be displayed on 'normal' devices (printers/monitors/iPhones etc) and that can only be done with multiple exposures.  Sensor range is relevant for true HDR - otherwise they'd have called it something else.  ;)
That is what it is, regardless of how it is used or abused. A single image HDR is not strictly HDR as the dynamic range of the image is within that of the camera sensor (assuming you've exposed correctly and the dynamic range of the scene is within that of the sensor etc).  Splitting hairs; what you will end up with is an image processed with  the appropriate software for an HDR effect.
What you have produced is something that takes the available range of the sensor (ADR - available dynamic range?) and seems to adjusts very nicely thank you very much for the extremes in that range - not HDR though by definition.  I would agree totally that for the majority of cases you possibly wouldn't 'need' HDR to produce a realistic image, especially with Qimage, but for a lot of images, even those within dynamic range, reality often isn't what you're aiming for.


Paul.

The dynamic range of the camera sensor is fixed. However, considering a 3 image hdr, the 'normal shot' will not have as many photons into the darker areas, compared to the image that is overexposed. The 'normal shot' also allows too many photons into the bright areas compared to the underexposed image. Combining the three images, which usually requires specific software and user skills allows the detail in the distribution to be optimised (or not  ;)). By manipulating a single normal image you can not get the subtle changes that can be obtained by manipulating three - it is sort of like using a wide angle lens for a single image compared to stitching a number of images using a 'normal' lens to increase detail, but for colour instead.

In many instances, you can get away with a single image, in particular if your camera raw is 12/14bit or more and you work in a 16bit or greater colour space, and output in 8bit, but you can never reliably generate information that is not there in the first place, and you are likely to get banding and noise. The specialist software, such as photomatix, even working on 8bit low res jpegs can produce better results than may be obtained with raw processing of a single image, as Seth's examples have shown. However, it all depends, as in most things, on finances, skill and how easily folk are satisfied, I guess.

Best wishes,

Ray   

Sorry.  You are right that it is relevant but wrong that true HDR means an image that exceeds the sensor DR.  Look it up in Wiki:

"a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods"

Key words here: "standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods".  I would not call single raw HDR tone mapping a "standard digital imaging technique".  In any case, even IF your definition of a "standard technique" is different than mine, you will not find a requirement anywhere that states that the definition of HDR is that it must exceed the dynamic range of the sensor!  That is simply not true.  HDR is nothing more than dynamic range compression that is done in such a way that it exceeds the dynamic range of the output device (monitor/printer), not the sensor.  Why?  Because HDR is about exceeding limits and as long as you exceed the limits of the weakest link in the chain, you have an HDR photo.  A good photographic print has a DR of maybe 100:1.  Your monitor: maybe twice that.  Your camera sensor: 2 to 4 times the DR of the monitor.  The very reason we need HDR to begin with is due to the limitations of our output devices and the need to display more range than they can.

Now I've never argued that you can do any and all HDR work in a single raw and that multiple raws will never be a benefit.  Quite the contrary.  I gave examples of where the dynamic range may exceed even that of the sensor (raw file).  What I started out saying in this thread is that many times people use multiple raws when in fact a single raw will do as good or better.  I think Jeff's examples are good proof of that.  And yes, it's fairly easy to come up with an example where multiple raws would do better than a single one.  But that doesn't mean you can't get true HDR from a single raw.  You certainly can!

Mike

I often try to do this myself, with less than satisfactory results.  TTCM would indeed be a great feature.

Thanks, Mike.  This is a point which needs to be made more often...perhaps replacing "HDR" with "post-processing."  If more people were aware of this, we might see fewer overprocessed photos, and fewer people shooting with in-camera processing cranked up to 9.  For example, on another forum, I once saw someone say that he shot EVERYTHING with his camera set on "Vivid" (whatever that means).

My initial photographic experience back in the last century took place at a company which published several magazines.  Being able to see the original chromes compared to what came out of the back end of a 4-color, high-speed web press was an education in itself.  There were times when we saved ourselves much grief by never showing the client anything but a proof.  Seeing the original chrome would have created some unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps we'd also see fewer underprocessed photos, since this works both ways.  Browse some photo forums and it won't be long until you find a comment similar to this: "I do no/very little/hardly any post-processing.  My goal is to reproduce the scene as I saw it."  [Quoted from memory.]

Really?  Your camera sensor captures the scene "as you saw it," without any limitations?  All colors correctly rendered?  All edges properly delineated?  All details captured just as sharp as you saw them?  And both your monitor and printer also reproduce the scene just as you saw it?

Mike and many other people have written intelligently on this subject, but I repeat: Mike's point above that I've quoted needs to be made on a regular basis.