Increased dynamic range from one RAW image

[jsmason]

I have seen techniques for improving dynamic range by combining two shots with different exposures, but I have a slight variation of that technique that uses one RAW file. People may know of this, but I have not seen it discussed anywhere. I took a photo of a church in Jim Thorpe, PA using RAW format. It had a good histogram but the neither the sky nor the building had enough detail for me. I ended up creating two PSD files from the one raw file, one for the sky and one for the building. Once I had the two PSD files I stacked them and used the traditional method to create the finished shot. Here is the finished version.

http://jsmason.smugmug.com/photos/19259585-L.jpg

You can see the two versions of the single RAW file at the following smugmug gallery.

http://jsmason.smugmug.com/gallery/474246/1/19259585

Stan

[Shay Stephens]

Nice work, it looks totally natural!

[Phil U.]

That is a very effective technique. Nice work here. I've seen Andy discuss this before and am surprised by the results. I haven't yet upgraded to a camera that supports RAW so I have to do the same thing with taking multiple exposures in camera. Would be nice to be able to just do it in post - especially since you can use the stacking without having to use a tripod.

[Andy]

Nice work, it looks totally natural!

:agree :nod :nod

[wxwax]

Nice result, Stan. :nod I use this technique all the time, I'm forever making multiple exposures of a single RAW, then layering and masking in PS. Thanks for posting this, hopefully other folks who shoot in RAW can take advantage of it.

[DavidTO]

Nice result, Stan. :nod I use this technique all the time, I'm forever making multiple exposures of a single RAW, then layering and masking in PS. Thanks for posting this, hopefully other folks who shoot in RAW can take advantage of it.
You know what I would LOVE?

A RAW processor that would create one file with the two exposures on two layers. Wow, that would be heaven. I hate chasing those files around and keeping track of them.

[DoctorIt]

You know what I would LOVE?

A RAW processor that would create one file with the two exposures on two layers. Wow, that would be heaven. I hate chasing those files around and keeping track of them.that would be cool, instead of OK, if the RAW converter had a "ADD LAYER" button, you could work quickly.
:nod

[pathfinder]

You know what I would LOVE?

A RAW processor that would create one file with the two exposures on two layers. Wow, that would be heaven. I hate chasing those files around and keeping track of them.
Dave - that's a great idea - why hasn't Adobe already done this - it can't be that hard to do in software - You can record actions to work in Photoshop, but I have not seen any suggestion of recordable actions for ARC - What a cool idea!! Anybody know Thomas Knoll at Adobe??

[wxwax]

You know what I would LOVE?

A RAW processor that would create one file with the two exposures on two layers. Wow, that would be heaven. I hate chasing those files around and keeping track of them.
:nod I hate those meeses to pieces! I agree, and a great suggestion.

[Daniel Chui]

Hey there!

Good job on the blending! Unfortunately, there were some blown highlights that couldn't be recovered... in the future my suggestion is this, if you are going to expose from one RAW.

A) Expose for the sky
B) If you do have blown highlights, one thing you can do is add a very slight "Diffuse Glow". You'll notice that in digital, blown out highlights often show clipping, as in very sharp edges around the blown out info. A glow makes it appear more film-like, less clipped; but just make sure you use layer masks and only use it a little bit.

- Chui

www.chewyphoto.com (http://www.chewyphoto.com)

[Ric Grupe]

Nice result, Stan. :nod I use this technique all the time, I'm forever making multiple exposures of a single RAW, then layering and masking in PS. Thanks for posting this, hopefully other folks who shoot in RAW can take advantage of it.
...works with JPEG's too.

[John Mueller]

I have yet to have decent results with these methods:cry
To the point where I dont even bother anymore.
Wonderful work you have done:thumb

[wxwax]

B) If you do have blown highlights, one thing you can do is add a very slight "Diffuse Glow". You'll notice that in digital, blown out highlights often show clipping, as in very sharp edges around the blown out info. A glow makes it appear more film-like, less clipped; but just make sure you use layer masks and only use it a little bit.



Hey, I'll have to try that, thanks.

Not that I ever have blown highlights, of course. Ahem.

[jsmason]

That is a very effective technique. Nice work here. I've seen Andy discuss this before and am surprised by the results. I haven't yet upgraded to a camera that supports RAW so I have to do the same thing with taking multiple exposures in camera. Would be nice to be able to just do it in post - especially since you can use the stacking without having to use a tripod.
I agree that one of the nicest aspects is not necessarily needing to carry a tripod. - Stan

[jsmason]

that would be cool, instead of OK, if the RAW converter had a "ADD LAYER" button, you could work quickly.
:nod
What a great idea!

[jsmason]

Hey there!

Good job on the blending! Unfortunately, there were some blown highlights that couldn't be recovered... in the future my suggestion is this, if you are going to expose from one RAW.

A) Expose for the sky
B) If you do have blown highlights, one thing you can do is add a very slight "Diffuse Glow". You'll notice that in digital, blown out highlights often show clipping, as in very sharp edges around the blown out info. A glow makes it appear more film-like, less clipped; but just make sure you use layer masks and only use it a little bit.

- Chui

www.chewyphoto.com (http://www.chewyphoto.com)
Your absolutely right, there are some blown highlights. That's a nice tip for making them less obvious and a new one for me. Thanks for the suggestions.

Stan

[jsmason]

Nice work, it looks totally natural!
Thanks to all for the nice comments! - Stan