Should I use RAW or HDRI or TIFF?

K
Posted By
klikmaker
Nov 18, 2006
Views
462
Replies
7
Status
Closed
I take a lot of photos of automotive products for our company catalog, which is printed in full color on glossy stock.

We have an older Olympus camera. This was a really nice camera in its day, but is easily bested by newer cameras.

Three of the options on this camera are:
* Taking 3 exposures of the same shot, using Aperture, Shutter, or Program mode. I have been saving these as JPEGs, Batch-importing them as HDRI, and then converting them to TIFFs or PSDs.
* Capturing Olympus-format RAW data for processing. In this camera, the RAW data is captured as 10 bits (Is that the correct terminology? 10 bits?)
* I can use the TIFF format instead of JPEG on this camera.

So how will I get the best quality? I know that TIFF is lossless, while JPEG is not. But what about the RAW format? Photoshop does accept this format from this camera, so that is an option. How would the RAW format compare to the process of combining 3 pics into an HDRI?

Thanks for your help.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

DR
Donald_Reese
Nov 18, 2006
I would say shooting raw would be best,but honestly i have no experience with hdr. i believe hdr uses three exposures to gain wider latitude in a shot. shooting raw will give you all your sensor is capable of capturing,and if you use a tripod,you could take different exposures using raw and merge them into one ultimate exposure, if you needed more than one shot can get you. changing a jpg to tiff is not the best,especially if you can shoot tiff off the start. jpg throws away data to compress more images on a card,so that would be the least favorable route.
S
steventrevellion
Nov 19, 2006
The best way to get the highest quality from any digital camera. Is to shoot in RAW format make level adjustments in the RAW import window and and save as a TIFF in Photoshop. Especially if you are wanting to output these for a brouchure/catalogue.

Are you using HDRI because you have poor lighting? get the company to invest in some tungsten lights and a couple of brollies you’ll immediately see the dfifference.

Shooting in camera as a TIFF just uses up your card space and there’s no need if you can shoot RAW or Jpeg. Also ask the printers who are printing your brochure what colour space they are using and set photoshop to that and make sure you calibrate your monitor! Then hopefully you should get exactly what you see on your screen in the brouchure. if the images are only going to be small, say 3cm x 2cm the difference between jpeg and TIFF is so small as to not even be noticeable after the printers have applied a screen to the images. and any consumer camera can easily cope with that. I still use my old Nikon D1H 2.1 megapixel for all my wifes ebay images and they print up to 7" x 5" fine. But, if you are going to be shooting large images, say for the cover, then megapixels are king! A5+ needs at least 6mp; actual not interpolated.

HDRI is an average of three under, over and correctly exposed images and as such does provide a better tonal range than you can normally get from digital photography at low resolutions. But I bet it takes forever waiting for photoshop to process all those images as HDRIs and I’m sure your a busy guy. So shooting in RAW would probably be the best way but will look a bit ropey if you don’t have any proper lighting but it is more easily manipulated than a jpeg as it contains all the CCD sensor data as recorded rather than the set jpeg lossy image data. But to squeeze every last drop of quality out of any digital camera RAW to TIFF is the way to go.

Hope this helps

Steven
MS
michael_shaffer
Nov 19, 2006
The best quality would be to shoot RAW, but it would be only as good as the RAW developer software, and it’s disappointing to hear Adobe Camera Raw cannot accept your camera’s RAW files. (What version of PS are you using? Another possibility is that DNG converter can work with your RAW files, and allow ACR to work with the DNGs)

With respect to your narrow application (catalog images), there is probably very little difference between shooting JPEG, TIFF or RAW. TIFF would exclude any compression artifacts, but would fill your memory card in short order. RAW, although only 10bit, would offer only slightly better dynamic range (possibly an extra f-stop).

If purchasing a better camera is not an option (e.g., 12bit RAW and working with ACR), I believe your best option is to shoot your stills with SHQ JPEG for working with HDR.

my CA$0.02 🙂
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
Nov 19, 2006
Michael,

Photoshop does accept this format from this camera, so that is an option
K
klikmaker
Nov 20, 2006
Thanks for the advice. I will give it some thought, but am leaning towards HDR at this point.

Also, I will continue to press for a newer, better camera!
DR
Donald_Reese
Nov 20, 2006
I personally dont see the need to shoot three exposures if your subject is well lit to begin with. you would be amazed what raw can produce,even using multiple versions of one file. i always thought hdr was implemented when the range was real extreme,but i may be wrong. the last year or so has seen a big jump in quality/price ratio,and a newer model may be a huge leap forward for you. good luck
C
Clyde
Dec 1, 2006
wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I will give it some thought, but am leaning towards HDR at this point.
Also, I will continue to press for a newer, better camera!

I am familiar with HDR and use it a lot. The first rule is to never use HDR if you can use something else. The second rule is to NOT use Photoshop’s nature HDR, but spend the money on Photomatix Pro.

The reason to use HDR is to capture the full dynamic exposure range of scenes that have too much dynamic range for your camera. i.e. Use it when you have to get tone in both the highlights and the shadows and they are too far apart for your camera to record that.

The sun poking through the clouds after a storm might be a situation like this. Where the storm still is would be pretty dark and the sunlight would be very bright. The sun shooting into a thick, dark forest would also be a situation like this.

I’ve shot most of my HDR pictures inside churches. I’ve been selling lighting to churches and first do a survey that includes panoramic HDR pictures of the inside. I need to capture detail in the light fixtures, the stained glass windows, the clear windows (somewhat), and all the dark corners of the church. This is way beyond the exposure range of any digital camera.

So, I shoot 5 to 7 exposures of each angle that are 2 full stops apart. Then I move my pano head on the tripod over to the next overlapping angle and shoot 5 to 7 more exposures. The number of exposures is regulated by what I get. I’m trying to get detail in my little screen from the darkest to the lightest. Usually it takes 5 to 7 exposure. One stop apart is well within the dynamic range of the camera and therefore a waste. Three stops between was just a little too much in my experience. (BTW, I do the Photomatix Pro work before stitching in The Panoramic Factory.)

Notice that the key is that this pretty much has to be on a tripod to get all the exposures lined up well. It also eliminates moving subjects. That takes care of using HDR for wedding photography to capture the bride’s white dress and the groom’s black tux. So, it is a very limiting photographic process.

I’ve never got a workable result with Photoshop’s HDR. I’ve never heard of anyone else successing with Photoshop’s HDR either. I finally bought Photomatix Pro and spent a lot of time trying out all the many variables. It will take some time. (Do a Google Groups search for my long experiences on this.)

A big problem with getting good HDR that many people have is trying to use HDR on scenes that don’t need HDR. They come out looking like crap. They are very flat and dull. They reason for this is that this process is for pulling a very wide exposure range down into a range that our monitors and printers can use. It flattens High Dynamic Range scenes down into color spaces that we can use in Photoshop, on monitors, on printers, and actually for our own eyes. (The eyes things is complicated science.) If you use this tool on scenes that don’t need it, it will still flatten the dynamic range. It will also make it way too flat.

Remember that you are really trying to flatten any picture only to the point that you get maximum black and maximum white on some point in the picture. If your RAW mode on your camera will do that anyway, you’ll be much better off using that. If your have to use HDR, set the setting to get the broadest histogram that is within the extremes. You are still wanting black (or close to it) and white (or close to it) in your picture. Flattening beyond that will usually create ugly pictures.

Another warning is that colors don’t stay "true" when using this process. If you shoot a room with a window and a light in it, it will flatten the exposure range of both to be about the same. However, it does this with exposures that overlap. All digital cameras have their own characteristics of how they capture color. They don’t do that exactly the same way for different exposures. Part of the reason for this is that the color of light is viewed by humans very differently at different intensities. Camera makers try very hard to get colors that we think we see.

However, when you Tone Map these different exposures into one, you will get color shifts. In some pictures it won’t be much, particularly if you don’t have a lot of different colors of light. In others it will be very noticeable, but not bad from an artistic perspective. Some will shift and look just plain wrong too. Frankly, I haven’t found a way around this and I don’t think there is one. It is something to be aware of though.

HDR is a great tool to use when you absolutely have to have it. If there is anyway to not use it, stay with that way. If you have to have it, nothing else will usually do the trick. The results can be very good and very beautiful. There are plenty of pitfalls along the way that can ruin the picture though. Good luck.

Thanks,
Clyde

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections