Do you think changing the exposure of a single picture can be a true HDR?
By joshnorthrup
@joshnorthrup (3)
United States
July 8, 2009 5:11pm CST
There has been a debate as to what constitutes a true HDR picture. HDR, or High Dynamic Range, basicly brings out the Highlights, mid-tones, and shadows of a picture the camera is not capable of producing. The camera, unlike the human eye, is not capable of capturing the entire dynamic range. Traditinally, and HDR shot is taken by braketing the shot (shooting multiple pictures at different exposures). I have done it this way, but find it more practical to take a single shot and change the exposure in Adobe Lightroom. The first reason is that if an object is moving in the background, three or four different shots will produce either a blur a ghost like image. The second reason is that you can create HDR images with older files that you might think will look good in HDR. I am just curious as to what people think of when the term HDR is mentioned.
1 person likes this
1 response
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
12 Jul 09
I'm certainly no expert on digital photography, or photography in general; but I think that a majority of people tend to get more caught up in resolution/megapixel counts than in any other aspect of digital camera's and overlook areas like these. Personally I would far prefer to take a shot and then manipulate it through software too, rather than confuse myself with multiple exposures of the same shot. There's way too many chances of there being differences in the picture this way too because even an intended still shot can end up with minute changes! Overall though, HDR is not something I know much about at all I'm afraid. I saw your picture taken in Switzerland by the way and must say I'm very impressed! 
