The answer is NO...it is a single shot...the only "cloning" that was done was to remove a power line that went to the barn.

This image is a good example of what can be done with RAW images....often, you can turn what appears to be a wasted shot into something useful...

Here is a shot of the JPEG of the original RAW file and the final product;

Neat. How did you do the HDR?

@Radlafx;
HDR from a single RAW ( didn't bracket for that shot!!!), then tone mapped with Photomatix.  Then created another TIFF from the original RAW but bumped up the exposure by 2 stops.
Put the HDR as the base layer...then put the +2 exp TIFF as a layer on top.
Mask out the sky on the +2 exp TIFF layer....so, in essence you end up with tone mapped sky and a +2 exp for the building and ground.  It seems to work a bit better and gives more flexibility rather than just the tone mapped HDR alone.

Then lots of adjustment layers for color balance, saturation, curves and misc tweaks....

On some, I may layer the other way around...then adjust the opacity of the tone mapped HDR over the tweaked RAW/TIFF...or mask selectively.

Really nice work indeed! This Photomatix has been on my mind for quite a long time now...
Guess that sooner or later, and I guess sooner, I'll give in to the temptation.

Excellent. It can be some kind of hobby trying fo "fix" less lucky shots like that.
I love to do it........hehe!  and I have alot of them do work on :)

It's all worked out very well.  I'm new to using RAW.  but even I can see how useful it can be.

seems I will have to get practiced at this RAW post work asap. It is an excellent example of something that I did not know could be done with one image. i was wrong to think that you had to have 3 images to start with of the same scene. When I shoot aerials its not posssible to have 3 exact matched pics due to the 80 mph speed of the camera platform. i will now have to get a move on and practice much more.
Thanks for the info Gradient

@Garlor;
You are correct, true HDR should be comprised of several (3+) bracketted images.  But, as you also point out....it is not always possible to achieve this because of movement.
Using a single image to create an HDR has been called "pseudo" HDR...it is not ideal, but it does provide some improvement.

Regardless, there is still much flexibility when working with RAW images...you don't have to go the HDR route to benefit.

I did (and do) this kind of compositing before, and without the plugin. Of course it wasn't as sophisticated and more time-consuming, but there's a lot of fun and control in it too.

The trick is based on the fact that RAW is a kind of negative that you can develop in several ways, and with the digital advantage that you still have the untouched (undeveloped) original at your disposal. One of the main reasons I went for the D40 as it has 14bit RAW, meaning you can go further in your manipulations. I usually set the camera to minus two-thirds of a stop. So I develop it several times at different settings (changing the general lighting, de-noising, using Bibble's Zones-plug in, even go completely crazy) and then, after saving as 16bit files, open Photoshop.
In PS, I use masks based on single or combined channels that I then manipulate with the darken and lighten blend modes. Lighten makes everything lighter that is darker than the grey value of your brush (or any pixel...combine greyscales evt. in separate files, then re-import as mask), darken darkens everything that is lighter than the chosen grey value. With some play and several layers you can achieve really stunning results.
More work, but 75Euro plus VAT is quite a bit of money for a plug-in. (I'm in desperate need for a new puter first as the laptop I now work with is ok but not up to what I want to do, so money is very tight).

@Tanchelyn;
Regarding manual manipulation of RAW files:  I have...and still do exactly the same as you!!
Some of my images are exposure adjusted RAW files...then layered, masked...and further played with.
As you will note, I actually used both the HDR and manual RAW manipulation techniques to get to the final image above.
You are correct, the results can be achieved with time and persistence..and the results can be very satisfying!!!

That was precisely the point of this post....not the HDR aspect...but the fact that you can manipulate RAW files with much greater flexibility than an already compressed JPG.

Hopefully folks will give RAW a try...again, you DON'T have to go the HDR route!

BTW, new puter is becoming a need here too...files getting too big to work with.....

Guess that I'm in the frist place trying to convince myself that there's no need to jump on that very tempting plugin immediately...
I will get it one day.
But it won't stop me from playing with the options of Photoshop.

I'm going in the opposite direction at the moment... Having shot RAW for an extended period, and having seen the results of Photomatix and HDR techniques (most of them I don't like —too flat, too un-dynamic and too unrealistic—), I'm shooting in JPEG again for the last couple of weeks. Perhaps limiting my own possibilities... but maybe that's a good thing one way or the other...

Now I'm thinking: if the shot can't be saved in JPEG, it probably wasn't a good shot in the first place; so let me try and get it right the first time...

Think I was getting a bit tired of all that post processing and rescuing poor shots ;o)

For once I disagree with you. Guess it's the first time.

Letting your camera decide how to interpret and jaypeg is the equivalent of shooting your black and white film and then go to your local shop to have it printed by a machine that is set to the average snapshot.

Many, if not all, of the photographers I like are people who spent days in their darkrooms to get the print that sucked the marrow out of the shot.

Of course you and anyone else are free to shoot whatever you want, but RAW has got nothing to do with saving bad shots. Perhaps it can be used for it, but it is certainly not the intention.

As for unreal: no photograph that was ever taken by any digital camera has one pixel that matches reality. And jpg is even a step further into the twilight zone. It's all black and white data that are later interpreted as colour.

Well, I don't really let the camera decide... I'm paying more attention to the settings now (sharpness at -2, contrast at -2, color tone neutral, -0.7 stop exposure compensation, etc.), which doesn't matter much if you're shooting RAW. And I get the feeling that I'm getting more in control of the shots.

Maybe it's just a phase... maybe I was just wondering why so many professionals are NOT shooting RAW and are saying that it's a waste of time (and storage capacity) in most cases...

@girsempa;
I think I understand what you are trying to say...and I agree with you to some extent.
We should all try to get the shot "perfect"...and it teaches us valuable lessons about exposure, etc.
But.....even in the days of film....that "perfect" shot wasn't always perfect...there was a lot of darkroom manipulation that took place!

Your digital camera is in essence a computer...it processes the data...with some upfront input from the user.
Your desktop computer processes the data that you give it...with your software....this workflow process can be done with much greater precision than the workflow process completed within the digital camera because the software is much more sophisticated than the algorithms contained within the brains of the cam.

Is the extra effort and the extra space required worth it?  That is only something each individual can decide.

I agree with Tanchelyn ....RAW is not there to allow us to shoot with blatant disregard for basic photography concepts.  It is there to give us the flexibility to perform the "darkroom" work of the old film days.
For me, even if I had the "perfect" exposure shot....I would still perform the "darkroom" work through postprocessing.

Good discussion...

The original had a much more lonely detached feel to it which seems to work better with all the open sapce on the left to me. 

It depends what you're after I suppose.

It is an example of what can be done with RAW processing given the vision.

Perhaps it's the urge (hm...) to create the photograph the moment you take it and not in a two-step action?
That is something I can understand.

But using camera settings like sharpen etc makes use of the camera's mini computer which does not have the power your dektop has, so the algorithms are less complicated. If you're happy with the results, then it's (of course) ok.
Many people don't use the Zone system either, and they also take great pics.

A friend of mine owns an Oly WZ8080. He takes his pics and uses them in slideshows on his desktop. He argues that what he gets now is better than the prints he had made when shooting colour film. And if there's a burned-out spot or detailless shadow because the contrast was too high, well, that's no drama.  And why not? That's his choice. And his series are always exciting and well thought out. So...