M8 - to HDR or not?

[pgk]

I thought that I'd try an experiment today and I shot some images of Conwy Castle with the intention of trying an HDR taken in bright sunlight. Iused Photomatix to produce an HDR file, and then used Photoshop to adjust the original (correctly exposed) file and adjust it to produce a similar result to the HDR (using shadow & highlights in '16-bit', etc.).

Here are the results - I aim at an acceptable (photographic) image rather than the easily obtained 'overprocessed' look prevalent in a lot of HDR images.

The results are rather closer than I'd anticipated although the HDR does have more tonality in the sky and some ghosting!

[IMast]

I do like the images of Conwy Castle, just a few miles away from my home. Lucky you didn't incorporate the Civic Hall in the shot! Your shots have given me a push to try this myself.


Ian

[RobertW]

I'd like to agree that I can't say I liked one more than the other....although, ones got a bit more contrast.
.
Could you post the original non-HDR? I'm interested to see the difference between "out-of-the-camera look and the HDR" ?

Thx
Rob

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by pgk

.....

Here are the results - I aim at an acceptable (photographic) image rather than the easily obtained 'overprocessed' look prevalent in a lot of HDR images.

The results are rather closer than I'd anticipated although the HDR does have more tonality in the sky and some ghosting!

Nice picture and good example of an acceptable, in my view, HDR. You have avoided those dreaded dark grey patches in the clouddeck, that are a give-away for many overprocesssed HDR's. Photomatix's site gives some rather dreadful examples:

Examples of tone mapped HDR images and Exposure Blending

IMHO your HDR picture gives me that old and lovable Fuji Velvia look, certainly in the blue sky Great!
( And what a wonderful place there in Conwy! )

[ammitsboel]

What's number two?
To me it looks clearer than number one.

[pgk]

Here's the original - I shot DNG and all I've done is to use the same setting as for the 3 I used to create the HDR. Lens is a 50 Summilux pre-asph.

Conwy is indeed beautiful - I too live a few miles away and feel very privileged to be in such a stunning area. Of course the weather is always like this........ (should have said, I did replace the wall toppings which have fallen (?) into the river - wonderful thing photoshop!).

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by ammitsboel

What's number two?
To me it looks clearer than number one.

I surmised the first picture is the HDR, and the second picture D043648.jpg - that still has the Leica Camera M8 in the EXIF - is the non-HDR picture

[ammitsboel]

The original is best.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by ammitsboel

The original is best.

Why? Everyone to his taste, but I find the original flat and athmospherically uninteresting.

[ammitsboel]

Originally Posted by vanhulsenbeek

Why? Everyone to his taste, but I find the original flat and athmospherically uninteresting.

That's true.
I find that the processed files does some parameters better than the original and some worse, but the original does "everything" better than the processed one.

My eyes flip around on the two first pictures, when looking on the last one my eyes can move around freely almost without problems.
It reminds me about comparing perceived linear things to perceived nonlinear, which might be opposite in science, but doesn't really matter.
The top images being "nonlinear" and the last being "linear" to the eyes.

/Henrik

[pgk]

Sorry guys! I posted the 'original' but it was actually same shot but earlier in the day (I waited for the tide to come into the estuary for the later HDR sequence). So here's the middle HDR shot before adjustment! First post: HDR, Photoshop adjusted middle HDR image, and now this post shows the middle HDR image prior to adjustment.

[ammitsboel]

Interesting.
Which image do you like the best?

[pgk]

I'm not sure ammitsboel - I like the richness of the HDR but even for subjects like this there is some ghosting which, whilst possible to d/w in PS is irritating. On balance I think its probably still the best interpretation of a very harsh summer's day and has has been said it feels very Velviaish (is that a word?).

But I'm also surprised by the ease of adjustment of the 'straight' file and the effectiveness of the result - I put this down to the way the M8's files are 'processed' by the camera (?) - they still seem quite highlight rich and are easy to adjust. I've noticed recently that my workflow on M8 raw files is somewhat quicker compared with that of my raw Canon files - which probably means that I've got used to the M8 raws and they suit my workflow well, although I've been using FF Canons since they appeared. The Canon files work very well with HDR indeed but I can't seem to mimic them so well using a single file and PS. As you say, interesting!

[biglouis]

pgk... maybe its me but I would not agree that this is the type of lighting which will see much benefit from HDR processing - it is too even across the frame.

To my mind HDR benefits situations where you have considerable differences in light and shade within the composition, e.g. looking through a tunnel or strong backlight.

In your case, just adjusting the shadows and highlights in photoshop then boosting the contrast would probably produce a similar effect.

LouisB

[pgk]

biglouis

That's my point - it was an experiment and processing in PS CAN achieve a similar but not identical result. I still think that the HDR has a richer feel but am not sure that the downsides (ghosting) make this worthwhile often. I assume that HDR should boost tonal info in highlights and shadows in a contrasty shot like this. I do like the smoothing effect on water.

[cmarbach]

Am I missing something? I thought HDR requires several different exposures of the same subject. The M8 doesn't have this function automatically does it? And if not, then do you try to frame the same shot with different exposures manually? Can this work without a tripod?

[SJP]

not

The original is the only aceptable picture as far as I am concerned, the others look like a 'cheap postcard'. Ok if you want that sort of effect but for me it is not an option. Tinkering with the brightness & contrast or even using a non-linear response curve still looks 'natural' but the HDR pics the castle and the sky live on a different planet. Any 'generic blue sky background' could have been used to similar effect.

[ammitsboel]

Originally Posted by SJP

The original is the only aceptable picture as far as I am concerned, the others look like a 'cheap postcard'. Ok if you want that sort of effect but for me it is not an option. Tinkering with the brightness & contrast or even using a non-linear response curve still looks 'natural' but the HDR pics the castle and the sky live on a different planet. Any 'generic blue sky background' could have been used to similar effect.

Although a bit harsh I think I agree about the top photo.

I wonder what exactly causes this effect.
Maybe the HDR technique creates resolution that isn't really there?
I would not be surprised if this effect will turn up on different HDR images and maybe prove that it's the same thing that's being added and not the actual resolution of the shot.

/Henrik

[pgk]

Hmmmm. A couple of comments.

My experience is that non-photographer viewers of HDR images (ones that don't look over processed anyway) often prefer them to the 'straight' shot. Photographers seem pretty divided though.

There is some software available which uses two images to produces an extremely reduced noise final image - I've seen this in the LL threads but can't try it as its PC software and I'm Mac based. Results seem very effective (from web posts anyway) and it makes sense that such options might be available.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by pgk

.................................

There is some software available which uses two images to produces an extremely reduced noise final image - I've seen this in the LL threads but can't try it as its PC software and I'm Mac based. Results seem very effective (from web posts anyway) and it makes sense that such options might be available.

I would be thrilled to try that out. Do you know the name?

One thought though. I would think that such software would work with two different shots, not two tiff's out of one DNG.

If so, that would mean tripod shots in controlled circumstances, like pictures of starry skies and Aurora Borealis shots. Hardly the available light street and cafe shooting the Leica shines in. Might be of limited use therefore. And my experience with software that deals with noise is that one has to be very careful to avoid plasticy results.