HDR versus routine processing

[tbob]

I wanted the shaded side of the barn to be a little brighter so I shot a series of five to use for HDR processing (I ended up using only three of the shots to create the HDR, too garish otherwise). I then processed the best exposure in my routine fashion.

I have been flipping back and forth for weeks now trying to decide which one I prefer. Each has it's merits and I may end up printing both. However I would like to know which is the best.

I cannot decide. So I am throwing it open to opinions by way of a vote.

I am not labeling either, although the HDR may be obvious. Best viewed at full size

[ajohnw]

I prefer 1 but aren't too happy about what it has done to the clouds. Also wonder about the greys in the clouds on 2 as well.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Trevor - While I still do the occasional HDR shot, I find that I'm often less than pleased with some aspect of the result and then have to go back in Photoshop and manually tweak that part.

In the case of your shot, what's wrong with a bit of old-fashioned dodging on the dark side of the barn, rather than using some of the more complex compositing tools. That lets you keep the rest of the image the way you like it and lets you lighten up the overly dark areas?

[Kaye Leggett]

I prefer the second - the blue and yellow seem less intense and more natural. I also love this barn - perhaps you could post a series of these in every seasons when you have 'the set'

[Mark von Kanel]

i would like the barn from shot 1 in shot 2 please

[ajohnw]

In some ways I prefer the one in the competition.

John
-

[bnnrcn]

Hi Trevor I certainly prefer #2, HDR looks unnatural to me. Also,Mark's suggestion about the barn might work better but I'm not sure.

[pnodrog]

#2 but as suggested a bit of old fashioned dodging on the barn to lift the wood tones a fraction. Certainly the first one would be easier to print than the second so if you are selling the barn #1 would be the shot to use in anything other than high quality glossy brochures....

[tbob]

I prefer 1 but aren't too happy about what it has done to the clouds. Also wonder about the greys in the clouds on 2 as well.

John
-

Can you elaborate on the concern about the grey in the clouds in number 2? They seem close to real to me but I may be missing something crucial here.

The granularity and grey in the clouds of #1 is a problem for me ; not enough to bin the image though.

[tbob]

Trevor - While I still do the occasional HDR shot, I find that I'm often less than pleased with some aspect of the result and then have to go back in Photoshop and manually tweak that part.

In the case of your shot, what's wrong with a bit of old-fashioned dodging on the dark side of the barn, rather than using some of the more complex compositing tools. That lets you keep the rest of the image the way you like it and lets you lighten up the overly dark areas?

I agree. Hence the second version. And if the verdict goes against the first I may not repeat the experiment as I lean towards #2 as the better option.

[tbob]

As requested by Mark, Kaye and Paul. I dodged the front of the barn a bit then matched the warmer orange tones of the first. As close as I can get anyway. I think this was a brilliant suggestion and melds the best of both.

[ajohnw]

Can you elaborate on the concern about the grey in the clouds in number 2? They seem close to real to me but I may be missing something crucial here.

The granularity and grey in the clouds of #1 is a problem for me ; not enough to bin the image though.

It's taste Trevor. It looks a little tone mapped to me. I'd be inclined to say too deep a grey to be natural for clouds like that but on the other hand some prefer elaborately processed clouds but neither fit in with that as I see it.

The competition entry fits in between and over all I think I prefer that but might augment the clouds a little more while avoiding greys.

John
-

[HaseebM]

You must add a third poll option now.

[DanK]

I tell my students that most rules of thumb are worth ignoring, but here is mine anyway, for what little it is worth. For may taste:

-- if I haven't exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor, I don't consider compositing, instead using tools like dodging and burning if needed.

-- If I have exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor, and if that fact is a problem (it isn't always), I do exposure fusion rather than HDR. See this post for an explanation. I do it with Lightroom Enfuse at its default settings. It combines parts of the images based on exposure without any tone mapping. I find that tone mapping distorts colors and, in extreme cases, looks like painting on velvet. But just my taste.

In this case, it doesn't look like you exceeded the range of the sensor.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Trevor I think #3 is the best but the whole image looks a bit brighter than #2. IMO the colors of the sky and the field are better in #2.

As requested by Mark, Kaye and Paul. I dodged the front of the barn a bit then matched the warmer orange tones of the first. As close as I can get anyway. I think this was a brilliant suggestion and melds the best of both.

[tbob]

I tell my students that most rules of thumb are worth ignoring, but here is mine anyway, for what little it is worth. For may taste:

-- if I haven't exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor, I don't consider compositing, instead using tools like dodging and burning if needed.

-- If I have exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor, and if that fact is a problem (it isn't always), I do exposure fusion rather than HDR. See this post for an explanation. I do it with Lightroom Enfuse at its default settings. It combines parts of the images based on exposure without any tone mapping. I find that tone mapping distorts colors and, in extreme cases, looks like painting on velvet. But just my taste.

In this case, it doesn't look like you exceeded the range of the sensor.

I may completely give up on HDR. I am finding almost 100% of my efforts a little too unnatural looking to my taste. This entire posting was an effort to discover if people thought the end result was acceptable. When I shot this scene I was trying HDR as an option to dodging and burning.

I will check into Enfuse as an option. I will have to see if it works with Aperture. I don't use any other program currently.

[tbob]

Hi Trevor I think #3 is the best but the whole image looks a bit brighter than #2. IMO the colors of the sky and the field are better in #2.

Very good observation. I incorporated it

Version 4

[dubaiphil]

In this case, it doesn't look like you exceeded the range of the sensor.

I agree - I think the use of HDR processing in this image is not a necessary step

[dubaiphil]

I may completely give up on HDR. I am finding almost 100% of my efforts a little too unnatural looking to my taste.

Try Exposure Fusion

[ajohnw]

I may completely give up on HDR. I am finding almost 100% of my efforts a little too unnatural looking to my taste. This entire posting was an effort to discover if people thought the end result was acceptable. When I shot this scene I was trying HDR as an option to dodging and burning.

I will check into Enfuse as an option. I will have to see if it works with Aperture. I don't use any other program currently.

You can also search Enfuse gui. You will find a free windows version of it to try. Enfuse is open source software but command line driven. There is also a Lightroom plugin. The controls such as contrast are weightings used to merge the shots - not the usual controls. The one I use will also align images taken hand held. The only time I have had that fail is on wide angle shots. Wind movement between shots can cause problems as well but usually only on fine detail on things like trees.

John
-