To HDR or not.

[arith]

Which is best; I took a lot with a monopod and the best shifts were my last attempt, but the last frame was motion blurred.

So this is another set with shifts in excess of -14px.

First the HDR:

Sequence: {_MG_2048.TIF: TV=0.012500, AV=6.3, Bias=0.0} {_MG_2049.TIF: TV=0.050000, AV=6.3, Bias=0.0} {_MG_2050.TIF: TV=0.200000, AV=6.3, Bias=0.0}
17mm focal length



Second is the middle image which is well overexposed:



They are both set using the same white balance, but the second image is processed using ACR.

cheers

[jeeperman]

Having not been in the room myself I am not sure which colors are more natural. I can say as to viewing them....the first is more pleasing. The second does look to have a color cast due to lighting.

[arith]

It is indeed strange Paul; they are both taken from the same 18% grey card. But the second although completely blown doesn't look as bad as I thought with some exposure reduction and 100% recovery and heavy fill in ACR.

I think generally the first is right, but the carpet looks more accurate in the second.

Different programs used = different.

I own up to using Topaz detail in the second to get some light into shadows, and this is the reason I think it has a colour problem. If you didn't see the first you might not notice.

However; there was a considerable amount of noise in the second as can be observed by looking at the bottom right of the table, it is blurred after cleaning.

The first has the problem of frame shift, and for some reason the phone isn't very sharp; probably the frame shift.

Picturenaut reckons the dynamic range is just over 10 Ev.

[Shadowman]

What was the purpose of multiple light sources?

[arith]

What was the purpose of multiple light sources?

I don't know why lights were left on; but it is a museum and maybe it is just cheaper to leave them on.