Across Riddlesdown, at 14mm

Well here's a quick go from a single RAW.



Nigel - the 'brighter' DNG RAW was unusable with really blown out sky so I've used the darker one. Even this has some blown bits in the sky so the optimum exposure for your camera would probably be a stop darker still, on the K5 type sensors this one would probably be ideal.

For the sake of honesty I've left the fully blown highlights there rather than selectively chopping a few bits off them That would hide them a bit but of course still lose any detail in those areas. Some work with other software better at highlight recovery (Raw Therapee) will get a bit more detail back but not that much more. My personal preference is to work from a slightly less expose raw than sweat highlight recovery to the nth degree.

Thanks for trying that Rob, I've been experimenting a bit as well - unfortunately can't post the images until very late tonight as I don't have a strong enough WiFi connection for my laptop for now.

The next darkest image was very underexposed, I doubt you'd get much quality brightening out of it at all. I'm not sure how much difference the improved later sensors would make, at least in a practical sense for this particular image?

I have processed a blended version as well, with the best I can do on the ground from the one DNG plus a different optimised processing for the sky only from the same file, then composited them in PS. That was the best I could do from a single exposure. Should have them up much later tonight.

So Rob, do you feel the scene demands the HDR technique?

Not sure if you had any filters with you Nigel, but my thoughts are that the scene would be much better shot with a ND Grad 0.6 or 0.9 strength and processed as a single image, avoiding both blown highlights and the slightly unnatural effect that HDR brings with it. I think my ND Grads are the single most important item I have for landscape photography and they are not ridiculously expensive at around £60 for a set of 3 quality Hitech 85mm ones.

Regards
David

Its a valid idea of course David, unfortunately I don't know of any way to use filters with the Samyang 14mm - it has a bulbous-type front element and fixed petal hood, so I don't think any standard holders will work - no doubt something could be constructed, but I imagine the risk of flare is fairly high?

Do you think the HDR image (my no 12) appears 'unnatural'?

Well I think my K30 give me 1.5 stops extra DR compared to the K7 which is going to be really valuable. Whether that would actually be enough to bring all the highlights back into range or not isn't provable.
No it doesn't demand HDR, at least not for me. I feel I could do better with a slightly less exposed raw to start with and better again with a wider range DR sensor. Even as it is I'm not terribly upset with the highlights and the worst feature, to me, of my image is the oversaturated greens which are correctable. I have deliberately only played with exposure and tonal values here to make the HDR/nonHDR comparison and not touched saturation or local contrast so I am surprised colour rendition is so different.

In fact, out of the two images we have posted, I prefer the non HDR processed one. But for any sensor there will always be shots where the DR is just too wide and HDR (or a grad filter) is needed and HDR over single shot is always going to offer the potential for more detail in highlights and shadows - the question is whether that can be achieved without losing realistic tonal portrayal. Comparing these two versions, for me, the HDR loses more than it gains but I'm quite happy to concede that more tweaking of the HDR and setting up its tones to my own personal taste might put it ahead again. The current HDR has a commendably natural tonal appearance but is I feel a bit flat with contrast compressed along with the tone range.

Not particularly, especially in comparison with most HDR images I see, but it has a certain look about it that wouldn't be there with an image processed from a single original. I do prefer single processed shots, but that's just a personal opinion, there's nothing wrong with your HDR shot.

Regards
David

No it's beyond the DR of your camera

Buy a K-5

now I never thought I might provoke that .. So I've been told so far to buy a K5 & a set of Hitechs - this is proving to be an expensive shot! But at least we agree that such a scene is beyond the DR of a sensor such as that in the K7 - I believe many would not.

gwing wrote ... 'Well I think my K30 give me 1.5 stops extra DR compared to the K7 which is going to be really valuable. Whether that would actually be enough to bring all the highlights back into range or not isn't provable'.

So not really provable about a K5 either then?

davidstorm wrote.. 'I do prefer single processed shots, but that's just a personal opinion, there's nothing wrong with your HDR shot'

Well here's a chance for us to compare ... we have gwings there already up above.


Here's my new takes on it - first there's the two mid range brackets unadjusted for reference - that's what you get from a single shot out the camera. Then optimized processing for both through ACR & PS, (these represent the best I could achieve with a single exposure), and finally a blended version of the best single shot plus that shots sky processed again independently :


IMAGE A) Mid Range (Darker) bracket - PDCU unadjusted








IMAGE B) Mid Range (Darker) bracket - optimized processing







IMAGE C) Mid Range (Brighter) bracket - PDCU unadjusted







IMAGE D) Mid Range (Brighter) bracket - optimized processing







IMAGE E) Blended version of optimized ground & separate optimized sky







And finally here's my original HDR version ... I guess I don't need to spell out which one I think is a better more 'natural' reproduction of the scene ....







For me, both the single shots, (even the darker which was way too dark for the shadows), made the sky impossible - that is the DR being exceeded. The blend was more successful, but the sky was impossible to bring down with real quality. Only the HDR process (which had 2 further darker exposures,good for the sky but black on the ground) could create an acceptable image for me.

Overall I prefer your original HDR shot now Nigel, although here's a better competitor to it. Between the two you can see clearly the extra detail available in the sky from the HDR where the single raw image here just doesn't have that info available to start with.

But I still don't consider HDR necessary for a shot like this. I think this is good enough for a casual shot, and if you are after exhibition quality landscape shots you should have a grad filter in the kit for when it is needed.

I must be missing some of the plot here.

I copied the image labelled "IMAGE A) Mid Range (Darker) bracket - PDCU unadjusted" and dropped it into Photoshop Elements. I then saved it unaltered as a psd file and imported that into Lightroom 5.3. A few minutes twiddling with sliders in the Develop module produced this .........




So, remind me - why is it that I need to use HDR?

Andrew

Rob that certainly is some closer competition ... The nd grad was not an option due to the specific lens, but clearly if it was an option then it would resolve the sky problems. I'm not so convinced about the ground texture and visible dr. Thanks again for the extra work there.

Andrew, thanks also for your attempt there to answer the question. I'm not sure its as clear cut as you imply? But maybe we are selling the K7 short? That exposure must be , what, 2.5 stops below a centred meter? I'll reserve any proper pixel keeping though till tomorrow if I may, due to only having a smartphone available tonight. Thanks again for getting involved.

For me this looks pretty conclusive. Andrewk's image is by far the most natural and best looking to my eyes, by comparison the blended / HDR images look slightly 'unreal'.

Regards
David

If you look at the histogram for your Image A, it is not clipped at either end - so it can be manipulated to look natural. This would obviously not be the case if the highlights were significantly clipped.

If I had been taking that photo, I would have used single centre point metering on the brightest part of the image and then opened up 2 stops. This certainly works well on a K30 (and on the K5 series), with no clipping and no obvious noise in shadows. You might find it worth trying with your K7.

Andrew

Something's a bit odd. I've just checked the unprocessed raw that Nigel supplied me and which is I think the source for image (A). That raw image is indeed clipped in highlights but also a little in shadows so the image DR does exceed K7 sensor DR and detail is being lost.
Has the clipping been lost/hidden by the processing used to produce the posted jpeg Andrew is using or have I misunderstood which raw relates to which posted image?

A couple of points:

Ironically some of the nicest places to walk in are not necessarily conducive to fine photography. I love walking on the Quantock Hills but have never taken a decent shot there (any old lay-by in North Wales would yield better results).

I shouldn't worry about replacing your K7. I use a K5, K10 and K100 according to how I feel. Whilst the K5 is virtually unbustable as regards dynamic range (and if there's ever a better DSLR in this respect then it'll really be something) last weekend I grabbed a quick shot of a steam locomotive against the light which was horribly over exposed. The amount of detail recoverable from the RAW file was remarkable. Of course, there was some digital noise present, but that's another story...