Across Riddlesdown, at 14mm

If you look at the luminance histogram for Image A as posted by Nigel (and the processed version of Image A that I posted), it doesn't look clipped at either end. This is also true for the red and green channels - but the blue channel is clipped in the shadows.

Andrew

This raises some interesting questions, and I'm grateful to you all for the help and additional input here. I'll try and clarify as much as I can:

The 'IMAGE A' jpg that Andrew has used was produced from the DNG I provided to Rob, the one named 'Nigels Riddlesdown Darker' (ie the less exposed of the two). I created IMAGE A in PDCU and PS from this DNG by simply opening the file and saving it with no adjustments ... first a 16bit TIFF from PDCU, then the TIFF into PS and saved as a 'web-sized' jpg, again with no adjustments. I can confirm that this file displayed a significant clipped histogram both in PDCU and PS.

Now, this is where it gets more complex - I have just taken this DNG and opened it is PS (CS2), (a more similar process to Andrew's), and the ACR defaults upon opening have reduced the histogram end points and pulled the DR down - this has happened as a result of ACR default settings (the auto exposure / auto contrast boxes were ticked). So ACR has carried out auto processing before I even started. Unticking these auto boxes has restored the previous histogram shape I had seen in PDCU -ie with significant clipping at both ends. Newer versions of ACR may have similar or slightly different default operations.

This may be the reason that Andrew has interpreted the file as not clipped? The real question though is what effect on quality does any processing have when the shadows are brought up and the highlights reduced, and which processes are preferable, which may depend on our own personal artistic priorities.

I've downloaded Andrews edited jpg and I see the histogram is exactly balanced with the black & white points just touching the ends, consistent with precise levels corrections. I've done the same with Robs 2nd jpg there, and I see that it has a more compressed DR, with the end points at about 24 / 224.

Finally my own HDR image (taken from the final jpg for best comparison) has a wide range, a high sloping bell shape with the back point extending slightly upwards and the whitepoint touching the end. So a slight clipping remains, but it has the wider DR overall.

So that leaves the question of preference and the 'look'. David Storm has already made his choice - is that to be the popular view?

Completely Agree.

Absolutely no point in blending several exposures for these type of shots IMO

I cannot conclude anything of the sort so far ... I know by instinct I prefer my own HDR as viewed in total - I have a 'layperson' here who didn't know anything of the origins of the images or which was 'mine' and there was no hesitation at all in picking out the HDR as the one, so I don't think this is a foregone conclusion.

And we haven't even really looked in any detail at the actual quality of the detail and textures at both extremes - I'm going to check this soon, but initially it seems to me that the HDR has a softer appearance, more 'fluffy', ifs that's a valid quality

I'm going to go back to the HDR TIFF and try and bosst mid range contrast and carry out some more refined and targeted work - lets see if that may change things ... art not algorithms.

Nigel wrote "we haven't even really looked in any detail"
There are art historians around the world attending seminars that go into less detail than you Nigel
It will be sad day when a photographic image is judged on its Dynamic Range and the shape of its histogram.
Do I prefer your HDR or Andrews version? I can't say to be honest, and don't be offended but the image does nothing for me regardless of treatment.
But anyhow these are just my thoughts, keep up the in depth analysis as I am interested in where it will all lead.

Jim

It won't make the slightest bit of difference to the artistic value of the image.

If you want better images spend more time on the artistic side.

Bear in mind that the image I produced used an 800 pixel wide onscreen JPEG as source, not a full resolution RAW - so a look at the "actual quality of the detail and textures at both extremes" just isn't possible.

Andrew

I remember talking to a friend about a shot he was tryng to take of something in a cave (with a not_Pentax 5D MkII) - but where part of the cave entrance was also visible. I suspect that the clipping for that would have been so severe that HDR was the only option.

Andrew

Spot on!! I agree completely.

Andrew

Indeed, I've done the same for night shots where there's illuminated shop windows in the scene. 6 second exposure for the main scene, and a second exposure for the shop windows. Hand blended. works a treat.


results here

https://www.360cities.net/image/burnham-mkt-post-office-xmas-day#-264.67,-0.06,70.5

and here

https://www.360cities.net/image/burnham-mkt-hoste-arms-christmas-day-2012#363.70,0.92,75.0

We are limiting it to those aspects though - that's perfectly valid. Its only a discussion on the merits of some different treatments, and it stems from my own assertion that the DR of the scene demanded an HDR approach - I think that's still up for grabs. It depends on how you ultimately judge the result ... my own feeling at this stage is that the softer toned HDR makes the most of it artistically as well as technically. But its great to have other viewpoints as well.

Don't worry, you'd have to work rather hard to offend me, rest assurred - more likely just encourage me further Look, truth is yes, personally I am pleased with this series of photos - for me they are a quality record of what I was trying photographically that morning, and the processing has brought out what qualities are there well. But at the same time I am not unrealistic ... I'm not planning on putting any of them in for 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' - the location is limited, but I will enjoy going back in different lighting and making some new artistic choices.



I think we just need to check closely the quality at the extremes, such as the cloud highlights and deep shadows. The clouds are going to be key to it I think, as really this scene does not demand perfect discernible details in the deep shadows ... a bit of pitch black here & there is OK I think, and probably will help add some overall depth to it.

I've now gone back to the original HDR image and carried out a few more adjustments, taking on board a few of the comments that have been made. I have boosted mid-tone contrast a touch, burnt in a few shadows and given it a boost of micro-contrast and detailing. I hope it will become the new contender for top spot!!


1) NEW HDR VERSION

Well here you go then Nigel. I think I've managed to find a way round the sky problems with this one from the single raw. Still on global or region processing here - no hand dodging and burning yet

I do still slightly prefer your HDR but I don't think there is anything that technically wrong with the single exposure I have here so I still maintain HDR isn't needed for this shot.



Edit - Actually there is something wrong, there's a bit of burning needed on the background hill but there's always something still to improve ...

Thanks Rob, thats a real contender! I take on board Andrew's point above about the difficulty of pixel-peeping on relatively small files, but I do think I can probably draw some conclusions on the main differences. I've got the images downloaded and will take some comparitive looks and report back.

If any of you can take a look at the new HDR version above and compare it to any of the single shots I'd love to hear your views.

Whack! The nail is firmly struck right on its head and is driven firmly home! I could not agree more - I know we're all so different but I can't help thinking Nigel that I would like to spend some time with you on a shoot, just so I could try to stop you from being so analytical and help you to 'let go' and shoot from your gut. I suspect this might not be possible though!

I do enjoy reading these threads, the view expressed are so opposed it is fascinating to read them.

Regards
David