Across Riddlesdown, at 14mm

It would be great to work together of course, I'm sure it would be enjoyable. But really is there any contradiction here? I don't deny that focussing on the artistic will ultimately lead to better results than less lower quality artistic results 'boosted' by processing - I don't believe that anymore than anyone else. Thats why I keep saying I'll go back in differing conditions and try more angles and experimenting with the actual shooting.

Just telling me to focus more on the artistic does not mean that the one shot on the table cannot have its potential boosted by the best type of processing available does it?

What has thread has become (don't you love the way it can morph from one thing into another) is an examination of how a single shot stands up to different processing approaches - thats fine, it is fascinating. In this context, we have one shot and differing opinions on how it needs to be processed. We can't change the shot artistically - just look at how the different processing techniques can bring out what qualities it has - or supress them.

THE HDR ADVANTAGE

I've been comparing more closely 4 different versions we now have. It is probably obvious I guess that I am unlikely to be persuaded that the HDR treatment here has not produced the best result - both technically and in terms of the look. Rob & Andrew provided expertly adjusted alternatives trying to eek out the most from a single exposure, and I tried also with this and produced a blended version with the separately adjusted sky. But I feel it was futile - I still believe that the high DR of the scene has only been able to be accurately reproduced with quality and detail by means of the HDR process using the full 5 bracketed images.

Andrew may fairly claim he was at a disadvantage, because he only had a web-site downloaded image to work with, whereas the others were initially produced from the RAW. But the jpg Andrew used was initially a 75% reduction from full-size , a 1.2mb file, so a good starting point and I did not notice any obvious quality loss on the website.

But here you can all check out more closely why I think this is the case, and you may agree ... or you may come to a completely different conclusion!

Here are the 4 alternatives on the table :


1) Nigels HDR






2) Nigels Blended (single file but with separately processed sky)





3) Robs Single File







4) Andrews Single File






I have downloaded all these from the website and used these downloaded files to ensure they are all the same size. I have cropped in on 3 different areas and resaved the crops for close comparison.


A) MID RANGE SECTION

A 1) Nigels HDR





A 2) Nigels Blended





A 3) Robs Single File





A 4) Andrews Single File





Here the HDR and Andrews seem the most similar, with higher contrast and detail than the others. The HDR has finer & sharper detail I think, and more colour and deeper black in the shadows. It also has a wider range of colours. Robs image is hazy and lacks depth, and has the least definition here, and my own blended image looks pixellated but over-sharp. The HDR wins here for me.


B) SKY DETAIL & FAR DISTANCE

B 1) Nigels HDR





B 2) Nigels Blended





B 3) Robs Single File





B 4) Andrews Single File





Here Andrews is the brightest, with the highest whitepoint and the least contrast within the sky area - the shadows are the most noisy. Robs is less bright, but the highight cloud areas are blown out with no detail - there is better distinction between the clouds. My own blended version looks jagged and over-defined. The HDR version IMO wins again here, with good cloud detail but still soft fluffy edges. There is better detail in the forest on the the horizon here also.



C) FOREGROUND DETAIL AND TREES


C 1) Nigels HDR





C 2) Nigels Blended





C 3) Robs Single File





C 4) Andrews Single File





Here the 2 closest in colour and detail terms would be the HDR & Andrews, both a bit richer in colour and with more discernable fine detail in the grass and pathway textures. The HDR wins out here also IMO with a wider range of tones in the tress and foliage
and better texture detailing. Robs has a smoother appearance with flatter deep shadows, but is the brighter with a high pitched pathway tone. The HDR presents the most even balance of brightness values throughout ths crop. My own blended version looks flat and has the same slightly jagged & oversharp appearance as it showed in the sky as well.

OK - thats how I'm seeing these comparable images. I can see no basis to any claim that a single shot can produce a better rendition of this complex scene that the original HDR choice I took. Overall I see the HDR beating the others on all fronts - tone, texture, colour. I'll be glad to hear any other ideas once you've taken a close look also.

Nigel, I admire your perseverence.

Ultimately, though, I think my time is better spent trying to take better photos than trying to polish turds.

Andrew

Couldn't have put it better myself.



.

Actually to be fair, I don't think the artistic value of the shot is important in Nigel's technical and scientific approach to photography. He obviously enjoys this level of in depth analysis, and surely enjoying what you are doing is all that counts.

That's such an eloquent turn of phrase - I must remember it for when I am next talking about someones photograph.

Well, you did ask the question Now you've got an answer.

The trouble is all of the valiant efforts above look, to my eyes at least, a bit forced, harsh and digital.

There's a limit to how much processing files can take without looking unreal, as I know only too well, but as Smeggy says,"surely enjoying what you are doing is all that counts."

I recall spending many happy hours in the darkroom trying to squeeze extra detail from an over or under exposed negative and when the prints come out of the final wash...they still look awful.

On the contrary, I offered a reason why I should NOT use HDR. My proportion of keepers is relatively low. I don't see any evidence in this thread that regular use of HDR would improve it.


Andrew

I'm not wholly sure that is true.

Earlier in the thread Nigel said "I don't deny that focussing on the artistic will ultimately lead to better results than less lower quality artistic results 'boosted' by processing - I don't believe that anymore than anyone else.".

The thread was diverted into a discussion about HDR.

Andrew

Yes, it's become an examination of the different results from HDR & non-HDR techniques. Thats fine - my shot is just an example to use in looking at the questions ... its a good example I'd say, as it is complex in texures and tones and incorporates a wide DR. In this context of discussion about processing, no, I don't actually think the artistic value of the image is very significant ... so I find comments about that irrelevant ... and references to excrement unnecessary.

There was plenty of opportunity to comment on the shots merits, artistically & technically, when it was first posted and I did not even mention the HDR. In fact, no one picked up it was HDR ... here were some comments at the time :

There has been no specific suggestions on how to shoot that image better - it already has a very low viewpoint, so it comes down to positioning and foreground I guess.

But I responded to the blunt comments that HDR was not needed. I question this because I was there, I tried single shots and assessed it as beyond the DR of the camera. Andrew, you threw up a single shot as evidence that it was all that was needed. I have been looking at that, and the other single shot examples, closely, and I cannot reach that conclusion.

In fact, to me it is the single shot processings that are pushing the limits too much and causing quality degradation. In Photomatix Pro the images fell very comfortably near to the 'Natural' preset default, with only minor tweaks needed, and it was quite effortless.

I am happy to spend good time on this, and enjoy it, because it will help in future when making exposure decisions and deciding whether it is worth taking some extra time to shoot a few brackets.

I haven't used HDR extensively, preferring graduated ND filters, and when I have gone for HDR, only rarely have I found the outcome as pleasing as I'd wish.

Mind you, I should confess to frequently forgetting that I cannot use it on my habitual Manual setting, which varies the aperture rather than the speed between bracketed shots

For the scene in question, I'd have probably used a 2 stop hard grad.

As for the 'artistic' dimension of the shots posted, I took the woodland/grassland to be just convenient subjects for testing out a new lens. As such it might have been sufficient to view them solo, without posting, though that's my instinct, not a criticism.

If you re-read what I wrote both in that comment and others, it should become clear that I was referring to my own images - not the one you have used as an example for HDR.


It is not obvious to me what the subject of the photo is or what you were trying to communicate when you took it. Pointing your camera elsewhere might have been more productive. As you used HDR, you must have set the camera up on a tripod and taken your time about composing and shooting the images. This suggests that the technical quality of the end product was central to your purpose, rather than content.


Whilst the difference between your HDR processed images and that derived from your on-screen Image A is quite small, what you say here must be true. No one would deny that processing a full resolution RAW is likely to produce a better result than re-processing an 800 pixel wide JPEG.

If the image has a dynamic range substantially greater than the camera can record, several potential solutions suggest themselves. Reframing the subject to avoid the problem is one. Using flash, ND grads, ETTR (but avoiding highlight clipping) or HDR could be others depending on the subject. Although, from time to time, I have experimented with HDR, it has not become a technique that I use regularly. In general, exposing so as to JUST avoid clipping highlights and then adjusting tonality in Lightroom seems to do the trick. It also means that, most of the time, I can avoid lugging my (far too heavy) tripod around everywhere I go.

Andrew

Actually no tripod ... It is all handheld with auto bracketing The battery grip and shake reduction were the only other assistance, so I was very pleased with the alignment in fact.

Just to be clear, Nigel kindly supplied me two raws to work on for single image processing. The brighter normally exposed one was unusable due to blown highlights and any further ETTR would have been worse. The dark one, although underexposed, still had some blown highlights together with shadows needing lifting so much that quality went down the pan i.e. the scene was outside the DR of the camera no matter what exposure setting was used.

So my view is:

Without using grad filters or multiple exposures it would be completely impossible to capture this image from this scene using transparency film or the first generation 1stD sensors.

With print film or the K7 sensor it is just about possible to get a reasonable, not great, image from a single critically exposed shot but as has been said the extensive tweaking required gives an artificial 'digital' look. I have to say that, despite my dislike of HDR in general, Nigel has done a better job with this than achievable with a single shot - but it still isn't good enough to get rid of all the artificial digitalness.

With the K5 generation sensors it might just be possible to encompass the DR of this scene but we don't have such an image to prove or disprove that. In a sense it doesn't matter as it just moves the image handling argument on to images with slightly higher DR to cope with.

So, at the end of the day, I think my opinion is that if the scene DR is significantly greater than the sensor it is still best to either point the camera elsewhere or use a grad filter. Extreme digital processing or HDR might get you a usable image but a turd (with no reference to the artistic quality of the shot) can only be polished so far. Unless you don't mind or even artistically prefer the tonal mappings of HDR in which case HDR has no downsides other than faff and movement between images.

Interesting.

This is the histogram for Nigel's Image A.




Checking the individual colour channels shows that none of them have blown highlights. How did you verify that there were blown highlights in the RAW?

Andrew