in camera hdr

This method on the K10D is intended to allow multiple exposures on a single frame The way it works is that you first select how many shots you require on a single frame from which it divides the total exposure required by no. of shots eg 4 shots each shot will receive 1/4 of the total exposure needed. I tried this using empty beer cans of the same type on the table top and introduced each one into the frame seperately for each shot. The first can got total exposure, the second 3/4 , third 1/2 and so on.
I would include the photo here if I knew how. !!!!

AFAIK, using Multiple Exposure in this way will only complete the first step of HDR photography, that of capturing the dynamic range. The second step, which you need to do in software is Tone Mapping - basically you cannot display an HDR picture properly on conventional equipment because monitors don't have the necessary dynamic range, you need to reduce it by tone mapping.

Tomorrow, I'll try taking an ME landscape like this, shooting in RAW, then tone map it. I'll let you know what happens!

But the dynamic range can't be anymore than that of the sensor, which would be the same as just doing it in one exposure. I fully understand HDR when using seperate exposures on seperate frames, so you end up with several raw files which are then processed and tone mapped, but several exposures on one frame can't extend the dynamic range of the sensor, or the image, as far as I can see.

I'll be gladly proved wrong.

Dan

Dan, you are probably bang-on there. I did a quick test in my garden this morning.

First a "reference photo" a single shot of the scene, pattern metering, shot raw




Next the raw multiple exposure image, just converted to JPG, no additional processing




Multiple Exposure tone mapped in Photomatix Pro




The same picture with some more processing from silkypix - tone curve, memory colour1, natural fine sharpening, strong contrast




Finally a "proper" HDR rendition, 5 RAW shots combined and tone mapped in Photomatix pro (using same settings as the ME version)




As you can see the "proper" HDR image has way more range and better colour saturation than the ME version, even when tone mapped. The ME pictures do bring out some more detail in the shadows (compared to the reference shot) the highlights and skies just get blown out totally.

Both the ME and the HDR brackets were done by combining five shots at -2 -1 0 +1 +2 ev

HDR is so easy to do by using the auto bracket feature (not used for this test) and a bit of software, while the ME approach is more fiddly (you have to keep going back into the camera menu, use manual exposure) that I can't really see an advantage for ME in landscape shots. I think I'll just use ME for "artistic" effects. Might be fun on firework photographs

I agree, ME 'HDR' is not going to give the same image as 'proper' HDR. I didn't get what I expected it to see, especially clipping bands in the sky (though I'd still be unaware of it), it is indeed more 'fiddly' (but then so is almost everything unless 'point and shooting').

I'm glad I've tried it though, it may be an appropriate landscape technique in some instances.

Thanks for all the critique an experimentation.

Well, yes, but only because it's grossly overexposed. You can actually get a very similar pic to the proper HDR image by playing around with the 'standard' shot, just without such a dark sky.

One day I'll get around to playing with HDR software, but I don't think I'll bother trying the in camera ME HDR effect.

Dan