The images in that thread use HDR and look very nice - but, without a direct A-B comparison between the HDR version and one that was optimally processed, but without HDR, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the value of the HDR processing.

Andrew

Interesting comment!

Do you remember this thread?

The concensus conclusion, which included the HDR evangelist who authored the current thread, was that HDR could not deliver as good a result as merging two images that included the whole dynamic range ,manually, in Photoshop (or Elements 8 in my case).

I have no doubt that Photomatix can produce a result that, if viewed in in isolation can appear realistic. The church windows thread is the only time I have seen a direct A-B comparison between images produced from the same RAWs with and without HDR software. In that thread, Photomatix came up short.

Have you got or are you aware of any other direct A-B comparisons between post processing methodologies where HDR software produces the better result? If you are aware of such a comparison, then maybe I should have another look at HDR, but for now it definitely stays on the back burner.

Andrew

Does anyone ever really use HDR in camera?

It is rare with the K30 (or any camera with the 16mpx Sony sensor) that you'd really need to worry much about high contrast scenes. Shooting in RAW, spot metering the brightest highlight and opening up 2.5 stops, followed by "normalising" the exposure in Lightroom usually does the trick without excessive noise.

In very rare extreme circumstances, the scene's dynamic range might be too high, even for that approach - which is why I usually carry some ND grads around with me.

For scenes where using ND grads is not possible, e.g. taking a photo from inside a cave but near the cave exit where a sunlit area is present in frame, taking two shots and merging them in PP works well and avoids having to use HDR software. I am well aware that there are HDR evangelists around who seem to want to generate an HDR "effect" as the end result - no doubt that can be achieved in camera.

Andrew

Your original definition of Input Control was: "1) Input Controls directly affect the 'physical' optical image capture ...how the camera optics perform and the way the sensor records that optical image data.".

The ISO setting has no effect on the amount of light captured by the sensor - so you cannot use your original definition and regard ISO as an input control.

Andrew

Your original statement on this "Input Controls directly affect the 'physical' optical image capture" is wrong if you include ISO in your list of input controls. ISO does NOT affect the amount of light captured by the sensor - only aperture and shutter speed do that.

You are correct, of course that in current cameras, you cannot change the ISO value after image capture. This is, through, a pretty academic point as cameras having the Sony 16mpx sensor (e.g. Nikon D7000, pENTAX k500, k50, k30 and all the k5 series) are almost isoless. You can deliberately grossly underexpose in camera and then correct the exposure in PP with little noise penalty - which is equivalent to changing ISO after capture.

Earlier today, I tried an experiment with my K30. I took one correctly exposed shot at f/2.8 1/125sec ISO 3200 - and then a shot of the same image that was 5 stops under exposed, at f/2.8 1/125sec ISO 100. I pushed the exposure of the ISO 100 shot in Lightroom by 5 stops to produce an image of the same brightness. There was a (just) noticeable difference in noise levels between the two images - but that disappeared after noise reduction was applied in Lightroom. Adjusting exposure during RAW conversion produces a similar result to that which would have been achieved by adjusting ISO pre-capture.

Andrew

I am not quite sure yet where you are going with this thread, Nigel, but my understanding of what happens in the camera is rather different. Unless I am mistaken, the ISO setting does not affect what is captured by the sensor.

My understanding is that the ISO setting determines the extent to which the voltages stored in sensels at capture are amplified before the RAW file is created. Depending upon the camera marque, this amplification might be analogue if it takes place before A/D conversion or digital if it takes place afterwards - or both. Maybe the boundary you draw between input and output controls should be the raw file, rather than the voltages stored in the sensor at capture.

My understanding of the WB setting is that it merely acts as a user suggestion to the RAW processing software, whether this is in camera or otherwise, of the WB to be applied when output is created. It is used in creating images viewed on the rear LCD screen of cameras. If you are shooting JPEGs in camera, it will be used in the creation of the JPEG. If shooting only in RAW, it will be used in the creation of the JPEG preview stored in the RAW file and is also used by external RAW conversion software to create the image viewed onscreen when a RAW file is opened. I do not believe that it affects the content of the RAW data itself.

Andrew

I must start using my M75-150mm f/4 again. It's a great lens, isn't it?

Andrew

It is Elements 8 that I use for 1% (or less of the time). From time to time, there are things that I do struggle with, which Photoshop CC would do better in particular ........

* Most of the editing tools in Elements operate only on 8 bit files
* Layers in Elements only operate on 8 bit files (without a backdoor fiddle)
* You need a (free) plugin, Grant's tools or equiv to create and use layer masks
* Complex selections (e.g. ladies hair) are much harder because the Refine Edge dialogue is crippled in Elements 8 (better in Elements 11 onwards, I understand)
* Elements has limited image merging functions. Stuff like HDR, focus stacking and generating panoramas can be pain in the proverbials - Photoshop can do a lot more. There are plugins for Lightroom (LR/Enfuse) that can do focus stacking and HDR - though maybe not so well as Photoshop. You can use an external programme Microsoft ICE for stitching images for panoramas and it works well.

If you are the kind of photographer who strives to get it right in-camera and doesn't want to spend time making silk purses out of sow's ears using Photoshop, then all you'll ever need is Lightroom. On the other hand, if you are into creating complex composite images from several source photos then you need Photoshop.

Andrew

Lightroom 99% of the time. Elements rarely for layers/masks

Andrew

Whilst ArgyllCMS & dispcalGUI are a little klunky in use, they work very well on my Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA using a Pantone Huey.

As an aside, maybe Dwiea shouldn't worry so much about spec for monitors - yes, there are differences in their maximum brightness, but when calibrating for photo editing that should be pulled down to about 120 cd/m2. The difference between 300 and 350 cd/m2 maximum brightness isn't of practical significance - just marketing puff.

Andrew