Congrats on your new toy! I hope you didn't spend too much on the 's' part of it though . Looking forward to seeing some close up comparisons of some street shots - I'm sure the edge to edge bokeh sharpness will be impressive!

Apparently not

Thanks for the new work Rob ... I've no doubt that's some impressive highlight recovery going on there, and thats another one to throw into the mix - I've yet to compare closely Andrew's last (the LR Enfuse version of the 2 DNGs) with my own HDR, but give a me a day or so and I'll put them together with this one as well. A lot depends of course on what exactly we rate and value mostly ... I've got a few 'quality parameters' in my mind that I apply automatically, and so far the HDR comes out on top - but that is probably the reason that I choose the HDR anyway, beacuse it matches my own personal quality test in terms of look, and the type of detail.

So personal style preferences come into it as well. But I still suspect that single shot or 2 shot 'blends' represent a bigger processing 'heave' than the (as I described before, an 'effortless' HDR process), with the start point the 'natural' tone compressor preset, and a few minor tweaks.

Oh dear, this ones going to keep on coming back! I've enjoyed it all, thanks to everyone who's chipped in, and especially to Rob & Andrew for putting up such a spirited defense. May the debate continue elsewhere ....

Guess this is wrapping up now, and no better way then answering the question about the Samyang 14mm. There's been plenty of previous discussion and here's a couple of links which have some good info ...

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang----35676/p-0#comm_507029

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-36746/p-0#comm_420864

Its a high quality item, solid and built like a tank. The focus ring has a huge throw and so is very precise, and it has an a-ring for auto-exposure control on Pentax DSLRs. Its resolution data puts it ahead of the FF Nikon equivalent, and all for about £280 new.

As referred to near the start of this long thread, it can't take filters due to the fixed petal hood and bulbous front element ... but, hey, don't let that put you off - you could always shoot some brackets and do some HDR processing !!!!!

The test of that is if they 'look like a photograph'. Hmmm, just thinking ... Ken, if you want I could give 'em the plastic wrap look, or the stained glass window - maybe even the oil painting .... Just say the word.

How do you think it performed in this series of shots?

By 'effort' I was meaning the extent of discussion and considerations in choosing the right single exposure as well as the actual editing. I still don't think any single shot example has the IQ of the HDR. Relatively speaking I am saying that the HDR process was fairly effortless and fell quite naturally within the 'sweetspot' of the technique and the software.

Its about assessing each scene - I would advocate an approach of taking the brackets and having them in the bag if there's any doubt.



Well, thats one idea of what HDR is - for me its nothing to do with acid trips.Its just a technique to record more visible DR when needed - from the evidence here I still interpret it as 'needed' in this case. The alternatives presented introduce too many compromises and represent more extreme pulling around of the image than the quite comfortable HDR work.

What are you assessments of the close ups and detail comparisons? Only these can provide the 'proof of the pudding' in terms of this image and the relative effects on IQ of the differing processings.

I think they're most effective, especially No2 which resembles one of those satellite views of some tropical coral reef

Is that some kind of repair work going on? Anyway, the colours are vibrant and the textures are sharply captured.

I'm glad we're getting there There's been a huge amount of information to digest - I suspect the respective positions may remain somewhat entrenched, but its all good to retain and consider in the future.


Alan, I'm quite happy about the level of scutiny Anyway, I'm glad you were able to muster up something positive, I appreciate that

Inspiring? I didn't want to inspire anyone - I was just trying to get the K7 to reproduce the natural DR as the eye could see it ....

Well, thats one interpretation - for me the examples and detailed compared at close range, and the effort expended to get near to the HDR with the single files makes a clear case to me for HDR for this scene, and others similar.

These are all valiant & superb efforts. What I do find curious, and a bit ironic, is the extraordinary commitment to the single file option .... originally this debate kicked off with comments about the non-necessity for HDR, and how much more trouble it was - the word 'hassle' was used to describe it. This seemed to be mostly accepted. But here we are still trying to prove that we can find one ideal single exposure and process it to perfection .... and it has taken many pages of discussion and describing of software techniques .... and still its all in the name of finding something that equates to or nearly equates to the original HDR!!! I may well still argue its not there yet.

Where is the real hassle?? As I said earlier, truth is, the creation of the HDR (both the bracket shooting and the Photomatix work) was painless - no tripod required and the processing was easily sorted with the 'natural' Tone Compressor preset and a few small tweaks here & there. Even NR, aberration correction, de-ghosting and image alignment was taken care of automatically while I sat back for about 45secs.

Even if I had one single perfect exposure it would take far more effort to optimize it, involving inevitably a big compromise somewhere to strike the right balance between sky & ground. From what Andrew & Rob have been demonstrating, it would seem that in order to get an acceptable single exposure of this scene we would need to shoot at about -2.5 stops compensation in order to get a good sky, producing a near black ground in the process, and then crank up all the shadow recovery and lifting processing oomph we can muster out of Lightroom or PS, just to return the ground to something we can see properly again.

How can this be any good for IQ? The camera sensor records most of its quality data in the upper half of the spectrum - thats the rationale behind 'ETTR'. By underexposing most of the scene are we not throwing away so much of the best quality data the camera could record?

The HDR technique gives us the best of it all - each bracketed exposure is optimal for a certain band of DR, right from the darkest (which gives us the best sky highlights here) through to the brightest (which gives us the shadow areas smack in the middle of the sensors sweet spot.) The software does most of the rest, along with the users careful and subtle control.

I remind you all - no one knew this image was HDR until I said so. Then all of a sudden it was 'no need for HDR for this scene, one shot would do it, etc etc'. Does it seem so clear cut now?

The scene was lit by quite diffused lighting through a lot of cloud cover, so yes, there was good detail visable in the deeper shadows under trees and in the distance. It was not a squinting sort of scene, the eye could scan around easily and adjust taking in a high quality of deatil - thats what I wanted to reproduce, what was natural able to be seen.

My own feeling is that this is better represented by the quite effortless HDR process, whereas other single file techniques rely on high 'oompph factor' software power, especially to drag detail out of deep shadows, the weakest parts of the sensor detail.