I remember a while back I posted a couple of shots to show what I was meaning when talking about this 'HDR for increased DR' thing, so heres a link to the post and the images :

link

You should be able to see clear detail in all areas - I think its true that the processing has boosted saturation a bit to much, but this is easily adjusted. I have a huge print of the house shot (from foto.com) that is really spectacular, so the technique worked well for this instance.

Well ACR can certainly control contrast, both across the whole range equally (contrast slider) and at the top end (recovery slider) and low end (black point). This will benefit images where the entire DR was captured in a single shot (ie the histogram data is all contained within the graph, not heading up the outer edges), but if you start off with clipped shadows or blown highlights then trying to limit these will just result in muddy looking greys or a paint-like appearance in the bright areas (I have found)

I know the 'HDR look' is often overdone and not appealing, but I have found Photomatix Pro to be very effective at creating a realistic looking image that contains a wider visible DR than could have been captured in any single shot.

Its true that with RAW and good PP we can drag an awful lot of depth and contrast out of a single shot. But the fact remains that if any scene contains both extreme bright & dark areas that go beyond the sensors dynamic range, and we believe it important to capture detail in both those extremes, then we have little choice but to shoot brackets.

This could be for 'layer blending' (I guess we mean by this revealing different parts of the scene with different exposures through PS layers), or for HDR processing. If any single shot failed to record detail at either extreme (ie the histogram data was shooting up either edge) then we can't reclaim that detail - we can only alter contrast at the extremes which will change the feeling of 'depth' in the image.

The mirror up feature may only have any noticable effect at certain shutter speeds, I think I've read some evidence somewhere that its most significant around 1/8th to 1/30th second, not significant much outside of that range ?? As it seems we can't use mirror up anyway with brackets, if handholding perhaps we should just rely on the SR.

I've just tried this out on the K7 (I think the cameras are the same in these respects - I don't think it is possible to shoot brackets with the mirror up throughout - it appears to drop back for each exposure.

Using the method exevalley described above gives manual control (first push on remote - mirror up, second push takes the shot but the mirror drops back, then its repeated again - no shutter speed changes were seen, so no bracketing was occurring (my user mode has Av set).One-push bracketing does not work in this situation, I had to keep pressing the button each time to raise the mirror and then take the shot.

Am I right to surmise that you cannot take automatic brackets with mirror up? I think this might only be possible on a CSC type camera.

I should add, I think this is significant - in relation to the 'Photo Processing Shootout', it was only following the photographer's claim that the particular colours were present in strength that the view of this as 'correct' gained prominence. Prior to this it was accepted that the alternative colour tones were 'more real, better etc etc'.

Likewise, if I had cloned out an object and beautifully blended the background so you would never know, but then later revealed that I had done so, only then would people clamour for its return.

But also it comes down to how different people view the function and scope of photography. There are many (and Photoshop has tradionally provided the most fuel to their views) who regard the 'recording' aspect of photography as most sacrosanct. They would apply this in any context - 'if it was there for real then it must be there in the photo'.

I think we saw a different aspect of this type of expectation in the 'Photo Processing Shootout', where a lot of the debate was concerning the particular colour balance and portrayal of specific colour tones that were perceived to be 'there' at the time.

Whichever organisational system we use, or particular software, the main thing (in my view) is to keep clear dividing lines between the key file types / workflow stages as you go, and ensure your catalogue can distinquish between these easily.

For me , I shoot DNGs, so these will automatically become the 'master' files, with the built-in advantage that they can not be altered image data-wise. DNGs should also be able to record a wide range of camera specific parameters in the metadata, as well as many generic edit parameters that a wide range of RAW software will offer, so they are really best for this 'master' role I think.

ASAIK DNGs will store most applied metadata within the file itself, so are therefore versatile if you will ever move them to another computer or open them in newer / different software. Some proprietry RAWs won't store some of the specific edit parameters from a program like Lightroom, so your adjustments would be recorded in the program database - you then need to be careful and know how to backup this database and transfer it to another computer so that your files will match up to their 'coupled' metadata.

Then there are 'derivitive' or working files, used for editing with minimal quality loss (eg PSD, TIFF), and finally 'output' files, created for specific purposes, often JPEGs of a precise file size and shapening amounts.

It makes sense to separate these distinct files in your workflow, both by storing on different drives and distinct cataloging. You might tag them with labels to this effect, of embed some XMP / IPTC property info if you database can sort and search based on this.

We all should probably think about this and set some personal 'standards' for our 'private' photography. Its a different ball-game if you're putting your shots up in the public domain where they will be judged on some external criteria - competitions rules, or if they are news-related then the fidelity to the exact original scene would be more important I think.

As far as private work goes, or for where the public aspect is limited to a photographic context (like on this forum when showing our work for discussion) then I personally do accept that we can remove a limited range of distractions to focus attention onto our subject.

my own rule is kind of like this - if I could have actually picked up the offending item and thrown it out of the scene without upsetting anyone there, or disturbing animals nests etc, then I'm quite OK with cloning it out - this applies mainly to items of rubbish, but maybe also to some natural stuff that has blown away from where it grew etc etc.

Ideally of course I would have wanted to actually remove the items, but often there's not the time to carry out proper 'preparation' of the scene like this, especially if you're moving along with other people.

With fixed items (powerlines etc), I'd do it if it only for private / photographic use and only bother if it was really distracting from the subject (the classic one is the bright coloured item just behind your subjects face in the background, or the lampost sticking up behind their head! But yes, we should try and avoid these mistakes in the first place.

Thats a great system and very intuitive. But assuming you are using an OS 'browser' process to manage that (mac Finder or Windows Explorer) then there are risks to the integrity and consistency of the collection. You won't have the same security of 'validation' when copying or moving large amounts of data, nor the ability to introduce external devices and manage their content as easily than if you use a cataloging / database type system (DAM - Digital Asset Management is the 'Jargony' term )

A DAM process (such as the LR Library module, or imatch database, Expression Media etc) can perform on the fly updates to the contents of folders (such as file changes or metadata adjustments) as well as search for a huge range of tags, keywords or other image properties. And a 'browser' approach can only display the contents of folders & image thumbnails when the files are actually in place and 'online'. Also, carrying out your move / copy actions from within the DAM system gives you automatic file integrity checking.

In the case of imatch you get additional support for where there are multiple files with the same filename / extension, giving an instant analysis of the differences - eg this one is bigger / newer / its location history and the categories and property fields it has active. This helps you instantly decide if your are dealing with a binary duplicate or one of your 'derivative' versions created during some editing.

I do buy and look through a range of stuff - mainly for train journeys, and the adverts can be informative. As far as the 'comparison tests' go the main thing that annoys is when they do summaries that line up two very different attributes that can't be a valid comparison.

One example I remember for a K5 review (What Digital Camera Mag I believe) listed as a 'con' the ISO performance at 51,200 - but there was no reference at all anywhere to the competitors ISO performance at 51,200!

Other quirks are when there are a number of highly different specced models featured on the same page, but with a standardised system of rating. Another example I remember from that What Digital Cameera mag had the K5 auto white balance feature described something like 'very accurate and highly faithful in a wide range of conditions'. Then the next review of a Nikon D4 (!) referred to its AWB as 'mostly competent
in general conditions but required adjustments under more challenging lighting scenarios'