Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 29 Aug 2013 (Thursday) 13:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

HDR vs Lightroom

 
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,394 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4501
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 29, 2013 13:18 |  #1

I recently purchased LR5, and was wondering how adjusting "highlights", "whites", "blacks", and "shadows", "vibrance", and so on, compared to tonemapping or fusing in Photomatix. Here is a picture done all three ways (the tonemapped and fused images were the result of three exposures).

I've been staring at these too long and need fresh, objective eyes to help me out. Thoughts? Highlights, shadows, clouds, hue of the sky and stone, bleeding... anything.

1.

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5483/9624606910_c825645575_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​624606910/  (external link)
IMG_1915_6_7_tonemappe​dA_960x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

2.
IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5452/9624607076_dc72e15d25_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​624607076/  (external link)
IMG_1915_6_7_fused_960​x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

3.
IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5336/9621371625_2605b46660_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​621371625/  (external link)
IMG_1915B_LR_960x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,664 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7634
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 29, 2013 13:36 |  #2

They're very similar, but the sky is a clearer blue in #3. No other diference-making differences that I can see.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chet
my rates fluctuate
Avatar
43,260 posts
Gallery: 130 photos
Likes: 2135
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 29, 2013 13:39 |  #3

I like the sky in 3 and the stone color in 2. Should easily be able to achieve the blend in LR. #1 is a bit void of contrast for my tastes.


Curator of the Bob's Pickle Emporium experience. -As always, One location to serve you better!
~Feel good today and donate to this great forum~ LINK
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
     
Aug 29, 2013 13:43 |  #4

The sky in the non-HDR image is close to clipping, but looks the best, better than the first two images.

My guess is that the original scene was within the dynamic range of your camera and wouldn't have benefited from HDR anyway. Unless your histogram is clipping hard against the sides, and you can clearly see that you could benefit from seeing more in the highlights and/or shadows, HDR isn't of much use.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,984 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 789
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Aug 29, 2013 14:28 |  #5

^^ Yes - no need to use HDR techniques or exposure blending when the scene does not require it. Further, for actual HDR scenes, you can acquire multiple exposures, merge them into a 32bit TIFF (a very klunky file format) and tone map them 32bit file in ACR/LR.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nittaya
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Aug 29, 2013 15:34 as a reply to  @ Kolor-Pikker's post |  #6

if you post all the three bracketed shots (no post processing other than re sizing) it would be easier to figure out how to process them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,394 posts
Gallery: 219 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4501
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 29, 2013 16:03 |  #7

I appreciate the inputs, thanks.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16250749 (external link)
My guess is that the original scene was within the dynamic range of your camera and wouldn't have benefited from HDR anyway. Unless your histogram is clipping hard against the sides, and you can clearly see that you could benefit from seeing more in the highlights and/or shadows, HDR isn't of much use.

kirkt wrote in post #16250863 (external link)
^^ Yes - no need to use HDR techniques or exposure blending when the scene does not require it. Further, for actual HDR scenes, you can acquire multiple exposures, merge them into a 32bit TIFF (a very klunky file format) and tone map them 32bit file in ACR/LR.

Using only DPP, I couldn't pull out the detail from the highlights (clouds), and the detail from the shadows (left lower corner), with only one exposure. So, as time and convenience allowed, I would bring the tripod along and shoot at least three exposures for landscapes, and either tonemap or fuse them (in Photomatix).

But using the sliders within LR, mention in my OP, it seems I can now do that (in a scene like this, at any rate). I just wanted some opinions as to which looked the best. Seems the single image processed in LR may have the edge, which could save me a lot of time and effort in the future, both in processing and if there's a hike involved.

nittaya wrote in post #16251096 (external link)
if you post all the three bracketed shots (no post processing other than re sizing) it would be easier to figure out how to process them.

Here ya go:

"0"

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/9625596578_b41e46191e_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​625596578/  (external link)
IMG_1915_800x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

-1 2/3
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7455/9625596486_0c8c08cffa_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​625596486/  (external link)
IMG_1916_800x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

+1 2/3
IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3823/9625596432_14edde85e3_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/92594357@N07/9​625596432/  (external link)
IMG_1917_800x (external link) by ...moose... (external link), on Flickr

Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Aug 29, 2013 17:40 |  #8

Adobe has made real "strides" in Raw processing, to the degree that for me and my photography I just haven't felt the need to resort to HDR/blending, whether with multiple exposures or multiple Raw processes...

Now granted, that's me and my photography, and that's shooting exclusively Raw and paying attention to my exposure! For some scenes, I'm sure it can differ!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,024 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1632
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Aug 29, 2013 18:50 |  #9

Looking at your original exposures without processing I would have probably gone for somewhere around the +1 1/3 stop as a maximum and processed in LR. LR is capable of rendering much more highlight detail from a RAW file then DPP is so simple ETTR is all you really need to maximise the DR of the camera. I have never really used DPP as I have been using RAW Shooter and various different versions of ACR/LR since 2005. However I understand that there is a "Linear" mode now in DPP that can recover highlight detail, but it has to then be combined with a "standard" conversion by tone mapping/HDR/or other suitable techniques.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
     
Aug 30, 2013 03:28 |  #10

LV Moose wrote in post #16251180 (external link)
But using the sliders within LR, mention in my OP, it seems I can now do that (in a scene like this, at any rate). I just wanted some opinions as to which looked the best. Seems the single image processed in LR may have the edge, which could save me a lot of time and effort in the future, both in processing and if there's a hike involved.


Here ya go:

"0"

-1 2/3

+1 2/3

So, I think that the "0" shot is fully usable as a stand-alone image, but I can imagine that the shadows might get get noisy if you bring them up too much, so I'd take the shadows from the overexposed shot and blend them over the neutral shot. But you don't have to.

This is actually why I still carry a light meter around, my model can map the dynamic range of the scene and your camera's DR, which I can use to figure out how many shots I need, if any. Most people usually over-do/over-think their need of HDR, when even two shots would have been enough.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,483 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Aug 30, 2013 03:45 |  #11

This is actually why I still carry a light meter around, my model can map the dynamic range of the scene and your camera's DR, which I can use to figure out how many shots I need, if any. Most people usually over-do/over-think their need of HDR, when even two shots would have been enough.

This is a bit OT but connected to your comment above. After years of being afraid of Magic Lantern I recently read that Lensrentals has installed it in some of their 5D3s and 5D2s. I figured that Roger Cicala and his crew had done lots of testing and if it is safe enough for them it would be safe enough for me. I was excited to discover that it installs in Live View a small spot meter window with a numerical readout under it, in either percentage of luminosity or 0-255 scale. No more need for a separate hand-held meter.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
     
Aug 30, 2013 04:13 |  #12

tzalman wrote in post #16252603 (external link)
This is a bit OT but connected to your comment above. After years of being afraid of Magic Lantern I recently read that Lensrentals has installed it in some of their 5D3s and 5D2s. I figured that Roger Cicala and his crew had done lots of testing and if it is safe enough for them it would be safe enough for me. I was excited to discover that it installs in Live View a small spot meter window with a numerical readout under it, in either percentage of luminosity or 0-255 scale. No more need for a separate hand-held meter.

ML also has a built-in HDR function that uses the camera's meter to analyze the DR of the scene and take the appropriate number of shots. I'd be using it if it weren't for the fact that ML causes my camera's battery to drain even when it's turned off, unless I unload/load ML via separate CF card, and that's a real pain.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,483 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Aug 30, 2013 05:42 |  #13

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16252631 (external link)
ML also has a built-in HDR function that uses the camera's meter to analyze the DR of the scene and take the appropriate number of shots. I'd be using it if it weren't for the fact that ML causes my camera's battery to drain even when it's turned off, unless I unload/load ML via separate CF card, and that's a real pain.

Yeh, I saw that. I think the ISO bracket is really cool.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
_GUI_
Senior Member
Avatar
348 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Madrid (Spain)
     
Aug 30, 2013 20:22 |  #14

Using TuFuse:

IMAGE: http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/tufuse.jpg

The result is very similar to the middle shot. In fact this is a low DR scene which doesn't need/deserve making several shots. The middle shot + soft shadow lifting would have sufficed.

http://www.guillermolu​ijk.com (external link) to subscribe click here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,483 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Aug 31, 2013 06:26 |  #15

_GUI_ wrote in post #16254896 (external link)
Using TuFuse:
The result is very similar to the middle shot. In fact this is a low DR scene which doesn't need/deserve making several shots. The middle shot + soft shadow lifting would have sufficed.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #16252581 (external link)
This is actually why I still carry a light meter around, my model can map the dynamic range of the scene and your camera's DR, which I can use to figure out how many shots I need, if any. Most people usually over-do/over-think their need of HDR, when even two shots would have been enough.

So the trick is in knowing your camera and its practical DR. The measurements on dxomark.com may be scientifically accurate but I think most people would agree that they are over-optimistic and about two stops too high. For my 5D2, shooting Raw, I figure about 10 stops for ISO 100/200, 9.5 stops at ISO 400, 9 stops at ISO 800 and around 7.3 stops at ISO 1600. Above 1600 subtract a full stop for each doubling of ISO.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,488 views & 0 likes for this thread
HDR vs Lightroom
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is shuadchaun
980 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.