To HDR or not to HDR?

Personally, I think the HDR versions look a little too unnatural. I like the fact that the foreground flowers are more visible, but the grass and leaves look strange. What would happen in you took image #2 and then played with the color saturation by reducing the yellows a bit?

Okay, you asked, so here's my view!

I have a fairly strong belief that the way the camera captures scenes is fundamentally different from the way the human eye does, and for various reasons this is not cancelled out (as you might suppose) when you stare at a photo, whether printed or on-screen.

In particular, I am convinced the eye has something akin to a logarithmic response to intensity which is quite different from the mostly linear curve used on 'straight' digital image capture.

So, I almost always use DRO on the A58, to lighten the shadows and make the image more like what I think I see. The exception is when I deliberately want the shadows deep, but I can always do that in PP. Now you can do all of the curve bending in PP, but as a jpeg user I prefer to lift the shadows before compression so the noise doesn't creep up, even if I want to push them down later.

Obviously HDR is an alternative to this, but I find it useful mostly when the composition contains things like doorways or tunnels where the DR exceeds the sensor (not just the jpeg), and I want detail in the highlights and shadows that would otherwise be blown out - I've never found it necessary in normal pictures; DRO does all I need for these.

Now DRO and HDR both reduce contrast in some part of the curve. HDR tends to reduce it everywhere which can make the picture look flat, whereas DRO tends to reduce it in the shadows without flattening the rest too much. I prefer that.

Much will also depend on the subject. You pic contains a shaft of sunlight on the tower which I suspect adds much to the appeal of the original, and this is lost on some of your images (I prefer 2 and 3 which show this). Also you don't have any clouds, which are the real test for me (what I call the 'Ektachrome look', with cloud and shadow detail still with lots of contrast). Clearly the non-HDR loses brightness in the grass and bushes, whicha re neither well enough lit to be attractive nor dark enough to make a good silhouette; curve bending and advanced PP is one approach to this; moving your feet and adjusting the composition is another!

Another issue with HDR is the need for three separate images. Clever sony software can cope with some subject movement (eg people walking) by selecting just one image on these parts, but I always think the single DRO image is going to be better here.

So, HDR can be very effective in some scenes (doorways, views through windows, etc), but I wouldn't use it for this one!

Phil Wood wrote: Is it me or is the tower marginally out of focus? This may be due to the small image size, but it just jars. And yes, the sky in the HDR version is odd.

The sky in the original HDR version looks.like a HDR processed shot, complete with "halos" where the HDR local tone mapping has artificially created halos in areas light and dark areas meet.

The second version looks better, marginally more natural, but still looks rather artificial.

The Capture One version from a single exposure returns some reality to the image, and is probably my favourite.

Phil Wood wrote: Is it me or is the tower marginally out of focus? This may be due to the small image size, but it just jars. And yes, the sky in the HDR version is odd.

It's probably the small image size because the bricks are pin sharp in the original. Sorry it jars though, but not sure there's anything I can do to fix that.

I once heard from a tutorial video that the importance of realistic HDR is the highlight elements must remain brighter than the shadow items in the blended image.
I think that in your first photo, the green branches are as bright as the sunshined bricks and "yellow" leaves. This might has caused the surreal feelings in comments above.

Edited by beautiophile - 19 September 2018 at 14:15

beautiophile wrote: I once heard from a tutorial video that the importance of realistic HDR is the highlight elements must remain brighter than the shadow items in the blended image. I think that's in your first photo, the green branches is as bright as the sunshined bricks and "yellow" leaves. This might have caused the surreal feelings in comments above.

Really good input, thank you. I think you're right, I've flattened that part of the image too much. I like the bright green leaves, but they take something away from the light on the towers.

jkp1 wrote: Do we really need HDR when we are shooting raw, and using one of our modern linear response sensors ?

It's an interesting question whether a raw file exposed to protect extreme highlights could be developed with local adjustments to bring out shadow detail.

I often use digital graduated filters or local dodging and burning to balance areas of an image.

I use SilkyPix to develop raw files, which has useful global dodge and burn controls as well as HDR, which are often better when used alongside global changes to exposure, contrast and some local adjustments.