hdr question

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 20:59:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

My solution would be to use Lightroom Photo Merge - HDR. See my prior
post or if you want more detailed help we can move this to email.

This might give you some idea of how I use Photo Merge - HDR in LR for
a single exposure. In the case of your bracket I would choose the 0 EV
and work with that in LR.
https://db.tt/nIuPyfxx

My hackles always rise when this process is called HDR.

A single-shot HDR image can only be a pseudo-HDR image in that it has
been obtained from no more dynamic range than is contained in the
original single image.

The conventional HDR process extends the dynamic range of the final
image beyond that of any single image by combining data from more than
one image of different exposures.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:23:51 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:21:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

As an owner of DXO, I agree with this. DXO is great, but not
necessarily any better than LR for NR. I've had different results
between the two with some photos, but nothing significant. The other
thing is that LR is much faster. (DXO has two types, the much better
one for RAW only, but the better one is the very slow one.)

I really did just love DXO, definitely worth the money, but LR/PS CC
seems to be good enough these days to make DXO redundant for most
things. I hate to admit that - it means I have wasted money.

My experience and conclusions are much the same. I believe DxO still
exceeds LR in two areas: lens correction and geometrical correction.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-07-04 21:58:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 20:59:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

My solution would be to use Lightroom Photo Merge - HDR. See my prior
post or if you want more detailed help we can move this to email.

This might give you some idea of how I use Photo Merge - HDR in LR for
a single exposure. In the case of your bracket I would choose the 0 EV
and work with that in LR.
https://db.tt/nIuPyfxx

My hackles always rise when this process is called HDR.

Why?

A single-shot HDR image can only be a pseudo-HDR image in that it has
been obtained from no more dynamic range than is contained in the
original single image.

That is true of single image HDR in NIK HDR Efex Pro, or Photomatix
where the single image is nothing more than a ton mapped image with no
true extension of the DR.

The conventional HDR process extends the dynamic range of the final
image beyond that of any single image by combining data from more than
one image of different exposures.

....and that is just what the "Photo Merge" - HDR function does in LR
CC/6. By taking a RAW file and processing it, a 32-bit RAW file is
created. All you have to do to check that is with the resulting image,
in the Develop module, go to the basic panel and note that now in place
of the usual -5/+5 exposure slider range it is now -10/+10. It is in
every way an HDR process, and if it still troubles you, you can always
shoot a usual 5, 7, or 9 shot exposure bracket. LR will process that
just as well.

The LR single RAW exposure method just opens up a whole bunch of
opportunities where an HDR is the logical answer, but you never exposed
the bracket. I suspect you might have quite a few indoor shots from
your last trip which might benefit.

You have LR and if I am not mistaken you have NIK HDR Efex Pro. Test
for yourself. I did and I am the HDR maniac in this room. The LR single
RAW exposure method works, and works well.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-07-04 22:15:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:23:51 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:21:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

As an owner of DXO, I agree with this. DXO is great, but not
necessarily any better than LR for NR. I've had different results
between the two with some photos, but nothing significant. The other
thing is that LR is much faster. (DXO has two types, the much better
one for RAW only, but the better one is the very slow one.)

I really did just love DXO, definitely worth the money, but LR/PS CC
seems to be good enough these days to make DXO redundant for most
things. I hate to admit that - it means I have wasted money.

My experience and conclusions are much the same. I believe DxO still
exceeds LR in two areas: lens correction and geometrical correction.

....and there, if you have updated lens profiles LR and/or ACR do an
acceptable job. I ran the DxO trial last year and for me it just added
an unnecessary hinderance to an efficient LR-PS workflow.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-07-04 22:31:53 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 3 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
This was a 5 exposure HDR, converted to BW. The HDR rendition and the BW
conversion were done using NIK software. No other modifications were
made. I cannot undertand why the vertical post on the door is so blurry,
compared to the ret of the image. What did I misss?


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150703_Amish_0105_HDR.jpg

thanks

And how is it possible to blur part of the image and not the whole image?

Hand held in unsteady hands. Then NIK HDR Efex Pro did not have a
primary frame to key on for allignment and ghost removal.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/4/2015 9:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

It takes me a while to try new? (Processing techniques that is.)



As far as pushing the DR envelope with the D800, what are you using for
the EV interval for your 5 shot exposure bracket, and what is the total
EV range?
For example if you use a -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 interval you get a decent range.

My Nikon can only bracket one stop at a time, so five shots I go from -2
- +2

Using the LR method with -3.00 and +3.00 I get a wider dynamic range
without having to shoot a bracket and worry about hand holding. I also
get the benefit of 32-bit adjustment and the full DR of the RAW file.
You don't get that from single image processing with NIK HDR Efex Pro.

...but obviously you are going to do things your way. I just suggest you
try my way as I detailed without introducing another factor such as DxO.


I try to use my toys.

Right now I am jpracticing patience as I wait for my wife to get
herself ready. Today is a perfect day for Longwood Gardens. It depends
on whether we can get there early enugh to get her a scooter.
Otherwise more Amish and we try for Longwood tomorrow.

Enjoy.

Thanks, I try. That's what this hobby is about.

--
PeterN

On 7/4/2015 2:23 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:21:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

As an owner of DXO, I agree with this. DXO is great, but not
necessarily any better than LR for NR. I've had different results
between the two with some photos, but nothing significant. The other
thing is that LR is much faster. (DXO has two types, the much better
one for RAW only, but the better one is the very slow one.)

I really did just love DXO, definitely worth the money, but LR/PS CC
seems to be good enough these days to make DXO redundant for most
things. I hate to admit that - it means I have wasted money.


At least you admit it. I am not sure I want to. Have you compared Smart
Lighting inDXO with ACR?



--
PeterN

On 7/4/2015 6:46 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-07-04 22:31:53 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 3 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC-4, peterN wrote:
This was a 5 exposure HDR, converted to BW. The HDR rendition and the BW
conversion were done using NIK software. No other modifications were
made. I cannot undertand why the vertical post on the door is so blurry,
compared to the ret of the image. What did I misss?


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20150703_Amish_0105_HDR.jpg


thanks

And how is it possible to blur part of the image and not the whole image?

Hand held in unsteady hands. Then NIK HDR Efex Pro did not have a
primary frame to key on for allignment and ghost removal.


Is there a way of designating a single shot from a group, for that purpose.

--
PeterN

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 15:42:18 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-04 22:15:07 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:23:51 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 06:21:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

You would be very surprised at how good the NR in LR CC/6 and ACR is.

As an owner of DXO, I agree with this. DXO is great, but not
necessarily any better than LR for NR. I've had different results
between the two with some photos, but nothing significant. The other
thing is that LR is much faster. (DXO has two types, the much better
one for RAW only, but the better one is the very slow one.)

I really did just love DXO, definitely worth the money, but LR/PS CC
seems to be good enough these days to make DXO redundant for most
things. I hate to admit that - it means I have wasted money.

My experience and conclusions are much the same. I believe DxO still
exceeds LR in two areas: lens correction and geometrical correction.

...and there, if you have updated lens profiles LR and/or ACR do an
acceptable job.

Most times, but not always.

I ran the DxO trial last year and for me it just added
an unnecessary hinderance to an efficient LR-PS workflow.

That too, but that applies to almost any plugin.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 15:38:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-07-04 21:58:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 20:59:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

My solution would be to use Lightroom Photo Merge - HDR. See my prior
post or if you want more detailed help we can move this to email.

This might give you some idea of how I use Photo Merge - HDR in LR for
a single exposure. In the case of your bracket I would choose the 0 EV
and work with that in LR.
https://db.tt/nIuPyfxx

My hackles always rise when this process is called HDR.

Why?

A single-shot HDR image can only be a pseudo-HDR image in that it has
been obtained from no more dynamic range than is contained in the
original single image.

That is true of single image HDR in NIK HDR Efex Pro, or Photomatix
where the single image is nothing more than a ton mapped image with no
true extension of the DR.

The conventional HDR process extends the dynamic range of the final
image beyond that of any single image by combining data from more than
one image of different exposures.

...and that is just what the "Photo Merge" - HDR function does in LR
CC/6. By taking a RAW file and processing it, a 32-bit RAW file is
created. All you have to do to check that is with the resulting image,
in the Develop module, go to the basic panel and note that now in place
of the usual -5/+5 exposure slider range it is now -10/+10. It is in
every way an HDR process, and if it still troubles you, you can always
shoot a usual 5, 7, or 9 shot exposure bracket. LR will process that
just as well.

The LR single RAW exposure method just opens up a whole bunch of
opportunities where an HDR is the logical answer, but you never exposed
the bracket. I suspect you might have quite a few indoor shots from
your last trip which might benefit.

That thought had occurred to me when I looked at your Model A Ford.
But even so, all the process does is to further fiddle with the tone
curve. It cannot incorporate data which was beyond the original
camera's ability to capture.

You have LR and if I am not mistaken you have NIK HDR Efex Pro. Test
for yourself. I did and I am the HDR maniac in this room. The LR single
RAW exposure method works, and works well.

The NIK HDR I have is incorporated in Corel PaintShop Pro X6 (now
obsolete).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens