[Nass]

Perhaps then I'm just expecting too much from the inbuilt HDR on the K-7 and I should stick to more old fashioned methods and manually experimenting with HDR on a PC with photoshop

What really surprises me is that there are no 'options' as such with it. Ie if you're in standard JPEG mode then you have all sorts of bracketing options - both exposure bracketing and extended bracketing. So what you can do is set the thing up to a) bracket 5 shots and also for each of those 5, have the inbuilt 'extended bracketing' then create 3 variants with either white balance, saturation, hue, high/low key adjustment, contrast or sharpness 'bracketing'. Ie giving 15 variants in all.

But with HDR capture on, both extended and regular bracketing seem to get disabled. Which really rather surprises me because it doesn't seem to deliver the automatic variants that I'd like in order to make a choice/get it looking better in-camera. Sure I can always do that on a PC but that's not really the point?

Also, I'm kind of surprised that inbuilt HDR requires more than one exposure. That means it requires a tripod which limits its use to smucks like me that don't mind carrying a tripod about. After all, light entering a lens is just a data stream really. So why not implement it in a way that requires just 1 shot, and have the internal processor then do its business and divvy them up internally. I'm not really being clear here, let me explain.

Ie say for the sake of round figures I have a 1 second exposure recommended. Then presumably HDR needs 2 seconds for the lows and 1/2 second for the highs. So it takes a 2 second exposure only. During that 2 second exposure, after 1/2 a second it takes the data and calls it number 1 internally. Then after 1 second it takes the accumulated data (which will also contain the previous 1/2 second) and calls it number 2 internally. Then when we've reached 2 seconds it calls the final one #3 internally. Then it'd use those 3, do it's HDR thing and call it and HDR image. That'd seem a far more sensible way to implement HDR for mass-usage - because for most shots it'd mean no need for a tripod (ie most shots being say 1/125).

As for HDR itself, yes clearly there are some spectacular results being achieved with it. I'm thinking that rather than use it on situations where I'm expecting shadows and contrast, I should give it a whirl on different subject matter. For example more flat lit still lifes. To me, it seems that HDR actually turns photography on its head a bit. ie instead of photography being a an art that's largely about the light, it almost says who cares about the light, it's about colour and shape. Which is of course fair enough, heck there's no such thing as 'right', it's an interprative art.

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps then I'm just expecting too much from the inbuilt HDR on the K-7 and I should stick to more old fashioned methods and manually experimenting with HDR on a PC with photoshop

Well yes, some of this stuff is still work.

What really surprises me is that there are no 'options' as such with it. Ie if you're in standard JPEG mode then you have all sorts of bracketing options - both exposure bracketing and extended bracketing. So what you can do is set the thing up to a) bracket 5 shots and also for each of those 5, have the inbuilt 'extended bracketing' then create 3 variants with either white balance, saturation, hue, high/low key adjustment, contrast or sharpness 'bracketing'. Ie giving 15 variants in all.

But with HDR capture on, both extended and regular bracketing seem to get disabled. Which really rather surprises me because it doesn't seem to deliver the automatic variants that I'd like in order to make a choice/get it looking better in-camera. Sure I can always do that on a PC but that's not really the point?

Also, I'm kind of surprised that inbuilt HDR requires more than one exposure. That means it requires a tripod which limits its use to smucks like me that don't mind carrying a tripod about. After all, light entering a lens is just a data stream really. So why not implement it in a way that requires just 1 shot, and have the internal processor then do its business and divvy them up internally. I'm not really being clear here, let me explain.

Ie say for the sake of round figures I have a 1 second exposure recommended. Then presumably HDR needs 2 seconds for the lows and 1/2 second for the highs. So it takes a 2 second exposure only. During that 2 second exposure, after 1/2 a second it takes the data and calls it number 1 internally. Then after 1 second it takes the accumulated data (which will also contain the previous 1/2 second) and calls it number 2 internally. Then when we've reached 2 seconds it calls the final one #3 internally. Then it'd use those 3, do it's HDR thing and call it and HDR image. That'd seem a far more sensible way to implement HDR for mass-usage - because for most shots it'd mean no need for a tripod (ie most shots being say 1/125).

As for HDR itself, yes clearly there are some spectacular results being achieved with it. I'm thinking that rather than use it on situations where I'm expecting shadows and contrast, I should give it a whirl on different subject matter. For example more flat lit still lifes. To me, it seems that HDR actually turns photography on its head a bit. ie instead of photography being a an art that's largely about the light, it almost says who cares about the light, it's about colour and shape. Which is of course fair enough, heck there's no such thing as 'right', it's an interprative art.

At some point, I think the manufacturers have to look at what they can pack into a camera and how it is going to be used. For the lazy or thinking challenged, the canned filters are probably fine, and adding expensive options to the camera isn't going to boost sales to that demographic.
I think what you are describing would add significantly to the street price of the camera without giving much by way of an improvement in usability or results. You would still be dealing with a canned filter, and the limitations thereby imposed.
As an aside, how do you propose to keep a camera still during a two second exposure without some sort of stable support. You need to think these things through before posting.

[Nass]

You need to think these things through before posting.

I'm not sure if it was intended but that comes across as an unbelievably condescending reply, Wheatfield. Maybe you missed the words in the original post which said that I put 1 second as an exposure for the sake of round figures and added that because for most shots it'd mean no need for a tripod (ie most shots being say 1/125)? ...

Anyhow we'll agree to disagree on this. Personally I think if you could have an HDR mode that just uses the one capture (ie for a realistic example a merge of 1/60,1/125 and 1/250) rather than several which more or less mandates a tripod I think it'd be a winner for everyone. And if there was bracketing of a sort in there then I think it would add even more - choice is good. I'd be much more impressed with it than what I currently have, either a 'strong' or 'standard' option. But your mileage may vary

[Marc Sabatella]

That's a neat idea, but it would require someone to design a sensor do the sort of "partial reads" you are talking about. I'm guessing that's not a trivial task. And given that results of any in-camera HDR are going to be extremely crude compared to what you can do yourself if you exercise creative control over the process, that's a lot of sensor re-design work for what is, in the end, really just a gimmick.

[attack11]

That's a neat idea, but it would require someone to design a sensor do the sort of "partial reads" you are talking about. I'm guessing that's not a trivial task. And given that results of any in-camera HDR are going to be extremely crude compared to what you can do yourself if you exercise creative control over the process, that's a lot of sensor re-design work for what is, in the end, really just a gimmick.

you need a ccd with a >78dB dynamic range; so .. digital medium format. that's hdr out of the camera without gimmicks. if the 645d ever comes out, problem solved.

anyways, tone mapping an hdr to ldr image will sacrifice contrast. can't get around that.

[emalvick]

A problem I see is in the processing speeds. While a camera is potentially writing the first image's worth of data it is supposed to still be recording the 2nd image worth. The faster the shutter speed, the faster you need to be able to write the file. Then there are things like the buffer and potential buffer overflow, let alone the limitation on card speeds.

I'm really not sure it would be worth the effort for a side of photography that just isn't that greatly used (yet).

[ivoire]

The hdr feature of the K7 is just another tool for me in my real estate venture that shortens my work flow. I posted this before, but here is a slide show where 80% of the images were taken using this feature and then touched up in CS4. The light was very poor in most areas and brilliant thru the windows. I really like this camera and its feature set. True, improvements could and will be made but until then i'm just working with what it has to offer and the hdr has reduced my processing times.

http://3difocus.com/slideshows/312-E-Ninth/

---

Last edited by ivoire; 09-02-2009 at 01:56 PM.

[Ari]

I can definitely see how the built - in hdr function would be an asset for real estate photography, as long as it's not a "strong" effect (I use this term loosely, as it is more or less a control in the tonemapping function in Photomatix, which I use. Other PP software may have different terms). Plus it looks like you have the right focal length (the 12-24) to do some amazing wide angle artistic shots )

[ivoire]

I can definitely see how the built - in hdr function would be an asset for real estate photography, as long as it's not a "strong" effect (I use this term loosely, as it is more or less a control in the tonemapping function in Photomatix, which I use. Other PP software may have different terms). Plus it looks like you have the right focal length (the 12-24) to do some amazing wide angle artistic shots )

Yeah, i use the hdr1 setting with flash. I used to do multi xposures with the k20 and then adjust and merge for the same effect. The K7 does 90% of the work for me now. The 12-24 gets a workout and produces very nice results.
I have to admit that if that tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ever comes out in pentax mount, the 12-24 might be history. The images from it rival primes.

[Nass]

They look great - it's probably a case of me working out what I can/should use it on and what I can't. It'll be fun learning

[Nass]

Seems to me that successful HDR is a case of choosing the correct subject.
On my weekend walk today, I took this, a regular RAW, exposing for a bit of colour on the bridge:



Then as part of my HDR quest I took this on the inbuilt K7 HDR capture 'standard':



and this last one on the inbuilt HDR capture 'strong'



and, well I don't know about you, but I'd say 3 & 2 kind of worked for me!

(Note - deliberately no colour PP on any of these 3, just CS3 resized & bordered with an action, and saved as jpeg with medium quality)

[Ari]

Seems to me that successful HDR is a case of choosing the correct subject.

I agree. HDR is a really nice techniques (imho) for rendering skies, wide angle landscapes, revealing rich colors and textures and architectural subjects. I think it gets overused a little when using it for people or "snapshot" photography. I'm not criticizing it's uses for that, though; we all do what we think is pleasing to our eye (and I think hope other people will agree with our taste). I took these the other day:


I think the effect works here (though it's a little too blue) because of the perspective and the fact that the sky is definitely an element to the "mood" of the picture.


Once again I think it works here because of the color (though you'll notice how this technique can add some noise in dark areas)


This is a nice way that HDR reveals texture


I would say it doesn't work here because of the over - saturation, but some people love that effect.

[Bill B]

Personally, I prefer HDR off the camera, using the camera to bracket the scene. I say that simply because I don't have an on-board HDR function. ;-D

I have to add my voice to those that are saying the subject and the lighting makes a huge difference when shooting HDR. I have shot some HDR that came out quite nicely when combined and mapped, and others that looked no better than the "regular" shot taken no matter how I tweaked the mapping.

I've managed to work out that, at least for me, some landscapes work but I've noticed that's more likely to be the case when the sky is a major component or there are deep shadows. Shooting HDR pictures of people just doesn't work for me, I think because it's overkill. The end result is that I use it for very specific types of outdoors shots where I want the details that the eye can see in the shadows plus the colors in the lit areas, but which the camera can only get perfect with either the shadow detail or the colors, but not both.

[Pentaxor]

Perhaps then I'm just expecting too much from the inbuilt HDR on the K-7 and I should stick to more old fashioned methods and manually experimenting with HDR on a PC with photoshop

What really surprises me is that there are no 'options' as such with it. Ie if you're in standard JPEG mode then you have all sorts of bracketing options - both exposure bracketing and extended bracketing. So what you can do is set the thing up to a) bracket 5 shots and also for each of those 5, have the inbuilt 'extended bracketing' then create 3 variants with either white balance, saturation, hue, high/low key adjustment, contrast or sharpness 'bracketing'. Ie giving 15 variants in all.

But with HDR capture on, both extended and regular bracketing seem to get disabled. Which really rather surprises me because it doesn't seem to deliver the automatic variants that I'd like in order to make a choice/get it looking better in-camera. Sure I can always do that on a PC but that's not really the point?

Also, I'm kind of surprised that inbuilt HDR requires more than one exposure. That means it requires a tripod which limits its use to smucks like me that don't mind carrying a tripod about. After all, light entering a lens is just a data stream really. So why not implement it in a way that requires just 1 shot, and have the internal processor then do its business and divvy them up internally. I'm not really being clear here, let me explain.

Ie say for the sake of round figures I have a 1 second exposure recommended. Then presumably HDR needs 2 seconds for the lows and 1/2 second for the highs. So it takes a 2 second exposure only. During that 2 second exposure, after 1/2 a second it takes the data and calls it number 1 internally. Then after 1 second it takes the accumulated data (which will also contain the previous 1/2 second) and calls it number 2 internally. Then when we've reached 2 seconds it calls the final one #3 internally. Then it'd use those 3, do it's HDR thing and call it and HDR image. That'd seem a far more sensible way to implement HDR for mass-usage - because for most shots it'd mean no need for a tripod (ie most shots being say 1/125).

As for HDR itself, yes clearly there are some spectacular results being achieved with it. I'm thinking that rather than use it on situations where I'm expecting shadows and contrast, I should give it a whirl on different subject matter. For example more flat lit still lifes. To me, it seems that HDR actually turns photography on its head a bit. ie instead of photography being a an art that's largely about the light, it almost says who cares about the light, it's about colour and shape. Which is of course fair enough, heck there's no such thing as 'right', it's an interprative art.

I do hope that Pentax would make a firmware update on that as well. have the liberty to use how many photos to be used in HDR (the 9 images option for multiple exposure for example), inclusion of more than 3 exposure brackets for HDR and inclusion of extended bracketing optionfor HDR as well. I'm sure this is possible because this is mainly software based and the hardware is pretty much capable of doing that task already. except that the options aren't enabled yet so to speak.

[Pentaxor]

I agree. HDR is a really nice techniques (imho) for rendering skies, wide angle landscapes, revealing rich colors and textures and architectural subjects. I think it gets overused a little when using it for people or "snapshot" photography. I'm not criticizing it's uses for that, though; we all do what we think is pleasing to our eye (and I think hope other people will agree with our taste). I took these the other day:

some people tend to overdo it. some people do use HDR inorder to hide their inability to produce or take good pictures or the creativity to use a camera. I'd say a way of masking out a fundamental flaw in photography.

I'm not saying that I'm against it's use. I do admire it's function of further enhancing an already marvelous photo, but too much sugar makes the result too artificial and at the end of the day, the person will just had enough of it.