Question to Pentax K7 users.

[tim_drake]

<p>How well does the in the "Three-shot in-camera HDR capture" work? Thanks</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Tough question to answer without knowing what you are looking for.</p>

<p>If you are just looking for a 1 click solution, the short answer is it's OK. It only uses 8bit jpegs, and can't be done in RAW+JPEG meaning you need to take two sets of shots if you are intending to get a quickie + a high quality hand made HDR when at home.</p>

<p>Bottom line, this will not (at this stage, if ever) replace shooting 5-7 2stop RAW files and hand editing the final output. The high end HDRs you see on the web and on print generally have quite a bit of input from the user, as well as localized enhancements via layers in photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Thanks Justin. I myself have never tried this, but perhaps it is time. Still the RAW word...yuk lol...</p>

[joe ogiba]

<p>Here is a test shot with my 6.5mm Opteka in HDR Strong mode @1/30 sec 100iso.<br>

<img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a21/jogiba/Opteka%20Fisheye/IMGP0226.jpg" alt="" width="799" height="531" /></p>

 

[les_lammers]

<p>That is the kind of superficial garbage that clutters and complicates menus and is essentially, IMHO, useless for all practical purposes.</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>Have you used it Les?</p>

<p>Joe, have you an ordinary exposure of the same scene we could compare with?</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I like the "D-lighting" feature Nikon offers on their D80 and D90 as well as other models. There is a good comparison shown by dpreview in their test review of the D80. The same thing can be done PP in Photoshop, but nice to be able to do it on location for a retake shot if needed.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Michael, D-lighting seems to have gotten a fair amount of attention, but other than the 'on location' aspect, is there any real difference when compared to boosting 'fill' or 'shadows' during post-processing? D-lighting doesn't affect RAW images, does it?</p>

<p>I'm wondering when the use of the D-Range feature (also on K20D) might make more or less sense.</p>

<p>Joe, I don't suppose you have a comparison vs. the non-HDR version, do you?</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Actually Les is correct even if his wording was a bit direct.</p>

<p>This isn't a serious tool, it's not Photomatix in your camera. I guess that is what I am trying to say, it's not Photoshop + Photomatix (and by photomatix I mean the full version, not the free version which allows much too basic parameters to be set) in your camera. If those 2 programs strike fear in you than this might be a good way to put up 1 click bad HDR.</p>

<p>HDR requires multiple exposures at a wide range of stops. 3 exposures in RAW/TIFF barely cut it in low contrast scenes. In high contrast scenes you need even more range at least 5 shots at 2 stops, if not 7 shots at 2 stops.</p>

<p>I'm not an HDR expert, but I've spent enough time creating HDRs and using the digital GND method of expanding DR to know this is a gimmick. It's not useless, but it's not as good as digital GND layering to equalize exposures, or the software method of creating HDR. I think Pentax example of it's use (or maybe it was another brand) was that it could be used on a beach to reduce contrast of a scene in extreme lighting.</p>

<p>As far as Joe's shot above, what is HDR about the shot? It looks like the highlights are blown out, and the shadows look like I slid the shadows curves slider or the gamma slider to boost the shadows.</p>

<p>Maybe Pentax would have been better off calling this feature Super Range Expansion, or EDR for expanded dynamic range. It however is not HDR.<br>

<br /> This is a much better example of what can be done with true HDR. 5 shots, 2 stop variation between shots. This was a low contrast scene so I might have been able to get away with 3 shots at 2 stops but rarely will you go wrong with more shots and wider range of stops. In the actual base image the sky is grey white from the hazy morning. I spent about an hour here before sunrise, dilly dallying on the edge of a cliff, and basically this was a total bust of a morning, would have been better off sleeping in, but this shot sort of salvaged the morning. The lighting was absolutely horrible for anything but HDR.</p>

<p><a title="CCC Overlook at Taughannock Falls by Mountain Visions, on Flickr" href=" title="CCC Overlook at Taughannock Falls by Mountain Visions, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3501035699_2857f2856b_b.jpg" alt="CCC Overlook at Taughannock Falls" width="700" height="540" /> </a></p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I was assuming with Joe's shot that without the in-camera HDR the sky would have been 100% (rather than 75%) blown out and that the gravestones in the foreground would have been more completely silhouetted. I mentioned the comparison before with the D-Range feature; I imagine it might have helped achieve a somewhat similar result (though even gentler?) but may introduce a little more noise in the darker regions?</p>

[joe ogiba]

<p>I did not shoot a non HDR mode shot but will do some to compare the HDR modes after the rain this weekend.</p>

[tim_drake]

<p>Thanks for all the replies. Thanks for your photo posts Justin and Joe. Joe, I hope can get some comparison examples posted and thanks Justin for the detailed reply. Thanks All, Tim</p>

[laur1]

<p>I still need to play more with the HDR feature on the K-7 but I think it is useful even if it can be done better by a skilled user.<br>

I have only used it a couple of times inside my home and the result was that it did bring up all the detail in the dark corners and it fixed the highlights, as I expected - I couldn't have got that level of detail from a single shot - that much is certain. The exposure times were very different between my several shots, so it looks like the camera evaluates the scene before deciding how much to over/underexpose. On strong setting, this option made the interior light look artificial and frankly weird. On normal it looked fine. But I have yet to try it outside - maybe this weekend.<br>

Note that, unlike the D-Range Setting, HDR doesn't bump your ISO setting to 200 or higher.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The feature sounds to me like using auto-bracketing, then the camera winds up with a compromise blend from the results.</p>

<p>My version of PS has what is referred to as "fill-flash" image enhancement, which brightens only shadow areas without brightening highlights. This is controlled in increments by the user to the degree that is desired. The Nikon "D-lighting" appears to be a similar in-camera operation. I do not know whether the Nikon system also allows this application for shots taken as RAW files. </p>

[laur1]

<p>I'm attaching some crops of bright and dark areas under normal exposure (left) and hdr-strong exposures (right). This might help give you an idea of the difference.</p><div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Laurentiu, your shots of that ceiling light is a most impressive demonstration. The hdr did indeed prevent the room beind from being blown out by the light, while at the same time the closer interior did not go dark!! The increased DR offered by the K20D is not anywhere near that effective. This feature looks useful to me!</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I was thinking the same thing as Michael, the ceiling shot is an interesting demo of the feature. The smaller picture of the CD on the table is less clear, the image just appears to be less exposed; perhaps at larger size it will be more obvious where the highlights benefit. I don't think most people would expect in-camera HDR to actually be better than a carefully post-processed HDR but if used within its limitations it may be an effective way to quickly & easily deal with a high-contrast scene.</p>

[deaner66]

<p>Javier, have you ever tried Lightroom?</p>

<p>I, like you, used to swear by JPEGS. It was quicker, took up less space, and to my eye, looked as good as a RAW file.<br>

Of course, the only experience I had with RAW files was with the truly awful Pentax software.</p>

<p>Provided you have a decent computer, a program like Lightroom makes a HUGE difference.</p>

<p>I know you love street shots, and maybe that kind of photography wouldn't benefit from a RAW file as much as a portrait shot or any other paid shot. And even though a RAW file won't fix a bad shot, it can make a good shot nearly perfect.</p>

<p>The key is the software. And Lightroom works fabulous for me. From what I've heard, Aperture is HQ too.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Steve,<br>

I have Lightroom version 1.4 and CS3. I have been debating going to CS4 but I have not used lightroom in over a year. I never did like it, though I hear that 2.0 is pretty good.</p>

[laur1]

<p>I'm glad you liked these crops. Keep in mind they're from the same photo - they're both crops from the right hand side of a photo shot with the Bower 8mm fisheye - the window is above, the desk is below. The desk area may not look impressive on its own, but look at its improvement together with that in the ceiling and it becomes more interesting.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>For me LR is much more important than upgrading CS3 to CS4 (which is also much more expensive). Use LR as the image management and RAW processor, and only use CS3 if I want to make edits beyond LR's capabilities. Even with JPEG (which I barely shoot anymore) you get non-destructive editing.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>Couldn't you do this manually with the multiple exposure feature in the k10d and k20? Instead of allowing the camera to automatically exposure compensate?<br>

For e.g., set for 3 shot mode, keep in Av mode. First shot take -0.5, 2nd shot at 0, and third shot at +0.5 and then the camera will merge the 3 exposures, right? Also make sure ISO is not on auto.</p>

<p>Shoot, wish I had my camera at work to try this out...</p>

[pbarnes]

<p>Laurentiu, now I understand that there are only 2 images in your example, it is very impressive. Sommanna, yes, that is what I have to do with my K10D - using the auto-bracket feature on aperture priority, I end up with 3 or 5 files each 1.5 or 2 Exposure Values apart, then I have to combine them with Photomatix or PS, and so I have 4 or 6 files to manage - as Michael says above, that is what you have to do to get a good HDR image. But to be able to produce one file in one go using this feature might be very useful. </p>

<p>Am I right in thinking that the K-7 produces 8 bit files only using its internal HDR feature?</p>

[shaloot]

<p>Peter, I do the same with my k10d; using the auto bracket and then photomatix. But now I'm wondering if I use the multiple exposure feature (in the main menu), whether that can be quasi-HDR? There are def. moments where I would like to do the bracket feature plus photomatix, but then I don't feel like spending that time in front of the computer. I really need to investigate this multiple exposure idea and if that can be my quick and dirty HDR.<br>

Currently, my HDR shots all have the "photomatix" watermark on it cause I'm still using the demo version... so it might actually be better off for me to use the multiple exposure feature!</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>somanna,</p>

<p>It won't work. You can try your idea without taking a new set of shots. Just open up a bracketed set in photoshop as layers and see what happens, slide the opacity sliders to give the effect of compensating exposure for the images via the camera menu.</p>

<p>To do what you are talking about requires more time in front of the computer because it involves hand revealing layers. I used this technique for this shot because I didn't like what I was getting from HDR. I wanted more contrast and without the hokey tone mapped look that didn't suit this image.</p>

<p><a title="Grand Central Station - NY, NY" href=" title="Grand Central Station - NY, NY"> <img src="http://static.flickr.com/1400/1475645370_b9197f0cb1_d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /> </a></p>