I almost went for 5Dii.... what a shocker...

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, considering the follow-up posts, perhaps <em>you</em> should "look and see" if the hack you write about exists before you, ahem, correct my post...<br>

Take care,<br>

Dan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure why there is so much resistance to doing a FREE internet search for a possibly FREE solution. FYI...</p>

<div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>No resistance, just an observation that telling people that "you might find something if you search on the Internet" is not particularly novel, helpful, or relevant these days. It is more or less a boilerplate answer that you could use for anything, right? ;-)</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I didn't respond to this thread for reasons pretty much like Dick Arnold cited. However, I've come back to read the thread, and I learned about something very exciting -- Magic Lantern! (Thanks for the link, Ian!) I presume a version for the 5DIII would be forthcoming, but the fact that it's available for the 5DII makes that model a bit more appealing for me. I especially love the motion detection and focus stacking capabilities -- if I understand correctly how that would work. I'd love to see other features like ISO bracketing and focus bracketing, but perhaps Magic Lantern will evolve to include them.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Following up on Sarah's post, I do most of my photographs in a 4:3 ratio rather than the native 3:2. Has anyone used ML to place alternative crop marks on the screen in this way? (I just watched the video about the feature...)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>Sarah - you mentioned focus stacking. I found some software that works with Canon called Helicon Focus<br>

I've played with it, it creates amazing results. The only downside is the that it has to be tethered to a laptop</p>

<p>http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Wow, Tudor, that's very cool! Thanks!</p>

[dan_south]

I was being somewhat facetious when I suggested that HDR was going out of style, but not entirely. A couple of years ago it seemed like

all the rage. People were routinely churning out the cartoonish version of the technique that quickly earned itself a questionable reputation.

 

That seems to have settled down a bit. I've seen fewer HDR images posted on the web in 2012, and they're typically more subdued in terms of halos and saturation. Perhaps the software is getting better, or maybe tastes have simply changed.

 

I still do 'HDR' the old fashioned way with GND filters. Lots of folks have pointed out the error of my antiquated ways, but I like the results

that I get (just as I did when I shot film exclusively), and I like the look of single exposure photographs where, for instance, a sunrise

might be at a particularly brilliant point of its evolution while clouds streak across the sky. There are lots of amazing things that one can

do with composited images, but that's just never been my cup of tea. Plus I think that it must be very difficult to combine long exposures and make them look homogeneous given that light changes constantly.

 

HDR is alive and well just as it was when Ansel Adams was doing it in the early 20th Century. There are many different methods

and approaches to extending the dynamic range of an image. G Dan Mitchell and others achieve excellent HDR results from 5D Mark II

bodies. Couple that camera with a stiff tripod and the right lenses and there's very little that you can't accomplish with it. If you know

what you're doing.

[keith reeder]

<p>HDR techniques subtly used as a way to get the maximum impact from an image are great - just another valid and useful tool in the photographer's toolbox; but the same techniques <em>used as an effect </em>routinely results in godawful images... </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure why there is so much resistance to doing a FREE internet search for a possibly FREE solution. FYI...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, In my 'FREE internet search' I was unable to find anything specifically related to the 5D2, but I did find "400plus", DLed and installed it on the old XTi.<br>

Particularly helpful in that FW hack:<br>

1) spot metering (aprox. 3.5%) - NOT supported at ALL by Canon in this model.<br>

2) added control functions (like ISO change w/o menu access)<br>

3) ISO expansion to ISO3000 (w/ noise pretty similar to ISO 1600 - suprisingly good!)</p>

<p>Other features as well, such as auto ISO, expanded AEB (9 shot, +/- 6stops).<br>

Challenges? if you aren't running firmware 1.1.1 you'll need to upgrade, which is further challenged by Canon's lack of a functional link on their website. Not to worry - mirrors exist.<br>

The interface isn't perfect (backing out of specific menus isn't supported for example). However, overall, it's quite good (and better than any update Canon has done), and gives the camera more modern capabilities.</p>

<p>Oh veah, a link:<br>

<a href="http://code.google.com/p/400plus/">http://code.google.com/p/400plus/</a></p>

<p>Like I said, nothing similar (that I could find) really exists for the 5D2...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Dan, "HDR" is a term that is not understood to mean "anything that lets the photographer handle high dynamic range in a photograph." It has a well known and understood meaning that, for better or for worse, refers to a <em>particular method</em> of working with the dynamic range. Your or my notions about what we think or wish the term might mean, as logical as our ideas might be, don't make a lot of difference when HDR already has a meaning that is understood by those who use it and see it.</p>

<p>Essentially, HDR refers to an approach with the following characteristics:</p>

<ul>

<li>The final image is a composite of several different exposures of the same scene, differing in exposure time by several (sometimes many!) stops.</li>

<li>The image data is merged <em>by software using algorithms</em> that attempt to <em>maximize dynamic range locally throughout the frame globally</em>.</li>

<li>HDR generally does not make any pretense of attempting to suggest or recreate the way we see with our visual system, but does something quite different from that.</li>

</ul>

<p>Beyond this, there is an "HDR look" that refers to moderate to <em>extreme</em> examples of the application of the technique. As we say about so many things, "I know it when I see it." If anyone doesn't know "the look," visit Trey Ratcliff's <a href="http://www.stuckincustoms.com/">Stuck in Customs</a> web site. (Not all HDR must be "extreme" - a bit more on that topic below.)</p>

<p>HDR is a method of handling large subject dynamic range, but it does not follow that all methods of handling high subject dynamic range are therefore HDR.</p>

<p>For example, your use of GND filters does not constitute HDR in the way the term is understood and used. You are not using the filter to globally maximize the dynamic range of the image - you are essentially dealing with exposure in one way in part of the frame and in a different way in another. Likewise, dodging and burning do not do the same thing that HDR does - HDR can locally enhance (a lot!) contrast, but dodging/burning generally only lighten/darken the area as a whole. Exposure blending is also not HDR in that it does something quite similar to what you do with the GND filters, though with perhaps more control.</p>

<p>What is similar to HDR? The shadow sliders in ACR and LR do something that seems similar to but not quite the same as HDR. Localized applications of curves could do something like this if extreme and applied to multiple component exposures. Also, I suppose that if one went really crazy with blending it would be possible to come up with something HDR-like by blending in some very complex ways.</p>

<p>Not all applications of HDR need to result in the "HDR look." It is possible to use the technique subtly and effectively in ways such that the viewer would not recognize its use. You might be surprised at the "classical" photographers who use it sparingly but effectively today. One I know sometimes uses HDR to add some subtle shadow detail a bit more effectively than might be accomplished using dodging, curves, or other previous techniques. (It is telling that he refers to the use of curves, dodging/burning, exposure blending <em>and</em> HDR when he describes his workflow.)</p>

<p>Bottom line: The term HDR has a meaning and refers to a specific sort of technique that is not the same as the application of Ansel-ish dodging/burning, Mitchell-ish exposure blending, or South-ish use of graduated neutral density filters. While there is admittedly some logic to recognizing that all such techniques can be used to "work" the dynamic range of a scene, common use and understanding does not regard them as equivalent to HDR.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>@DL Anderson-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can some one here do me a favor...<br>

I have been reading along since shortly after this thread began and I still don't get it! I at first thought this all a joke. Does anyone have an example that they could post of a 3 stop plus and minus in a hand held HDR image? I am having difficulty envisioning the instance when there is that little subject motion nor that little camera shake to warrant the prospect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is a 5d3 shot I took last week that matches your criteria. Handheld, though plenty of moving water, -3,0,+3, "Art/Standard" mode, non-silent 6fps mode. I'm under the assumption that the 5d3 does some alignment of its own, irrespective of that I prefer the "old fashioned" Photomatix approach. Apologies for less than stellar composition..... -<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16163052-md.jpg" alt="Whatcom Falls HDR" width="680" height="408" border="0" /><br>

Robert</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>No resistance, just an observation that telling people that "you might find something if you search on the Internet" is not particularly novel, helpful, or relevant these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's be honest for a change. <strong> I said "Magic Lantern"</strong> in my first post in this thread. That's pretty specific. I was in a hurry and I didn't have time to google everything for everyone. All the advice for six pages solid of this thread was basically worthless. It's embarrassing in a thread discussing extended AEB on the Canon 5d MKII none of the "professionals" thought to even utter "Magic Lantern" six pages in and the amateur that does is rebuked. Anyway...</p>

<p><a href="http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ"><img src="http://i45.tinypic.com/2qb9c7k.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p>I do not own a Canon 5D MK II and it is irrelevant to me whether Magic Lantern addresses the OP's issue. I have dropped the name and he or anyone else is free to research it and see if it fits their needs. If it does not at least you looked. But I find dropping the name "Magic Lantern" far more useful than just telling someone else to spend more money on a camera. That may be the ultimate result but it doesn't hurt to explore your FREE options first. It's a lot more useful than yet another HDR bickerfest or dumping on some guy's technique.</p>

<p> </p>