Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

  1. #1

    Default Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

    Admittedly, I was guilty of this when I got the K7. There were some test shots here done by other Pentaxians, and together with just a few test shots myself with the in-camera HDR function. I wrote it off as not too useful and too general in terms of settings (there are none) to cater for the many variances that has to be taken into account when blending the different exposures for HDR. I did not even mention to ppl that this was something new to DSLRs since I myself was not convinced by what it can do.

    Recently, I gave it a try again. I must say that I've been quite wrong, and with the proper PP, the Pentax in-camera HDR is certainly very useful.


    Normal Exposed Shot
    ===============



    HDR after PP
    =========

    The photos straight from camera is weak in contrast and color saturation. These are the 2 items that have been tweaked. (ie. levels, curves, saturation).

  2. #2

    Default Re: Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

    I think the main issue is that with in-cam HDR the output is JPEG so there's not much headroom for PP.
    I'd still prefer to just do AEB into 3 RAWs, convert RAW->PNG, run it through software HDR/tone-mapper, then do PP on the output PNG and save as JPEG.
    I don't subsidize marketing campaigns.

  3. #3
    Member banana0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jurong west
    Posts
    1,488

    Default Re: Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

    this is my first time to try the in body HDR. no PP's at all but I like the way that details is still intact for the merlion in which by the time, it's going to be over blown with highlights.

    I dunno!!!
    It's banana-zero-neh. :)

  4. #4

    Default Re: Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

    Quote Originally Posted by woefulwabbit View Post
    I think the main issue is that with in-cam HDR the output is JPEG so there's not much headroom for PP.
    I'd still prefer to just do AEB into 3 RAWs, convert RAW->PNG, run it through software HDR/tone-mapper, then do PP on the output PNG and save as JPEG.
    Of course manually integrating the 3 exposure will be the best. That was my initial compliant against the in-camera HDR. But it involves, time, skill and money.
    For a minimum hassle HDR or when there is no GND filter at hand, this is a viable option.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Pentax in-camera HDR (don't write it off)

    For casual photographers, I would not hesitate to recommend using the in-camera HDR function.

    However, for serious photographers who shoot RAW and do more complicated adjustments to their pictures, the in-camera HDR is inadequate. After all, having spent the time and effort of getting to the location, carrying the tripod, and composing the shot, the extra effort of shooting 3 or 5 (I prefer 5 +/-1 EV) shots is negligible. And the effort really pays off when the photos are processed in a software like Photomatix (which cost only US$99) where the picture can be adjusted to what was visualized. From my experience, having the flexibility to adjust the pictures during HDR processing offers finer control than doing it via PP after the pictures have been processed.

    In fact, shooting 3 to 5 shots per picture is so ingrained into my workflow now that one of my criterion for buying a new camera is that it must have at least 5-exposures bracketing capability.
    Last edited by Tachyon; 17th March 2010 at 07:15 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •