HDR vs single raw image

[Digital Nigel]

I generally don't bother with HDR, either in-camera or in post-processing, preferring to process single raw images. But I recently was in a dark church, with very high contrast lighting, so I thought I'd give it another try.

This is the small OOC JPEG extracted from the central frame of a five-frame burst, with a 2ev step between frames:




High dynamic range original

This is what I produced from the same raw file using PL5:


Processed from a single raw file using PL5

I then used the HDR feature in Affinity to merge a five-deep stack of TIFFs, produced using PL5:




Merged HDR stack of five images from raw using PL5, using Affinity

Do you prefer the HDR stack, or the processed single image (which is much easier to produce)?

 

[Fred T]

Seen in this post I like the HDR better, but seen in gallery (as I click on the photo's in this post) I like the single much more (the HDR is then much too much for me).

 

[GCam]

HDR is better overall, IMO. There are far too many tiny details that stand out in the HDR as opposed to the single image process. Better contrast in the HDR. gc

 

[nwboater33]

Seen in this post I like the HDR better, but seen in gallery (as I click on the photo's in this post) I like the single much more (the HDR is then much too much for me).

I kind of agree with this comment.

In the single shot version my eyes keep focusing on the lower center area that seems to not have enough contrast/brightness.

I think if the HDR could be toned down a little it would help a lot and probably make it the best. Beyond that more could be done with PL5, but that doesn't answer your question.

 

[CAcreeks]

HDR is better overall, IMO. There are far too many tiny details that stand out in the HDR as opposed to the single image process. Better contrast in the HDR. gc

I agree with GCam. The "gallery" previously mentioned does not exist, does it? Maybe the earlier posters meant "original size" image.

Nigel, did you take 5 shots using exposure bracketing, or did you develop 5 TIFF images using different exposure settings in PL5?

Good to know Affinity has this feature! Thanks.

 

[Lan]

I generally don't bother with HDR, either in-camera or in post-processing, preferring to process single raw images. But I recently was in a dark church, with very high contrast lighting, so I thought I'd give it another try.

Do you prefer the HDR stack, or the processed single image (which is much easier to produce)?

I think I'd choose bits of both? The lightbulbs on the chandelier have slight ghosts on the HDR version, and the area around the altar looks a bit over processed.

Conversely the single shot version is lacking both colour and detail definition in the top of the ceiling - look at the angels at the very top of the frame for a good example of this.

I don't suppose you'd post the entire set of images so we could have a go at merging them ourselves? I'm wondering whether EasyHDR would produce a better result.

This is one of those cases where even the best modern sensors struggle to capture the full dynamic range in one shot. I know my old Canon 5D2 would have performed significantly worse here, at base ISO. I think my current A7R4 would perform better. I'd still take a bracket set as a backup policy though.

 

[grsnovi]

I assume that you can see that the original HDR has lens correction and that the horizontals at "ground level" are straight and not distorted. I prefer that aspect of the original.

Obviously the colors/shadows in the subsequently processed look better in the dome. To me, the 5 stack looks better but it's hard to tell if I'd bother with going that route.

I tend to be able to get an acceptable RAW development from Affinity with minimal effort. At this time I'm running on a box that probably won't support any of the newer s/w tools that include AI sharpening, etc...

YMMV

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

 

[tony brown]

I think you made a great job of the single shot re-processed but, to me, there's more depth to the quality of the HDR. More saturation and less closeness to the edge for the highlights.

Of course, if you hadn't provided us with the choice, no one would complain about the single frame reprocessing.

Well done !

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I generally don't bother with HDR, either in-camera or in post-processing, preferring to process single raw images. But I recently was in a dark church, with very high contrast lighting, so I thought I'd give it another try.

This is the small OOC JPEG extracted from the central frame of a five-frame burst, with a 2ev step between frames:


High dynamic range original

This is what I produced from the same raw file using PL5:


Processed from a single raw file using PL5

I then used the HDR feature in Affinity to merge a five-deep stack of TIFFs, produced using PL5:


Merged HDR stack of five images from raw using PL5, using Affinity

Do you prefer the HDR stack, or the processed single image (which is much easier to produce)?

Just tweaking the single RAW jpeg easily puts it close to the HDR in most respects. There seems to be no shortage of DR in the single RAW, and there's no reason it shouldn't look the same as the HDR version with different processing, and with no potential misalignment/subject motion worries.


Re-edited "single RAW' jpeg

 

[Digital Nigel]

HDR is better overall, IMO. There are far too many tiny details that stand out in the HDR as opposed to the single image process. Better contrast in the HDR. gc

I agree with GCam. The "gallery" previously mentioned does not exist, does it? Maybe the earlier posters meant "original size" image.

Nigel, did you take 5 shots using exposure bracketing, or did you develop 5 TIFF images using different exposure settings in PL5?

Good to know Affinity has this feature! Thanks.

I took five raw shots using exposure bracketing with a 2EV step, developed them into TIFFs using identical neutral settings in PL5, then used the HDR stacking feature in Affinity to combine them. I chose the Dramatic preset (rather than Natural, Detailed, Cool or High contrast B&W). I didn't use any other options or make any other changes.

 

[Digital Nigel]

I assume that you can see that the original HDR has lens correction and that the horizontals at "ground level" are straight and not distorted. I prefer that aspect of the original.

I used DxO Viewpoint with Diagonals correction to reduce the volume deformation effect of ultra wide angle shots. That avoids the elongated corners that you get with simple lens correction in UWA shots, and is a reminder that it's an ultra wide angle shot. By default, I use the horizontal/vertical option, which retains straight lines at the expense of corner stretching, but I didn't like it with this shot.

Obviously the colors/shadows in the subsequently processed look better in the dome. To me, the 5 stack looks better but it's hard to tell if I'd bother with going that route.

Yes, I feel the same. I don't think the slight improvement is worth the extra effort.

I tend to be able to get an acceptable RAW development from Affinity with minimal effort. At this time I'm running on a box that probably won't support any of the newer s/w tools that include AI sharpening, etc...

I used DeepPRIME to reduce noise, but didn't do any AI sharpening.

 

[Digital Nigel]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

If all your shots weren't all at ISO 6400, and all share the same SS and aperture, you didn't "exposure bracket" but, more likely, ISO bracketed - which doesn't really offer any advantage whatsoever over a single (non-clipped) RAW. Proper exposure bracketing for a low light scene like this would typically be on a tripod at base ISO with varying exposure for each shot. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

[CAcreeks]

Good to know Affinity has this feature! Thanks.

I took five raw shots using exposure bracketing with a 2EV step, developed them into TIFFs using identical neutral settings in PL5, then used the HDR stacking feature in Affinity to combine them. I chose the Dramatic preset (rather than Natural, Detailed, Cool or High contrast B&W). I didn't use any other options or make any other changes.

Oh yes, you said as much in your original post. Sorry for the repetition.

Wow, +- 4 stops is a lot!

 

[Digital Nigel]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

If all your shots weren't all at ISO 6400, and all share the same SS and aperture, you didn't "exposure bracket" but, more likely, ISO bracketed - which doesn't really offer any advantage whatsoever over a single (non-clipped) RAW. Proper exposure bracketing for a low light scene like this would typically be on a tripod at base ISO with varying exposure for each shot. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

How would you know that from a single shot?

I shot handheld, but was exposure bracketing, as I said. The ISOs varied from 400 to 25600. These were the two shots at the extreme ends of the five-shot range:


Lowest exposure


Highest exposure

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

If all your shots weren't all at ISO 6400, and all share the same SS and aperture, you didn't "exposure bracket" but, more likely, ISO bracketed - which doesn't really offer any advantage whatsoever over a single (non-clipped) RAW. Proper exposure bracketing for a low light scene like this would typically be on a tripod at base ISO with varying exposure for each shot. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

How would you know that from a single shot?

I shot handheld, but was exposure bracketing, as I said. The ISOs varied from 400 to 25600. These were the two shots at the extreme ends of the five-shot range:


Lowest exposure


Highest exposure

These are all shot with exactly the same exposure - the same SS, the same aperture. The darkest one had way too little ISO brightening applied, the brightest one had way too much. So long as a single RAW is shot at an ISO that doesn't clip any important highlights, you will have all the same detail to work with that is contained in all these variably brightened alternates. Ideally, the optimal RAW would have enough ISO applied in camera to bring the highlights just below clipping, but if even if you're down 2 or 3 stops it won't make much difference with most modern invariant sensors.

A single RAW at 1/15" and around ISO 800 probably would have probably yielded the best results here.

 

[Lan]

Here's my edit; I hope you don't mind?

I used the high exposure you posted to provide the ceiling detail I thought was missing from the adjusted exposure:


Ceiling manually replaced with the brightest exposure version. Less green shift, much more detail.

I generally don't bother with HDR, either in-camera or in post-processing, preferring to process single raw images. But I recently was in a dark church, with very high contrast lighting, so I thought I'd give it another try.

This is what I produced from the same raw file using PL5:


Processed from a single raw file using PL5

 

[Digital Nigel]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

If all your shots weren't all at ISO 6400, and all share the same SS and aperture, you didn't "exposure bracket" but, more likely, ISO bracketed - which doesn't really offer any advantage whatsoever over a single (non-clipped) RAW. Proper exposure bracketing for a low light scene like this would typically be on a tripod at base ISO with varying exposure for each shot. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

How would you know that from a single shot?

I shot handheld, but was exposure bracketing, as I said. The ISOs varied from 400 to 25600. These were the two shots at the extreme ends of the five-shot range:


Lowest exposure


Highest exposure

These are all shot with exactly the same exposure - the same SS, the same aperture.

No, as you can clearly see, that's not the case. The shutter speeds varied a lot.

The darkest one had way too little ISO brightening applied, the brightest one had way too much.

The point is that highlights are used from the darkest shot, and shadows from the brightest.

So long as a single RAW is shot at an ISO that doesn't clip any important highlights, you will have all the same detail to work with that is contained in all these variably brightened alternates. Ideally, the optimal RAW would have enough ISO applied in camera to bring the highlights just below clipping, but if even if you're down 2 or 3 stops it won't make much difference with most modern invariant sensors.

A single RAW at 1/15" and around ISO 800 probably would have probably yielded the best results here.

No, that wouldn't be optimum with a handheld shot. It would also be very under-exposed.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The HDR looks better in some key ways here, but there's no reason why the single RAW shouldn't look as good or better with different processing - it looks like the necessary data is all there.

Yes, I probably could make the single shot look more like the HDR stack. In fact, the single shot image is probably more accurate, but I like the look the Affinity 'Dramatic' preset achieved with the tone-mapped HDR stack.

If all your shots weren't all at ISO 6400, and all share the same SS and aperture, you didn't "exposure bracket" but, more likely, ISO bracketed - which doesn't really offer any advantage whatsoever over a single (non-clipped) RAW. Proper exposure bracketing for a low light scene like this would typically be on a tripod at base ISO with varying exposure for each shot. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

How would you know that from a single shot?

I shot handheld, but was exposure bracketing, as I said. The ISOs varied from 400 to 25600. These were the two shots at the extreme ends of the five-shot range:


Lowest exposure


Highest exposure

These are all shot with exactly the same exposure - the same SS, the same aperture.

No, as you can clearly see, that's not the case. The shutter speeds varied a lot.

Well, your originally posted shots all indicated 1/125”. In any case, they still only varied 2 stops (1/30" - 1/125") - which is probably what happens when the bracketing function hits a SS and/or max ISO wall. So you're right, not only ISO bracketed, but mostly. The single RAW of greater exposure (1/30”) would likely be better alone than combined with two noisier lesser exposures (that don’t bring any extra DR to the table).

The darkest one had way too little ISO brightening applied, the brightest one had way too much.

The point is that highlights are used from the darkest shot, and shadows from the brightest.

Yes, but only over a 2 stop exposure variation here (and the less exposed ones won’t improve the DR at all).

So long as a single RAW is shot at an ISO that doesn't clip any important highlights, you will have all the same detail to work with that is contained in all these variably brightened alternates. Ideally, the optimal RAW would have enough ISO applied in camera to bring the highlights just below clipping, but if even if you're down 2 or 3 stops it won't make much difference with most modern invariant sensors.

A single RAW at 1/15" and around ISO 800 probably would have probably yielded the best results here.

No, that wouldn't be optimum with a handheld shot. It would also be very under-exposed.

Why not? The 10-18 is stabilized, no? 1/15" at 10mm should have been easy and would get you twice the exposure of you're brightest shot (1/30"). At 10mm with stabilization you probably could have gone with a much slower SS and increased the exposure even more.