Switch to Sony for HDR Reasons? G7X vs RX100 M3/M4

semifast wrote:

brianj wrote:

requa wrote:

HDR doesn't work at all, and the first normal shot the grass that is in the sun looks like its in dark shadows, but the one done with the DR and shadow raising the grass looks like its in the sun and the shadows under the tree are less deep. To me the only shot that looks normal here are the ones done with DR enhancement, which I assume was Icontrast.

Brian

In the HDR picture there's more detail in the dark tree trunks than there is standard shot. And the tree trunks look like mud in the contrast altered pics.

It's hard to tell if the chairs are enhanced since there's basically no detail in smooth plastic chairs.

I see what you mean. Playing with these images in Lightroom, if I bump the shadow slider to 100% it's pretty dramatic. I wasn't focusing on the tree trunks when I took or posted the images. I was looking more at the pot of flowers in mid-shadow. I may have to play a bit more this weekend. I don't think in-camera HDR is the approach I would choose, largely because of the slow processing time, but this may push me back toward raw capture, at least in tricky lighting like this.

Incidentally, the chairs are actually composite not smooth plastic. I don't expect you to care what kind of furniture I'm sitting on; I'm just pointing it out because the wood fiber/plastic composite material actually does have a very fine grain, but it's no surprise that it doesn't show in the photos given how bright the white is. I can see it with the naked eye, but only from close distance, and can certainly feel it.

Actually, this may be good news for me. I've been looking for evidence in my own photos to convince me that I should switch to raw. I suspect raw will give better detail without the lag and without the overall dark image of the HDR. If so, and if I can't figure out how to get the same in JPEG, I may finally be convinced.

Dan