HDF Image Comparison Thread...

[kenw]

I thought it might be useful to have a thread where folks share images taken both with and without HDF turned on. Now that there is the option to chose between cameras with ND or with HDF it might be useful to have a thread of images that show what HDF looks like. This might help folks decide which version of the GR III/IIIx will be most useful to them.

Anyway, those who have an HDF camera please share images you've taken both with and without HDF that you think illustrate what HDF is good for or not good for.

I've only had my camera for a few days, but I'll start with with this pair from a hike this morning:


HDF Off




HDF On

Of course click for full resolution images to make a more detailed comparison. These were DNG files processed identically in LR.

Note these were handheld and so the framing is slightly different. Also despite being shot only a few seconds apart the extent of the light shaft is slightly different between the two as well.

In this particular case the HDF effect seems artistically useful. It definitely gives a different feel than without HDF and the effect isn't so severe as to become an obtrusive affectation. I don't really have a preference between the renderings of the sun itself, but I like the halation of the bright sky through the branches. The effect in the shaft of light itself is nice as well and adds a sense of "glow" that works well with this composition (in my opinion at least).

Of course different people might prefer one vs. the other, but I think a fair and neutral statement would be in this case HDF at least produced a "useful difference".

I'll add more as I take them, but again my hope is over time lots of different folks can add image pairs to this thread as a useful resource for potential purchasers to check out.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

 

[TonyGamble]

Ken

FWIW I prefer the definition of Off to the glow of On.

T

 

[kenw]

Ken

FWIW I prefer the definition of Off to the glow of On.

T

Yep, I wouldn't argue with anyone who thought that!

Personally I'm kind of torn between them, in some parts of the image I prefer the "off" version while in others I like the "on". That's obviously one of the disadvantages of diffusion filters compared to doing something like negative Clarity in post - it is a global effect.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Personally I'm kind of torn between them, in some parts of the image I prefer the "off" version while in others I like the "on". That's obviously one of the disadvantages of diffusion filters compared to doing something like negative Clarity in post - it is a global effect.

But then, negative clarity looks absolutely synthetic, it’s nothing like a mist filter really. I’ll take a permanent effect over a repulsive one every time

The appeal of a mist effect is part subjective, part content-dependent. Some people might dislike mist outright, but I doubt anyone would say it’s the right thing to use in all situations. In the case of this image I think it’s neither here nor there.

 

[kenw]

Personally I'm kind of torn between them, in some parts of the image I prefer the "off" version while in others I like the "on". That's obviously one of the disadvantages of diffusion filters compared to doing something like negative Clarity in post - it is a global effect.

But then, negative clarity looks absolutely synthetic, it’s nothing like a mist filter really. I’ll take a permanent effect over a repulsive one every time

Absolutely agree. Where diffusion filters have a desirable effect they really aren't modeled well at all by negative clarity. I think only in the case the diffusion filter is having an minor effect (e.g. no specular highlights in the scene) would small negative clarity perhaps be a something like facsimile. But in that case there is little point to bothering with the diffusion filter in the first place!

The appeal of a mist effect is part subjective, part content-dependent. Some people might dislike mist outright, but I doubt anyone would say it’s the right thing to use in all situations.

Yep.

In the case of this image I think it’s neither here nor there.

Agree. This was the only thing I happened upon in my very early use of the camera so far where I thought it might be useful. In this particular scene it is to me a take it or leave it kind of thing - and I could totally understand folks who would say it is therefore a leave it if it isn't a compelling positive for the scene.

 

[JT26]

Nice light and image. I never forget hearing a Torsten Overgaard quote and it was simply 'shoot the light' and that changed my photography immediately.

To the HDF thing though, I dont get it at all. I think its a gimmick and one that can be done in post in 20 seconds and selectively too.

Very odd addition in my opinion and a fad that will be around for 5 years and disappear.

At least you can turn it off eh!

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

I dont get it at all. I think its a gimmick and one that can be done in post in 20 seconds and selectively too.

Actually I think that would be a more interesting comparison: a real mist filter versus a faked effect in post processing, because—without seeing that comparison—I don’t think the latter (using common tools like Lightroom, anyway) would give the same look.

Very odd addition in my opinion and a fad that will be around for 5 years and disappear.

On the other hand, a 3 stop ND on an f/2.8 lens is something that I’ve never once found a use for, so I personally find it a pointless feature and would prefer the HDF.

 

[JT26]

Original




Subtle - Similar




More eccentuated

Its not the same, but its neither worse or better, just different. But, very similar.

Generally its the highlights you want to be diffused so a mask in PS or Lightroom with some negative dehaze, and texture, and maybe some clarity will get you 90% there. If you want to go into photoshop and get things even closer you can.

A layer of gaussian blur with screen / apply image etc you could do that maybe.

I'd rather have the option to add later than chose at the time. Eh, its another feature I guess just dont love it.

Sign of squeezing out final margins from the GR III range before they replace



--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

http://www.shootingstills.co.uk/

185 Stock Photos, High-Res Pictures, and Images - Getty Images

Explore Authentic, Stock Photos & Images For Your Project Or Campaign. Less Searching, More Finding With Getty Images.

www.gettyimages.co.uk

 

[unhappymeal]

I dont get it at all. I think its a gimmick and one that can be done in post in 20 seconds and selectively too.

Actually I think that would be a more interesting comparison: a real mist filter versus a faked effect in post processing, because—without seeing that comparison—I don’t think the latter (using common tools like Lightroom, anyway) would give the same look.

Very odd addition in my opinion and a fad that will be around for 5 years and disappear.

On the other hand, a 3 stop ND on an f/2.8 lens is something that I’ve never once found a use for, so I personally find it a pointless feature and would prefer the HDF.

Really? An ND8 will let you get some decently long shutter speeds without needing crazy small apertures in daylight. Much more useful than the HDF, IMHO of course.

 

[kenw]

On the other hand, a 3 stop ND on an f/2.8 lens is something that I’ve never once found a use for, so I personally find it a pointless feature and would prefer the HDF.

Really? An ND8 will let you get some decently long shutter speeds without needing crazy small apertures in daylight. Much more useful than the HDF, IMHO of course.

Honestly, they both seem very marginally useful to me. Each only useful for only a small subset of shots. So I think it really is down to the individual as to which might occasionally help.

For me, the ND is too weak for the kind of shots I’d want an ND for. Something like 6 or 10 stop is what I’d use on occasion. On the other hand someone looking for just a smidge of motion blur probably would enjoy the three stop ND frequently.

Similarly I only expect the HDF to be useful in an extremely narrow range of situations. In many cases the effect is so subtle to not be worth it, while in others it can be too heavy handed. Someone joked it’s for those three rainy night cityscapes you’ll take each year.

Honestly what I’d really love is to switch between a hot mirror and an IR filter. That would be incredibly useful. Unfortunately I suspect the whole camera industry is still gun shy from the Sony 707 fiasco twenty years ago and won’t touch near IR modes on cameras. Plus at this stage in the GRIII lifecycle that would mean changing the sensor cover glass as well and that’s very likely a bridge too far for such small volume niche cameras.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

For me, the ND is too weak for the kind of shots I’d want an ND for. Something like 6 or 10 stop is what I’d use on occasion.

Exactly. The number of situations where I want some handheld motion blur but f/11 doesn’t cut it are near enough zero. Whereas the number of situations I’d like to quickly pop the camera on a mini tripod and get a long exposure are appreciable, so I’d love an internal 10-stop ND so as to not need to mess around with a separate filter and adapter. (It’d also presumably mean the camera could more easily focus and display a better preview image before dropping the filter into place for the shot.) YMMV, but IME a 3-stop filter doesn’t open up any new shots: I’ve only needed one with a larger aperture and/or slower maximum shutter speed than the GR III.

 

[kenw]

Honestly what I’d really love is to switch between a hot mirror and an IR filter. That would be incredibly useful. Unfortunately I suspect the whole camera industry is still gun shy from the Sony 707 fiasco twenty years ago and won’t touch near IR modes on cameras. Plus at this stage in the GRIII lifecycle that would mean changing the sensor cover glass as well and that’s very likely a bridge too far for such small volume niche cameras.

Just answering my own question here for the archives...

It appears this likely isn't possible with the current GR lens assembly. A tear down of the GRII lens on YouTube shows that the ND filter is a thin gelatin or polyester filter. This makes a lot of sense thinking about it for a bit. I would assume the GRIII/IIIx lens assembly is very similar as far as the filter function goes.

Video here:

(Please note that the above video shows far more disassembly than necessary for fixing most things and in a later version the poster shows a better way to tackle common problems).

Hot mirror filters (i.e UV/IR cut filters) are thin film dichroic filters that have to be made on glass. So while one could drop in a gelatin/polyester long pass IR filter in place of the ND or HDF filter, one couldn't easily add a UV/IR cut filter to the "normal" position in the filter selector.

I couldn't find an appropriate gelatin/polyester visible band short pass filter. If you combined that with a JJC stick on UV filter it would probably be a good stand-in for a dichroic UV/IR filter. But alas, doesn't seem to be a thing. The few things close that I found started transmitting again below about 800 nm.

I had naively assumed there was a glass filter for the ND/HDF which would necessitate the "normal" path having an equally thick clear glass filter. If that was the case it would be possible to drop a UV/IR cut into the "normal" position.

But of course the Ricoh engineers are a lot smarter than me when it comes to consumer manufacturing and using a thin gelatin filter was a much more sensible choice.

Oh well - I guess this at least means my lens is safe from being ineptly disassembled by me!

 

[JT26]

Agreed. 3 stop ND generally used for video users wanting control over stutter speed. 5 or 6 stop would be great.

That said it's not too much trouble to put on the adapter and 49mm ND if you are doing some Long exposures