OM-1 mk2: use HDR instead of bracketing?

[Mark B UK]

I recently replaced my OM-1 mk1 with the mk2 and have been toying with set-up options.

Until now, if I wanted to bracket the exposure I chose the AEB option, normally five frames, each a stop apart. I mapped this to a button on my mk1. Occasionally I used HDR, normally the three-frame option, correct exposure, +2 and -2. Given the improved DR of modern sensors and LightRoom I often wondered if three frames with two stops difference might be preferable.

So now I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR. Not only would this give me extra flexibility but, because HDR uses the electronic shutter, the sequence would be shot in less time, so with less difference between the images.

Are there any drawbacks/constraints I haven't considered?

 

[David5833]

...I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR.

Wouldn't it be the same? At least for the OM-1, unless you used HDR-1 or HDR-2, you would have a series of shots that you could either use individually or you could composite in post to make an HDR. You could do that with either method. Both use silent shutter, so the speed to complete the bracket shouldn't be too different. Aside from exposure differential and number of shots, the major difference is that for the HDR bracket you don't have to press the shutter release for the whole bracket, it does it automatically. Is it different for the OM-1 Mk2?
--

David5833

Explore David5833’s 815 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Toni Genes]

Are there any drawbacks/constraints I haven't considered?

The HDR option from Olympus cameras is partially switching the colors to black, so it is loosing colors in the underexposed areas.

I get much better images from a single raw file compared to the JPG generated by the HDR function.

In my opinion makes sense to shoot a sequence of images and then combine it in PS or another editing software.

 

[Mark B UK]

...I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR.

Wouldn't it be the same? At least for the OM-1, unless you used HDR-1 or HDR-2, you would have a series of shots that you could either use individually or you could composite in post to make an HDR. You could do that with either method. Both use silent shutter, so the speed to complete the bracket shouldn't be too different. Aside from exposure differential and number of shots, the major difference is that for the HDR bracket you don't have to press the shutter release for the whole bracket, it does it automatically. Is it different for the OM-1 Mk2?

I think one difference is that AEB uses whatever shutter/drive mode the camera is in at the time, which in my case is usually quite slow. HDR seems to operate very fast - 20fps or faster.

 

[David5833]

...I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR.

Wouldn't it be the same? At least for the OM-1, unless you used HDR-1 or HDR-2, you would have a series of shots that you could either use individually or you could composite in post to make an HDR. You could do that with either method. Both use silent shutter, so the speed to complete the bracket shouldn't be too different. Aside from exposure differential and number of shots, the major difference is that for the HDR bracket you don't have to press the shutter release for the whole bracket, it does it automatically. Is it different for the OM-1 Mk2?

I think one difference is that AEB uses whatever shutter/drive mode the camera is in at the time, which in my case is usually quite slow. HDR seems to operate very fast - 20fps or faster.

Well, in any case, the bracketing feature of the HDR module sounds like the way for you to go if +/- 2 EV works for you. That's what I use on the OM-1, 3f 2EV, programmed to the ISO button. I seldom use it but it's nice to have when I want it.

 

[Sam Bennett]

I recently replaced my OM-1 mk1 with the mk2 and have been toying with set-up options.

Until now, if I wanted to bracket the exposure I chose the AEB option, normally five frames, each a stop apart. I mapped this to a button on my mk1. Occasionally I used HDR, normally the three-frame option, correct exposure, +2 and -2. Given the improved DR of modern sensors and LightRoom I often wondered if three frames with two stops difference might be preferable.

So now I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR. Not only would this give me extra flexibility but, because HDR uses the electronic shutter, the sequence would be shot in less time, so with less difference between the images.

Are there any drawbacks/constraints I haven't considered?

Ultimately it comes down to whether you're going to want to post-process as HDR later. Bracketing will allow you to do that, HDR will not. HDR produces a JPEG with the exposures combined, the RAW is just a single underexposed photo - so you cannot produce an "HDR" photo from it.

 

[john isaacs]

I recently replaced my OM-1 mk1 with the mk2 and have been toying with set-up options.

Until now, if I wanted to bracket the exposure I chose the AEB option, normally five frames, each a stop apart. I mapped this to a button on my mk1. Occasionally I used HDR, normally the three-frame option, correct exposure, +2 and -2. Given the improved DR of modern sensors and LightRoom I often wondered if three frames with two stops difference might be preferable.

So now I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR. Not only would this give me extra flexibility but, because HDR uses the electronic shutter, the sequence would be shot in less time, so with less difference between the images.

Are there any drawbacks/constraints I haven't considered?

Ultimately it comes down to whether you're going to want to post-process as HDR later. Bracketing will allow you to do that, HDR will not. HDR produces a JPEG with the exposures combined, the RAW is just a single underexposed photo - so you cannot produce an "HDR" photo from it.

 

[SrMi]

I recently replaced my OM-1 mk1 with the mk2 and have been toying with set-up options.

Until now, if I wanted to bracket the exposure I chose the AEB option, normally five frames, each a stop apart. I mapped this to a button on my mk1. Occasionally I used HDR, normally the three-frame option, correct exposure, +2 and -2. Given the improved DR of modern sensors and LightRoom I often wondered if three frames with two stops difference might be preferable.

So now I'm wondering whether I should configure the mk2 differently, with HDR mapped to a button instead of AEB, then deciding in post whether to treat the results as a bracketing sequence or to combine them as HDR. Not only would this give me extra flexibility but, because HDR uses the electronic shutter, the sequence would be shot in less time, so with less difference between the images.

Are there any drawbacks/constraints I haven't considered?

Ultimately it comes down to whether you're going to want to post-process as HDR later. Bracketing will allow you to do that, HDR will not. HDR produces a JPEG with the exposures combined, the RAW is just a single underexposed photo - so you cannot produce an "HDR" photo from it.

HDR has two options, in camera production of a combined JPG, or a bracketed series of RAW or JPG. Previously, it automatically set drive mode to highs speed mechanical, but now it sets drive mode to high speed electronic.

The main deference between HDR and BKT is the spacing; it is always 2-stops for HDR and 1-stop or less for BKT.

If you want to apply HDR merge in the post (Adobe's LrC), you should have at least three stops between shots.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/high-dynamic-range-images.html

That means that HDR (2 stops between shots) works better than AE bracketing for HDR merge (pick only the brightest and darkest image).

Also previously, the drive mode had to be set separately. I used the right arrow for drive mode, which made it easy to quickly set drive mode for BKT. Now, however, drive mode is always high speed, and electronic, anti-shock, and (perhaps mechanical) can be selected.

I use both modes. If I intend to do HDR processing, I will use HDR mode. If I am just bracketing to get the best exposure or for ETTR, I use BKT. I typically have them assigned to the front buttons in my landscape settings. For other Storting scenarios, I may only have BKT assigned, or neither.

I do like that BKT defaults to high speed, but I wish the default could be changed.

 

[Toni Genes]

HDR produces a JPEG with the exposures combined, the RAW is just a single underexposed photo - so you cannot produce an "HDR" photo from it.

You can get a better image from a single raw image compared to a JPEG HDR.

The JPEG HDR is better only if you don't want to spend time editing. Otherwise it is useless.

It's a pitty that OMS did not tried to improved the HDR option in the last 10 years.

Bellow a comparison : JPEG HDR vs JPG from single raw image. From single raw I got a bit more highlights and much more color information + details in the shadows.


HDR FROM CAMERA


JPG from a single raw after tweaking the highlights & shadow

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27603562@N04