Hi all, I have just tried HDR for the first time and i am fairly impressed . What do you use as your HDR brand, ex- affinity pro. And what percent of your photos would you typically use HDR on . Thanks .
I use Lightroom to combine bracketed shots. I use HDR to manage difficult lighting conditions, usually to tame bright light sources in darker environments, and generally try to do so in a way that is more subtle than obvious, with varying levels of success. And by bracketed what I typically mean is a shot at normal exposure, then a couple more at progressively lower settings, sometimes one at a slightly higher exposure.
I gave up being exact about this when I found it didn't really matter that much to my type of photography. Plus, my camera doesn't allow its bracketing feature to be used with a self timer, which means I would have to use a shutter remote, which was super-annoying.
Because my most common type of photography often has these lighting challenges, I usually end up with a significant number of my shots being HDR candidates -- in my last outing at a decommissioned prison 31 out of 73 nominally keeper shots ended up as HDR versions (out of 400+ total).
Iately ive been using 3 shots instead of 5.
0,+1,-1 this is working better for me because handholding at +2 stops wasn’t.
I much prefer the oversharpened, way out look, for most of my pics.
Affinity Photo and HDR merging has completely changed my landscape photography. The results are so much better.
I’ve gone from being a dyed in the wool, jpeg shooter, to a RAW only HDR shooter now. The software is simple to use, value for money, quick to use, and the results on my screen, blow me away.
And I like the way the software automatically saves the image in jpeg at around 3.5 mgbytes instead of 3 RAw at around 30 odd. That’s cool. No unnecessary clogging up my old computer.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I have a copy of Photomatix pro 6, and, of course, Affinity Photo. Affinity is very easy to use, but I like the results I get from Photomatix a bit better. I don't shoot that much HDR any more. I like a more natural look, and I think a single, well exposed, raw file is as good as an HDR photo (most of the time). I concede that there are times where it can't compete, but they don't come all that often for me.
I bracket regulalry, and use SNS-HDR as it gives a pretty natural output. I also have Photomatix, and I'll use that if I want a more way out look, which I sometimes enjoy. Have also the merge in Lightoom, but far less often. Micro 4/3rds is fantastic for HDR as th IBIS means you do so much more handheld, rather lugging the tripod around.
I am using Lightroom, Photoshop, but also Aurora HDR. Just testing now a few days with the same photos. I start do like Aurora HDR. I will start HDR more, I think I will overcome the boredom of the lock-down easier.
In this context what does HDR even mean? Compression of HDR scene for display with SDR? To me that just sounds like standard workflow procedure for any kind of RAW development (for many subjects). The only thing special or noteworthy is on the technical side to do some kind of exposure bracketing to help deal with sensor limitations in order to more properly capture the HDR scene, keeping some usable details in darker parts while keeping usable details in brighter parts. On processing side it's still about compression and mapping to a range for an SDR output.
With a high-end FF camera if not for super-critical output I think you could just shoot with like -4 or -5 exposure compensation and not bother with any merging. Single capture is sufficient. To be honest, probably can get away with it most times even on m43, especially with modern denoising.
I've done a little bit of stacking in Hugin for this use case but very rarely.