Overdone HDR, what does it look like?
Greetings all.accecptabls
About 18 months ago I got an EOS 5DSR. I put through pictures of wildlife animals and am happy with the resulting RAW files. It also showed that I needed to shape up on my technique, eg I have got away with files with an EOS 5D classic using 600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter at 1/50 sec, on a bean bag, squeezing the release, breathing control, etc. Not enough for the DSR cos the piel density. That is correctable.
Now in this period of lockdown, I have got around to actually reading the manual. HDR is talked about. Never tried this, understand the principle. Looked it up on te net and what comes across that there is advantages of the technique, but they warn of overdone HDR. This puzzles me as I am unable to see examples of what an overdone HDR image looks like and how does one avoid this. Hence is this feature a gimmick of the DSr.
Thanks, keep well and safe.
Ari
About 18 months ago I got an EOS 5DSR. I put through pictures of wildlife animals and am happy with the resulting RAW files. It also showed that I needed to shape up on my technique, eg I have got away with files with an EOS 5D classic using 600mm with a 1.4x teleconverter at 1/50 sec, on a bean bag, squeezing the release, breathing control, etc. Not enough for the DSR cos the piel density. That is correctable.
Now in this period of lockdown, I have got around to actually reading the manual. HDR is talked about. Never tried this, understand the principle. Looked it up on te net and what comes across that there is advantages of the technique, but they warn of overdone HDR. This puzzles me as I am unable to see examples of what an overdone HDR image looks like and how does one avoid this. Hence is this feature a gimmick of the DSr.
Thanks, keep well and safe.
Ari
Overdone HDR pushes all the advantages of using the process to excess which means that the image looks false - i.e. not real. If you Google 'Overdone HDR' they will show you many examples of the process. A good HDR allows the detail in the highlights and in the shadows to be revealed so that there aren't large areas of an image which become too dark or too light but more what you do see with your own eyes (which have more ability to see into the shadows and adjust to very bright areas). Done well it is well worth working with.
[Link to rival site removed]
[Link to rival site removed]
Quote: If you Google 'Overdone HDR' they will show you many examples of the process
Agreed...I tried that out of curiosity...and, yup, it shows examples of “overcooking”...but, sometimes it adds a sort of...artistic, exuberant, (bet that’s spelt wrong..) poster-like flavour which some may like...but...as above, done with restraint, ( hopefuly undetectable...) it can enhance bright and dark areas quite nicely..
S’wot I think anyway....
If HDR is carried out correctly, you'll never know it's been carried out.
Personally I wouldn’t consider hdr a useful technique for wildlife (i occasionally use it for landscape and interiors). For hdr to work you ideally need the main focal point and camera to remain absolutely static during the exposures that are to be merged. Any movement and you risk ghosting. The issues you describe in your original post are like to be preferable to the likely result of using hdr for similar subjects. I haven’t tried hdr for wildlife and I am always open to correction, but I doubt this is a technique that will of great value to you.
Quote:I am unable to see examples of what an overdone HDR image looks like
Go to the Photo Gallery here and click on Filter (just below the short description at the top). Then do a search for HDR and tonemapped, you will see some prime examples!
Generally I would say that if you look at an image and it immediately says 'HDR' then it's overdone. The technique should support the subject and not dominate it.
Correctly done, on the appropriate subjects (interiors are the classic example), and you won't notice it. Moving subjects, such as wildlife, sport and scenes with a human presence will be difficult or impossible (giving poor results).
If you're happy with your RAW files, and you should be with the 5DS, you should be able to extract the detail you need. Assuming your exposure is good too begin with. I won't say 'correct' because as we all should know, sometimes exposures away from ;the norm' work in tricky lighting and depending on the photographer's preferences.
Oh, and getting away with 1/50 with that combination is commendable though it's the twitchiness of living subjects thatmakes it unadvisable rather than being able to keep the lens stedy. HDR will be of no use in that department.
If you're happy with your RAW files, and you should be with the 5DS, you should be able to extract the detail you need. Assuming your exposure is good too begin with. I won't say 'correct' because as we all should know, sometimes exposures away from ;the norm' work in tricky lighting and depending on the photographer's preferences.
Oh, and getting away with 1/50 with that combination is commendable though it's the twitchiness of living subjects thatmakes it unadvisable rather than being able to keep the lens stedy. HDR will be of no use in that department.
I have visited the suggested website and the pictures appear to be over processed. How does one know that they are HDR, rather than por processing.
So far I am happy with the DsR, great detail, hardly any oise at ASA800. Some pictures are slightly soft due to in appropriate technique. Arthur Morris the famous bird photog and his first book, Birds as Art, was instrumental in bringinging me into wildlife photog. When one reads his experiences, he does use 1/50 sec with a 600mm plus 1.4 converter. I have used this combination with the 5D classic and 7D classic without problem. The higher pixel density or the DsR is not as forgiving nor one can get accurate udgement rom the camera LCD screen. Habits die hard and can be inappropriate for the situation,
My interest is almost elusively wildlife, could not take picture o a person even if my lie depended on it. The thread is the result of reading the instruction manual for the first time to see what the capability of the camera is and what could be added to my interest, eg HDR to moving obects, eg moving/wavy grass, trees, objects walking through a scene where 'ghosting' could occur.
Many, if not most, images which are labelled as HDR are not, but are in fact Tone Mapping, which is an HDR-like effect obtained from only one image, instead of at least 3 for true HDR.
I have used my 5DS for wildlife in the past and have been pleasantly surprised by the iso performance up to and beyond 6400. Yes there is noise in the image, incorporating steps to control noise into your post processing workflow this can easily be overcome. In my personal workflow I have recently adopted Topaz AI Noise filter as the resulting image is usually better than when using my old techniques - apply this before any other post processing steps. Still the example below shows an example at ISO6400 using my old technique...
The RAW file is 68.2 meg and brought out detail. shot with 600mm plus x1.4 converter at ASA 800, noise is minimal. Range was about seven meters. Used the lens combination to get as much detail with the oxpeckers grooming him. What a look of bliss. He is resting his head on his left horn, like a pillow and is in a puddle of water.
This aside, my original question on overdone HDR is partially answered, ie it is like poorly processed RAW file. Would also like to know how movement eg windy conditins, moveing obects across the scene are dealt with.
Thanks
sorry to deviate, including a picture of a warthog taken with 5DsR, 600mm plus x1.4 converter, ASA 800, f.6 at 1/50 sec. Illustrating what can be done when one departs from convention. RAW file is 62.5. These pictures are from my first outing with the DsR and the conventional wisdom is that this camera is not for wildlife.....?????? Wake up.
Quote:and the conventional wisdom is that this camera is not for wildlife.....?????? Wake up.
I think the suggestions have been that HDR would be of little use - in fact hard to achieve with such moving "targets" not the camera itself...
Quote:sorry to deviate, including a picture of a warthog taken with 5DsR, 600mm plus x1.4 converter, ASA 800, f.6 at 1/50 sec. Illustrating what can be done when one departs from convention. RAW file is 62.5. These pictures are from my first outing with the DsR and the conventional wisdom is that this camera is not for wildlife.....?????? Wake up.
Oh yes - the 'conventional wisdom' on the internet about the 5Ds has been rather negative - and in many respects totally inaccurate.
When I purchased my 5Ds (before the 5D4 came along) - I felt was taking a massive risk. But large file sizes not been a problem, diffraction not been an issue. ISO performance *much* better then expected. And the extra pixels have been handy too.
And as you say - it does rather well when shooting wildlife!
Incidentally - from my own experience, I find that shooting without the 1.4 TC and cropping in post actually delivers better quality than shooting with the TC in place. Saves a lot of faf when shooting too.
5Ds with 70-200 F4L:
