When is HDR post-processing useful?

rmp

In the past, if the dynamic range of an scene seemed large, I would plan to use HDR processing and expose for 2 stops above and below the "correct exposure."

Today it seems I do not need as much HDR processing. In post-processing raw images in Lightroom and Photoshop, I often pull details out of shadows that seem really dark -- maybe two or three f-stops underexposed.

I know the camera sensors of today have a broader dynamic range than yesterday's cameras. I believe todays post-processing software is better than yesterdays.

So, given todays cameras and software, when is HDR processing needed? And how far apart should the exposures be set?

WestEndFoto

The ability to pull details out of the shadows with Nikon sensors is extraordinary. I find it rare that a situation is wanting.

But if I am at all concerned, I shoot a 5 bracket shot at plus or minus 0.3 or 0.7. Usually one will be good enough, even it is hard to know which one in the beginning. To be honest, I can only think of a couple of times that that did not suffice.

rmp

I agree. It is getting hard to justify HDR processing.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Since the D800 and more the D810 with Auto Spot meter (Highlight-weighted metering) I have not done HDR. I usually do the Highlight-weighted metering with -.3 to -.7 and recover just fine.

I suppose you can do HDR if you want the HDR look but I stopped doing as well when google Bought NIK software

Samko

I only use it to get the special look. I use a D7100, DR on it is very good so I need no HDR editing. And end of the day, hdr looks wierd, no blacks deeep shadow and highlights

rmp

Thanks Vipmediastar_JZ, I need to think about the Highlight-weighted metering.

spraynpray

Funny thing is that I longed for more than three shot bracketing when I had a D5000, but when it arrived, I found it unnecessary. Usually I do 3 shots +/- 2 stops if I am shooting into a sunset for instance. Also I never use these gimmicky software packages as I think it is very rare that they can do more than spoil a shot. Photoshop is all I need.

Ironheart

On any modern sensor, you should be able to do the tone mapping that HDR does to get the same look. Worse case you can take a single raw, produce several TIFFs and combine those. With 14 stops of DR you have way more info than you can display with an 8-bit monitor, so really the tone mapping is the key, not necessarily bracketing. There are exceptions, and certainly noise is the limiting factor both in the shadows and the highlights. The current crop of Nikon sensors seems pre-disposed to ETTL as it is much easier to pull out of shadow than highlights, but if you have an extremely contrasty scene you may still want to bracket, or if you are unsure of the correct exposure. YMMV of course

kanuck

I have always thought that if the finished processed image looks nothing like what you saw through the viewfinder, then the high dynamic range created through HDR processing has gone too far. Images with too much HDR often look like oil based paintings, rather than a photograph. Not sure if this is just me, but I feel too much HDR in photography compares to a beautiful woman who gets a lot of needless plastic surgery

I definitely agree with the spot meter and NIK Software comments as well.

MegapixelSchnitzel

With my poor D2Xs, any shot made in broad daylight with a shadow in it. Just kidding.

paulr

When HDR software starting coming out, the trend was to over use the HDR availability, The new MacPhun 2017 HDR now seems to be going back to delicate HDR adjustment even with a single image. Funny how things go full circle.

spraynpray

It is indeed. I have just processed some 3 x 2stop shots to make a pano. As an experiment I then just used the middle exposure and got a better result. Better because there was no ghosting and the rest of it was as good.