Cannot make C1 22 HDR work
I tried to use the HDR function with 3 files (0, +2 stops , -2 stops)
I cannot make it work.
I always end up with an overexposed DNG file similar to the +2 stops picture.
I use Nikon Z nef files
-
Are you using the Auto-Adjust option?
0 -
No, it wasn't'; the result is better when the option is activated; but I'm wondering : what's the use if HDR if we still need to use the sliders to reduce the higlights and recover the shadows
0 -
phu,
I'm not sure what you are expecting from the new function but the concept is not so much to deliver a fully finished edit as it is to create a new RAW file with a more balanced (for the purpose of helping with high exposure and low exposure issues that one might see from a single image) dynamic range and so allow a better starting point for all of the RAW processing that C1 can offer.
In other words, it is creating a new RAW base (as a DNG file) that should be a better starting point for the editing you would normally be applying.
It could be argued that a well exposed single file and the options in the system already, especially the HDR tool for example, can already provide most of the benefits in the right circumstances. But the HDR merge probably allows a little more latitude for processing in certain situations.
The Help content from the User Manual for the new HDR function provided some insights about what is intended from the functionality but I think most of us are likely to approach it with some preconceptions about the intended functionality and they may be a little wrong. Careful reading 2 or 3 times seemed useful to me, although I still have some questions.
0 -
Have to agree with phu.
Compare C1 to Lightroom.
In LR with auto adjust off you get a result that is reasonably close to a finished output, the HDR dng is 32 bit with more dynamic range available than any base image plus the adjustment sliders for the HDR are all at zero settings, allowing full scope for further adjustments. In comparison C1 seems a bit of a fudge.1 -
@sfa
Thank you for your answer
I did some further testing with HDR, and indeed, when applying adjustement on the DNG, the results look quite natural (no artficial "HDR effect").
As far as I am concerned, the 2 HDR features that are missing are
- more control on the HDR process
- keep the lens corrections from the original files
0 -
@phu
I understand you points and can agree with them.
On the other hand, the information and official comments I have read and heard so far seem to suggest the development direction tends to favour an AI approach and efforts are apparently being made in that direction.
If so that is the opposite, taking along term view, of a typical "provide all of the controls and make the users do the work" that seems to be the historic position for many existing HDR products.
There's also the "RAW" file result to consider. In theory the resulting file can still be edited as it is was an original RAW file with a wider (but now adjusted) dynamic range.
Looking at a 3 exposure HDR DNG I created when testing the new file shows a Generic lens profile but If I create a second variant of the file and apply the profile for the original lens (since one probably needs to assume that the same lens would have been used for all the shots in the merge) I can apply the correctly identified lens profile and see changes.
One wonders why the regular profile for the lens was not automatically applied. HOWEVER I think it may be the case that certain adjustments for certain lenses (maybe all lenses with C1 profiles?) have specifc adjustments for specific settings - for example according to Aperture used. If the aperture is what has changed in order to deliver 3 different exposures then the adjustments might be considered to be inconsistent in some way and no obviously correct settings will have been pre-prepared ready to be applied.
If so - what should one do? In theory in such a situation, there are no predefined lens corrections that can be applied with the certainty of success.
One might take a different position for Panoramas where lenses that can be consistently corrected might have the corrections applied to all images to be stitched, though even then there may be some anomalous situations to consider.
However, I suspect that many Panorama stitching programs may be set up to ignore certain types of lens adjustments and just apply "Normalising" algorithms to areas where problem stitching might be visually very apparent. Clear blue skies for example.
0 -
I also shoot Nikon NEF and noticed the same thing. The +2EV and HDR are very similar. I would expect the results to be closer to the metered shot than +2EV shot. Auto Adjust helps, but sometimes it still blows it out too much. I thought it might be the order I shot in, but I tried the correct order and that didn't matter. Here is an example:
0 -
Josh,
Absent the use of the Auto Adjustment option I think what we see will simply be an newly created DNG RAW file with a rather "flat" profile ready for us to edit. So far as I can tell it is not expected to be close to a usable output - although there is always the chance that it might be.
The thing is if the Auto Adjust does not get close to what you want it might be distracting our next steps towards what we do want. Hence the option to accept an automatic rendering or not. SO far I have been undecided. For testing it makes sense to auto-adjust. For later processing after gaining experience - maybe not. I don't know yet.
I think the default is probably to simply use the existing preview of one of the images in the set. Presumably whichever was the last one to be processed in the internal processing order. None of the pre-existing previews would be the correct one but I guess that's why the Auto option is available.
0 -
Josh,
What do the histograms of the +2EV Image and the HDR Image look like? Similar? Different?
0 -
1
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments