2

I see lots of stuff online about creating HDR images from bracketed shots. But i have a Nikon D5600 which has in camera HDR. Should i still use bracketed shots for HDR or just use the in camera HDR. I rarely see any reviews of HDR capabilities of a DSLR .

Is it the case that one is clearly better than other. I read one article which spoke as if there is not even a debate and in camera HDR is clearly way inferior. My in camera HDR seems fine to me, but i have not tried the other method and maybe HDR using bracketed images gives even better results ?

Also, some people have suggested that in camera HDR is often not available in for RAW photos, but i do not use RAW format ( I know, i am a noob ) . So, that is not a factor for me

silverrahul
  • 790
  • 5
  • 16

3 Answers3

3

It is all dependent upon how well the in-camera version is implemented versus how skilled the person doing the post-processing version is, as well as the capabilities of the post-processing tool that person is using.

It's certainly possible that the in-camera version Nikon has put into the D5600 can produce a result you like better than what you can produce by doing the post-processing of bracketed images yourself, especially if you have very little experience doing raw post-processing, much less HDR post-processing. Even when dealing with a single exposure, doing your own raw development allows you to show details from an expanded scene dynamic range than what in-camera JPEG engines will show.

In a sense, doing your own raw conversion from single exposures can also be a form of High Dynamic Range Imaging, a term which has been around much longer than digital photography has existed, and even longer than the more recent practice of producing an 8-bit tone-mapped version of a 32-bit floating point light map created by combining multiple bracketed exposures which came to be referred to as HDR.

It's also quite possible that your skill, either now or in the future as you continue to gain experience and increase your knowledge, can produce final results that you like better than what the camera produces using the automated routines. Don't be afraid to explore the possibilities! Don't let your less than earth-shattering initial results discourage you, either.

For those who are highly skilled doing it, there's no contest. Controlling every aspect of the workflow from image capture to final result allows the photographer to get as close as possible to what the photographer wants for a specific scene. That's going to be far better than what the engineers who programmed the camera guessed every photographer might want from every conceivable scene. Not only is this true for HDR photography using multiple exposures, but it is also true for doing raw development for each photograph or shooting scenario instead of letting the camera's JPEG engine reflect the guesses of those who created it.

It is true that as computational photography continues to advance with increased processing and larger memory capabilities of cameras, the gap between automated camera routines and manual post-processing is narrowing, especially for those not highly skilled in the art of post-processing. But a highly skilled person can still usually do "better", whatever that means when talking about making artistic choices, than even the best automated routines.

Perhaps in the future things will advance to a point where a highly skilled photographer can "teach" a camera or post-processing routine to automatically produce results that match their artistic intent for a particular type of scene? But we're not anywhere near that yet. We are already well beyond the point where automated routines can exceed the results from those with little or no post-processing skill.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561
  • " In a sense, doing your own raw conversion from single exposures can also be a form of High Dynamic Range Imaging, " I like this idea , i might try it, as some sort of compromise, of getting somewhat of a similar result without going the whole 9 yards with bracketed shots and post proessing HDR. From what i have seen, this actually looks easy enough to give it a try. – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:44
  • " That's going to be far better than what the engineers who programmed the camera guessed every photographer might want from every conceivable scene. " Is this similar to how the P,S,A, M modes gives better results than Auto mode, which is an attempt by a programmer to get every conceivable scene right ?. If yes, that gives me a very good frame of referene to understand this . In my case, learning P,S,A,M mode was easy enough to make it worth how much better it looks. – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:44
  • I just wonder if learning post processing HDR would be worth it, particularly since learning this is much more involved than learning the simple P,S,A,M modes. Which is why i have been searching for side by side image comparisons of in camera HDR vs post processing HDR. But surprisingly, they are hard to find. – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:44
  • @silverrahul Whether anything is worth it or not is an individual decision that compares the benefit gained from the cost of that benefit. We can't answer that part for you, only you can. For me it was certainly worth it, though I had already learned a lot of what I now know before cameras first started offering in body HDR processing of multiple exposures. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 05:48
  • @silverrahul Probably the most likely reason you can't find many side-by-side comparisons is that most in-camera HDR options do not also allow saving the raw file data. If you do it in camera, you can't use the same exposures to do it out of camera. Beyond that, those who are skilled in HDR processing see doing the in-camera thing as a waste of time and effort, just as many of those who always shoot raw often see saving both raw and JPEGs as a way to slow the camera down when shooting fast continuous bursts. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 05:50
  • " Whether anything is worth it or not is an individual decision that compares the benefit gained from the cost of that benefit. We can't answer that part for you, only you can " Yes, this is why i wanted to see some side by side images to answer for myself if the benefit is worth the effort required to learn it. But like you said, it might not be easy to find such image comparisons. I might try to learn it in the future, and see if it works for me – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:53
  • The benefit of raw vs. JPEG is even greater, at least to me, than the benefit of P-Tv-Av-M (I'm a Canon shooter, LOL) and manually selected AF options compared to using "full Auto" exposure and AF modes. But it does require a commitment to learning how to use more advanced tools. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 05:53
  • Yeah , i want to start shooting in RAW too. It is just that my Lightroom is showing some error while trying to import NEF files. I am trying to troubleshoot that. My photoshop is able to import NEF files . i generally use Lightroom all the time and only use photoshop when i require something specific, but i might just start using RAW files with photoshop all the time – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:58
  • 1
    The entire point of LR is raw development. The tools in LR that even work on JPEGs are much more limited working with JPEGs than with raw files. You might also give Nikon's raw development software a try. The advantage there is that you can tell the program to open each image using the in-camera settings active at the time you took the photo, so your initial result will look much (as in almost exactly) like you would have gotten from the camera's JPEG engine. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 06:02
  • You need to be sure that your current version of LR is new enough to support newer cameras. A version of LR from before the D5600 was introduced won't be able to process raw files from it. You can use the Adobe DNG converter to work around that, but it can sometimes be less than an ideal solution. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 06:04
  • " The entire point of LR is raw development. The tools in LR that even work on JPEGs are much more limited working with JPEGs than with raw files " Oh, how about using RAW with photoshop? Since, i am able to import RAW into photoshop, i thought i would just forget LR for RAW and just use photoshop for it. I was under the impression that, anything LR can do , photoshop can do better – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 06:07
  • @silverrahul If you search this site using the terms "Lightroom photoshop camera raw" you should find several questions/answers that discuss that in detail. Photoshop can't, for example, do image organization (cataloging and tagging) the way LR can. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 06:11
  • Yes, that was the one thing i knew LR did better , LR is way better and more convenient for handling hundreds of images and keeping them organised. I will look up what you suggested. By the way just on the ease of learning/time and effort to learn front, is it fair to say that learning PSAM modes < learning to work with RAW files < learning post processing HDR of bracketed shots ? – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 06:21
  • That all depends. I've been shooting for over 35 years and I'm still learning how to use PSAM modes. I've been using raw files for at least 12-13 years and am still learning how to do that, too. Ditto for HDR, which is mostly just an extension of raw developing once the shooting is done. There's a lot more to learn before one is basically competent with raw development than with shooting PSAM, but if you start with an app that initially applies the in camera settings at the time the image was taken, you can learn a lot from just seeing how the app got it looking that way. – Michael C Jun 14 '21 at 06:28
  • 1
    @silverrahul As someone who came from a darkroom background, Lightroom makes more sense than Photoshop when adjusting images. I sometimes need to do my final edit in Photoshop since LR lacks the tools I need, but that's pretty rare. Adobe Camera Raw (part of Photoshop) is much the same as LR (LR uses ACR except with a better interface). – qrk Jun 14 '21 at 19:14
2

D5600 combines two photos with different exposures to create one image (from page 138 in the manual). For some situations, you may require more images to make up your HDR exposure stack which means you do this in post processing.

The D5600 only produces a JPEG image as a final output. Ideally, you want an image file that is 16-bits per color which gives you more latitude when finalizing the image in post processing. While you say that you aren't using raw file format, you may change your mind in the future when you find out how much more control you have in post processing with raw files.

Some people like to create images with garish colors when creating HDR images using tone mapping. Again, this is done in post processing. Others like a more natural look which is commonly done with fusion (see Enfuse).

If you find that the D5600 HDR works for you, then stick with it. Since you are interested enough to ask a question about HDR, try doing HDR in post processing. Hugin, while commonly used to create panoramas, also does HDR using Enfuse (fusion). Hugin isn't the easiest program to use, but it is free and works very well.

qrk
  • 3,006
  • 4
  • 13
  • Thanks,. I guess i just want to know how much of a difference does post processing HDR make over the in camera HDR. In all the articles or blog posts about HDR, i cannot ever seem to find a side by side image comparison of in camera HDR vs post processing HDR. I have seen lots of comparisons between HDR and the not HDR, between different kinds/nethods/apps/softwares of post processing HDR etc. But never one comparing in camera vs post processing HDR for a given camera – silverrahul Jun 13 '21 at 21:32
  • 1
    @silverrahul maybe you need to use this as a catalyst to do your own comparisons! I might do this on my E-M10 III after my exam block tbh. – wilkgr Jun 14 '21 at 00:00
  • 2
    @silverrahul you may find that shooting in raw negates having to do HDR since the bit depth is quite a bit more than a JPEG file. – qrk Jun 14 '21 at 01:47
  • @wilkgr Before investing time into really learning post processing HDR and buying the required software etc. , i just wanted to know just how much better the end result is. I am sure "how much better" depends on personal criteria and taste, which is why i wanted to see some side by side comparisons, but surprisingly i found it hard to find any such comparisons. – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:28
  • @qrk Thanks for that info. One more point in favour of RAW in the eternal debate inside my mind of RAW vs JPEG . I wanted to try RAW, but my adobe lightroom is not able to import NEF files . So, i need to troubleshoot that , before i can try RAW. – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 05:30
  • @silverrahul Good point - touche. I do have (an older version of) Photomatix so I'll make a blog post w/ a comparison when I have time. – wilkgr Jun 14 '21 at 05:50
  • @silverrahul You can create 16-bit TIFF using Nikon's ViewNX program that should have come with your camera (CD media or download from Nikon's web site), or, use a raw to 16-bit TIFF conversion program like dcraw, rawtherapee, or darktable. For general Lightroom use, you can convert your raw files to DNG https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html. – qrk Jun 14 '21 at 19:04
  • Wow, this tip about using ViewNX to convert NEF files to TIFF worked perfectly. Now i can import the raw files to Lightroom. The only problem is that the TIF file is around 4 times the filesize of the NEF file. ALso does it actually conserve the benefits of having raw file or does converting it into TIFF lose something in the process ? – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 20:42
  • 1
    Okay, i tried it with an image, and the TIFF file definitely is not as good as raw file. When i opened the NEF in camera raw, i was able to recover clouds from an overexposed sky, but the corresponding TIF in lightroom does not – silverrahul Jun 14 '21 at 20:49
  • Using ViewNX will not preserve the exposure range of the raw file since it is trying to mimic how the camera will process the image. Try converting to DNG as this is still a raw format. Lightroom is happy with DNG files. Yes, TIFF files are huge, but using ZIP or LZW compression can reduce file size slightly. – qrk Jun 14 '21 at 23:48
  • " Try converting to DNG as this is still a raw format " Any suggestions for how best to convert NEF into DNG ? Which software, app etc. to use ? ViewNX only allows conversion to JPEG and TIFF – silverrahul Jun 15 '21 at 06:20
  • @silverrahul Search Adobe's site for "DNG Converter". See also: When RAW files are converted to DNG, are any irreversible demosaicing happening or not? and How can I open .CR2 files from a Canon 750D in Lightroom 3 when I can't afford the monthly cost of the new Lightroom? (different camera but same issue and possible solution) – Michael C Jun 15 '21 at 09:57
  • 1
    @MichaelC Thank you for the tip about DNG converter. It worked. Though the software download is quite large for a file converter ,about 500 mb . For any photo that i take in tricky light, i will be shooting in RAW from now on. And even though the DNG file is a bit compressed from the RAW file, it must not be too lossy, cause i was able to recover clouds from the overexposed sky – silverrahul Jun 15 '21 at 10:39
0

One benefit of in-camera HDR is far less work. A side effect of less work is making the use of HDR more likely.

Being JPG only in-camera also produces fewer files and the files are smaller than RAW format files. This reduces the capital cost of digital storage and potentially time cost that normally comes from managing more files versus fewer files.

Finally, the color scientists, optical engineers, firmware programmers, and photographic experts at the camera manufacturers have spent careers thinking about how to make good pictures. It’s their job.

None of this means that there are not benefits to making HDR pictures yourself from RAW files. If that’s what it takes to get a picture you want, well that’s what it takes.

But that’s not the case for everyone all the time. No amount of technique can save a poor idea. No technique can change lousy light. Good ideas executed in good light make good pictures and technical differences fade in importance.

The measure of better is the picture. Not opinions on the internet. No one ever wept because the corners were so sharp.

Bob Macaroni McStevens
  • 4,921
  • 2
  • 9
  • 27