HDR v Exposure Blending

[Potoroo]

For the purposes of this post I processed the Venice sample set from the HDR-Soft web site using Photomatix Pro 3.1 using both HDR and Exposure Blending with the default settings. Which do you prefer:

HDR:


EB:


The HDR settings seem so intent on retrieving details there is a general loss of differential light levels, the result being that the entire image seems too evenly lit and light, especially for what is a late afternoon photograph. The sky in particular is far more realistic in my view in the EB image.

I'm not saying EB is perfect, but I am saying it seems to stay closer to the original even while extending the dynamic range. Why, then, is this technique receiving so little attention? Doesn't it have enough sliders to play with?

[gstark]

I'm not saying EB is perfect, but I am saying it seems to stay closer to the original even while extending the dynamic range. Why, then, is this technique receiving so little attention? Doesn't it have enough sliders to play with?

That's a very good question, but I believe that the answer, too, is very simple. Ask yourself about the letter D, as it applies in HDR: what does it mean, in this TLA?

Answer that question, and I suspect you may gain a subtle insight into what this technique is more popular than the other, as well as, perhaps a similarly subtle insight into human nature.

[stubbsy]

HDR and Exposure Blending are, like any other PP technique, tools that need to be used appropriately. Some images suit HDR better, some suit Exposure Blending better and some suit neither. It all comes down to the subjective choice of what appeals best to you. In the two examples you give using the test image I'm not a big fan of either default treatment and would have tweaked both. The HDR is too bright and the blend is too dark. For this test image you can produce, with tweaking, a quality image from both techniques and I suspect that's why this was chosen as one of the Photomatix test images.

By comparison, for my recent HDR machines post I played with both techniques and found Exposure Blending poorly suited for those images. For comparison I've gone back and redone one 4 shot group as both a single HDR and Single Exposure Blend using the defaults. To me the HDR is, well, dynamic whereas the blend is very flat. Of course the HDR isn't perfect either and below those 2 is my final image after I adjusted the tone mapping in Photomatix and did some more PP in Lightroom.

So my short take on this is both are useful techniques and it all comes down to the image you start with and the end result you desire.

Exposure Blend (default settings)



HDR (default settings)



This is the final version of the HDR processed shot

[gstark]

HDR and Exposure Blending are, like any other PP technique, tools that need to be used appropriately. Some images suit HDR better, some suit Exposure Blending better and some suit neither.

Peter,

While I absolutely agree with what you've said, I don't think that answers the question that was asked.

[Potoroo]

In the two examples you give using the test image I'm not a big fan of either default treatment and would have tweaked both.

I used default settings simply to avoid any implication of bias while demonstrating my point.

To me the HDR is, well, dynamic whereas the blend is very flat.

I think you're using "dynamic" in a different sense here. Since both techniques involve processing layered images of the subject with different exposures to recover detail that would otherwise be lost to either shadows or blow-outs they both have a dynamic range beyond that of the camera. When you say the HDR seems more dynamic you're saying it seems to have something the EB does not, some sort of life or zest.

Of course the HDR isn't perfect either and below those 2 is my final image after I adjusted the tone mapping in Photomatix and did some more PP in Lightroom.

Your final image is an example of the things I dislike about most HDR images I have seen (which is why I started a new thread here rather than hijacking someone else's thread in the Images Review forum and possibly being seen to be dumping on them). I guess the question I am asking is why so many people seem to prefer over-saturated, ultra-high contrast images to more naturalistic ones. Is it just because it's a (relatively) new toy to play with? Or is there a genuine aesthetic at work here?

[Big V]

I think what they are trying to show is HDR is about the "pop" and what you want the image to be rather than what it was. It is just a processing tool and in the past every body used layers and opacity settings in photoshop to achieve the result. due to some new software, alot of people have found it much esier to implement hence the popularity of the technique but really it has always been available - heck this is exactly what Ansel Adams was doing all those years ago!!!

[Murray Foote]

I think there's a danger of asking questions the wrong way round here. The question should not be Which technique works best? but What did I want to achieve and have I really achieved it?. (... and if I didn't would another technique help)....

In terms of the images originally displayed, I think the second works much better. I don't think it's too dark but I think the sky either needs to be darker or it needs to be cropped down to just above the spire of the largest dome.

Regards,
Murray

[photohiker]

I tend to think that it's not helpful to try and pick technique or program "winners". It's the image result we're after, not a stamp of approval for having used the 'right' tools to get there.

I actually use Photomatix for my exposure blends, but I step back from the edge of making the result into full-blown HDR unless I particularly want to go there, which is not often. There is a neat Lightroom podcast I have a link for someplace if anyone is interested. Photomatix is a pretty good program, and I find it somewhat easier to tinker with and get reasonable results.

[stubbsy]

I think you're using "dynamic" in a different sense here...When you say the HDR seems more dynamic you're saying it seems to have something the EB does not, some sort of life or zest.

Exactly (and a lousy pun I guess)

Your final image is an example of the things I dislike about most HDR images I have seen (which is why I started a new thread here rather than hijacking someone else's thread in the Images Review forum and possibly being seen to be dumping on them). I guess the question I am asking is why so many people seem to prefer over-saturated, ultra-high contrast images to more naturalistic ones. Is it just because it's a (relatively) new toy to play with? Or is there a genuine aesthetic at work here?

Ah now I get you. I largely agree with this observation. Over saturated high contrast unnatural looking images are often the result of HDR. Our brain knows when we look at such an image it's not possible (dark night time sky bright foreground for example) and it puts us off. That said I think there is an aesthetic at work in the best HDR images. In the case of my own image I was specifically going for an alien look/feel to match the images and using HDR gave me this and I was very happy with the outcome. For me (and I've said it elsehwere) the same treatment on most landscapes doesn't grab me.