🤘🤔Nikon D800E, D810 and D850 Usable Dynamic Range Test and Budget Buying Advice👌🤘

Like it or not this video compares the real usable dynamic range of Nikons’ three most used cameras for landscape photography. Everyone bangs on endlessly about dynamic range when in fact most of them have no clue what they’re talking about. If you want to see the truth about dynamic range improvements since 2012 then the results of this video may well come as a shock!

If you want to see the tonal response curves of the three Nikon models AND the Canon 5DMk3 then click the image below to view at full size:

usable dynamic range
As you can see, there is very little difference between the three Nikon cameras in the highlight to midtone zone, and the biggest difference between all 4 cameras comes on the left side of the chart, the shadows and lower midtones.

Sensor Size Myth – Again!

Sensor Size Myth – “A bigger sensor gathers more light.”

If I hear this crap one more time either my head’s going to explode or I’m going to do some really nasty things to someone!

A larger sensor size does NOT necessarily gather any more light than a smaller sensor – END OF!

What DOES gather more light is BIGGER PHOTOSITES – those individual light receptors that cumulatively ‘make up’ the photosensitive surface plane of our camera sensor.

sensor size

Above we have two fictional sensors, one with smaller physical dimensions and one with larger dimensions – the bottom one is a ‘larger sensor size’ than the top one, and the bottom one has TWICE as many photosites as the top one (analogous to more megapixels).

But the individual photosites in BOTH sensors are THE SAME SIZE.

Ignoring the factors of:

  • Micro Lens design
  • Variations in photosite design such as resistivity
  • Wiring Substrate
  • SNR & ADC

the photosites in both sensors will have exactly the same pixel pitch, reactivity to light, saturation capacity and base noise level.

However, if we now try to cram the number of photosites (megapixels) into the area of the SMALLER sensor – to increase the resolution:

sensor size

we end up with SMALLER photosites.

We have a HIGHER pixel resolution but this comes with a multi-faceted major penalty:

  • Decreased Dynamic Range
  • Increased susceptibility to specular highlight clipping
  • Lower photosite SNR (signal to noise ratio)
  • Increased susceptibility to diffraction – f-stop limiting

And of course EXACTLY the same penalties are incurred when we increase the megapixel count of LARGER sensors too – the mega-pixel race – fueled by FOOLS and NO-NOTHING IDIOTS and accommodated by camera manufacturers trying to make a profit.

But this perennial argument that a sensor behaves like a window is stupid – it doesn’t matter if I look outside through a small window or a big one, the light value of the scene outside is the same.

Just because I make the window bigger the intensity of the light coming through it does NOT INCREASE.

And the ultimate proof of the stupidity and futility of the ‘big window vs small window’ argument lies with the ‘proper photographers’ like Ben Horne, Nick Carver and Steve O’nions to name but three – those who shoot FILM!

A 10″x8″ sheet of Provia 100 has exactly the same exposure characteristics as a roll of 35mm or 120/220 Provia 100, and yet the 10″x 8″ window is 59.73x the size of the 35mm window.

And don’t even get me started on the other argument the ‘bigger = more light’ idiots use – that of the solar panel!

“A bigger solar panel pumps out more volts so because it gathers more light, so a bigger sensor gathers more light so must pump out better images………”

What a load of shite…………

Firstly, SPs are cumulative and they increase their ‘megapixel count’ by growing in physical dimensions, not by making their ‘photosites’ smaller.

But if you cover half of one with a thick tarpaulin then the cumulative output of the panel drops dramatically!

Also, we want SPs to hit their clip point for maximum voltage generation (the clip point would be that where more light does NOT produce more volts!).

Our camera sensor CANNOT be thought of in the same way:

sensor size

We are not interested in a cumulative output, and we don’t want all the photosites on our sensors to ‘max out’ otherwise we’ll have no tonal variation in our image will we…..!

The shot above is from a D800E fitted with a 21mm prime, ISO 100 and 2secs @f13.

If I’d have shot this with the same lens on the D500 and framed the same composition I’d have had to use a SHORTER exposure to prevent the highlights from clipping.

But if bigger sensors gather more light (FX gathers more than DX) I’d have theoretically have had expose LONGER……….and that would have been a disaster.

Seriously folks, when it comes to sensor size bigger ones (FX) do not gather more light than smaller (DX) sensors.

It’s not the sensor total area that does the light gathering, but the photosites contained therein – bigger photosites gather more light, have better SNR, are less prone to diffraction and result in a higher cumulative dynamic range for the sensor as a whole.

Do NOT believe anyone anywhere on any website, forum or YouTube channel who tells you any different because they a plain WRONG!

Where does this shite originate from you may ask?

Well, some while back FX dslr cameras where not made and everything from Canon and Nikon was APSC 1.5x or 1.6x, or APSH 1.3x. Canon was first with an FX digital then Nikon joined the fray with the D3.

Prior to the D3 we Nikon folk had the D300 DX which was 12.3Mp with a photosite area 30.36 microns2

The D3 FX came along with 12.1Mp but with a photosite area of 70.9 microns2

Better in low light than its DX counterpart due to these MASSIVE photosites it gave the dick heads, fools and no-nothing idiots the crackpot idea that a bigger sensor size gathers more light – and you know what……it stuck; and for some there’s no shifting it!

Hope this all makes sense folks.

Don’t forget, any questions or queries then just ask!

If you feel I deserve some support for putting this article together then please consider joining my membership site over on Patreon by using the link below.

Support me on Patreon

Alternatively you could donate via PayPal to tuition@wildlifeinpixels.net

You can also find this article on the free-to-view section of my Patreon channel by clicking this link https://www.patreon.com/posts/sensor-size-myth-22242406

If you are not yet a member of my Patreon site then please consider it as members get benefits, with more membership perks planned over the next 3 months.  Your support would be very much appreciated and rewarded.

Before I go, there’s a new video up on my YouTube Channel showing the sort of processing video I do for my Patreon Members.

You can see it here (it’s 23 minutes long so be warned!):

Please leave a comment on the video if you find it useful, and if you fancy joining my other members over on Patreon then I could be doing these for you too!

All the best

Andy

ETTR Processing in Lightroom

ETTR Processing in Lightroom

When we shoot ETTR (expose to the right) in bright, harsh light, Lightroom can sometimes get the wrong idea and make a real ‘hash’ of rendering the raw file.

Sometimes it can be so bad that the less experienced photographer can get the wrong impression of their raw file exposure – and in some extreme cases they may even ‘bin’ the image thinking it irretrievably over exposed.

I’ve just uploaded a video to my YouTube channel which shows you exactly what I’m talking about:

The image was shot by my client and patron Paul Smith when he visited the Mara back in October last year,  and it’s a superb demo image of just how badly Lightroom can demosaic a straight forward +1.6 Ev ETTR shot.

Importing the raw file directly into Lightroom gives us this:

ETTR

But importing the raw file directly into RawTherapee with no adjustments gives us this:

ETTR

Just look at the two histogram versions – Lightroom is doing some crazy stuff to the image ‘in the background’ as there are ZERO develop settings applied.

But if you watch the video you’ll see that it’s quite straight forward to regain all that apparent ‘blown detail’.

And here’s the important bit – we do so WITHOUT the use of the shadow or highlight recovery sliders.  Anyone who has purchased my sharpening videos HERE knows that those two sliders can VERY EASILY cause undesirable ‘pseudo-sharpening’ halos, and they should only be used with caution.

ETTR

The way I process this +1.6 stop ETTR exposure inside Lightroom has revealed all the superb mid tone detail and given us a really good image that we could take into Photoshop and improve with some precision localized adjustments.

So don’t let Lightroom control you – you need to control IT!

Thanks for reading and watching.

You can also view this post on the free section of my Patreon pages HERE

If you feel this article and video has been beneficial to you and would like to see more per week, then supporting my Patreon page for as little as $1 per month would be a massive help.  Thanks everyone!

 

Lumenzia – New Training

Lumenzia – New Training Course Available

Regular subscribers to my blog and YouTube channel should know by know that I highly recommend Greg Benz’s Lumenzia plugin for Photoshop.

Lumenzia

I know many readers of my blog have downloaded the Lumenzia plugin from my links dotted around the site, and previous posts such as HERE and HERE

Lumenzia is just about the best tool you can buy to help you master exposure blending using luminosity masks, but its uses do not stop there – I use it on quite a lot of my images for making ‘controlled tweaks’ in Photoshop.

But it is most readily associated with landscape photography exposure blending.

An awful lot of people have asked me if I’d do a set of comprehensive training videos on how to use Lumenzia, but that would be a little difficult to do without on-going additions as the plugin is frequently updated with new facilities.

But I’m pleased to say the Greg Benz (the plugin author) has just launched a comprehensive training course for Lumenzia, and I have bought the course myself!

Yes, that’s right – I’ve bought someone else’s training!

Lumenzia

After watching the videos that Greg has put together I can honestly say that the course is excellent – as you would expect.

The course is hosted on Teachable – so you don’t have to download any huge chunky videos either.

For those of you who already have the Lumenzia Photoshop plugin you can get the full course by clicking on the following link:

Lumenzia

Exposure Blending Master Course

And for those of you you have NOT already got the plugin itself, you can buy it bundled with the training course on the link below:

Lumenzia

Lumenzia + Exposure Blending Master Course

If you only want the plugin, you can still get that on its own by clicking below:

Lumenzia

Lumenzia Plugin on its own click here.

Greg covers everything you need to know in order to leverage the power of Lumenzia.  And anything that gets people to use Photoshop gets an extra ‘thumbs up’ from me!

Greg is the one trainer I know of who does what I do with my training videos – supply RAW files to support each of the lessons.

You will get raw files from various cameras including some D850 files, so you will have the added bonus of seeing how these cameras perform in the hands of an expert photographer.

So, I strongly urge you to use the links above and purchase this great training course from Greg Benz, and get to grips with Lumenzia.

You might be wondering why the heck I’m promoting training from someone else. 

Well, the reasons are two-fold; I’ve already said that logistically it would be a nightmare because of the fundamental updates.

But more importantly, I’d never be able to teach you how Lumenzia works any better than Greg himself – he IS the plugin author, so it stands to reason!

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Raw File Compression

Raw File Compression.

Today I’m going to give you my point of view over that most vexatious question – is LOSSLESS raw file compression TRULY lossless?

I’m going to upset one heck of a lot of people here, and my chances of Canon letting me have any new kit to test are going to disappear over the horizon at a great rate of knots, but I feel compelled to post!

What prompts me to commit this act of potential suicide?

It’s this shot from my recent trip to Norway:

FW1Q1351-2

Direct from Camera

FW1Q1351

Processed in Lightroom

I had originally intended to shoot Nikon on this trip using a hire 400mm f2.8, but right at the last minute there was a problem with the lens that couldn’t be sorted out in time, so Calumet supplied me with a 1DX and a 200-400 f4 to basically get me out of a sticky situation.

As you should all know by now, the only problems I have with Canon cameras are their  short Dynamic Range, and Canons steadfast refusal to allow for uncompressed raw recording.

The less experienced shooter/processor might look at the shot “ex camera” and be disappointed – it looks like crap, with far too much contrast, overly dark shadows and near-blown highlights.

Shot on Nikon the same image would look more in keeping with the processed version IF SHOT using the uncompressed raw option, which is something I always do without fail; and the extra 3/4 stop dynamic range of the D4 would make a world of difference too.

Would the AF have done as good a job – who knows!

The lighting in the shot is epic from a visual PoV, but bad from a camera exposure one. A wider dynamic range and zero raw compression on my Nikon D4 would allow me to have a little more ‘cavalier attitude’ to lighting scenarios like this – usually I’d shoot with +2/3Ev permanently dialled into the camera.  Overall the extra dynamic range would give me less contrast, and I’d have more highlight detail and less need to bump up the shadow areas in post.

In other words processing would be easier, faster and a lot less convoluted.

But I can’t stress enough just how much detrimental difference LOSSLESS raw file compression CAN SOMETIMES make to a shot.

Now there is a lot – and I mean A LOT – of opinionated garbage written all over the internet on various forums etc about lossless raw file compression, and it drives me nuts.  Some say it’s bad, most say it makes no difference – and both camps are WRONG!

Sometimes there is NO visual difference between UNCOMPRESSED and LOSSLESS, and sometimes there IS.  It all depends on the lighting and the nature of the scene/subject colours and how they interact with said lighting.

The main problem with the ‘it makes no difference’ camp is that they never substantiate their claims; and if they are Canon shooters they can’t – because they can’t produce an image with zero raw file compression to compare their standard lossless CR2 files to!

So I’ve come up with a way of illustrating visually the differences between various levels of raw file compression on Nikon using the D800E and Photoshop.

But before we ‘get to it’ let’s firstly refresh your understanding. A camera raw file is basically a gamma 1.0, or LINEAR gamma file:

gamma,gamma encoding,Andy Astbury

Linear (top) vs Encoded Gamma

The right hand 50% of the linear gamma gradient represents the brightest whole stop of exposure – that’s one heck of a lot of potential for recording subtle highlight detail in a raw file.

It also represents the area of tonal range that is frequently most effected by any form of raw file compression.

Neither Nikon or Canon will reveal to the world the algorithm-based methods they use for lossless or lossy raw file compression, but it usually works by a process of ‘Bayer Binning’.

Bayer_Pattern

If we take a 2×2 block, it contains 2 green, 1 red and 1 blue photosite photon value – if we average the green value and then interpolate new values for red and blue output we will successfully compress the raw file.  But the data will be ‘faux’ data, not real data.

The other method we could use is to compress the tonal values in that brightest stop of recorded highlight tone – which is massive don’t forget – but this will result in a ’rounding up or down’ of certain bright tonal values thus potentially reducing some of the more subtle highlight details.

We could also use some variant of the same type of algorithm to ‘rationalise’ shadow detail as well – with pretty much the same result.

In the face of Nikon and Canons refusal to divulge their methodologies behind raw file compression, especially lossless, we can only guess what is actually happening.

I read somewhere that with lossless raw file compression the compression algorithms leave a trace instruction about what they have done and where they’ve done it in order that a raw handler programme such as Lightroom can actually ‘undo’ the compression effects – that sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me!

Personally I neither know nor do I care – I know that lossless raw file compression CAN be detrimental to images shot under certain conditions, and here’s the proof – of a fashion:

Let’s look at the following files:

raw file compression

Image 1: 14 bit UNCOMPRESSED

raw file compression

Image 2: 14 bit UNCOMPRESSED

raw file compression

Image 3: 14 bit LOSSLESS compression

raw file compression

Image 4: 14 bit LOSSY compression

raw file compression

Image 5: 12 bit UNCOMPRESSED

Yes, there are 2 files which are identical, that is 14 bit uncompressed – and there’s a reason for that which will become apparent in a minute.

First, some basic Photoshop ‘stuff’.  If I open TWO images in Photoshop as separate layers in the same document, and change the blend mode of the top layer to DIFFERENCE I can then see the differences between the two ‘images’.  It’s not a perfect way of proving my point because of the phenomenon of photon flux.

Photon Flux Andy??? WTF is that?

Well, here’s where shooting two identical 14 bit uncompressed files comes in – they themselves are NOT identical!:

controlunamplified control

The result of overlaying the two identical uncompressed raw files (above left) – it looks almost black all over indicating that the two shots are indeed pretty much the same in every pixel.  But if I amplify the image with a levels layer (above right) you can see the differences more clearly.

So there you have it – Photon Flux! The difference between two 14 bit UNCOMPRESSED raw files shot at the same time, same ISO, shutter speed AND with a FULLY MANUAL APERTURE.  The only difference between the two shots is the ratio and number of photons striking the subject and being reflected into the lens.

Firstly 14 Bit UNCOMPRESSED compared to 14 bit LOSSLESS (the important one!):

raw file compression

14 bit UNCOMPRESSED vs 14 bit LOSSLESS

Please remember, the above ‘difference’ image contains photon flux variations too, but if you look carefully you will see greater differences than in the ‘flux only’ image above.

raw file compression raw file compression

The two images above illustrate the differences between 14 bit uncompressed and 14 bit LOSSY compression (left) and 14 bit UNCOMPRESSED and 12 bit UNCOMPRESSED (right) just for good measure!

In Conclusion

As I indicated earlier in the post, this is not a definitive testing method, sequential shots will always contain a photon flux variation that ‘pollutes’ the ‘difference’ image.

I purposefully chose this white subject with textured aluminium fittings and a blackish LED screen because the majority of sensor response will lie in that brightest gamma 1.0 stop.

The exposure was a constant +1EV, 1/30th @ f 18 and 100 ISO – nearly maximum dynamic range for the D800E, and f18 was set manually to avoid any aperture flicker caused by auto stop down.

You can see from all the ‘difference’ images that the part of the subject that seems to suffer the most is the aluminium part, not the white areas.  The aluminium has a stippled texture causing a myriad of small specular highlights – brighter than the white parts of the subject.

What would 14 bit uncompressed minus 14 bit lossless minus photon flux look like?  In a perfect world I’d be able to show you accurately, but we don’t live in one of those so I can’t!

We can try it using the flux shot from earlier:

raw file compression

But this is wildly inaccurate as the flux component is not pertinent to the photons at the actual time the lossless compression shot was taken.  But the fact that you CAN see an image does HINT that there is a real difference between UNCOMPRESSED and LOSSLESS compression – in certain circumstances at least.

If you have never used a camera that offers the zero raw file compression option then basically what you’ve never had you never miss.  But as a Nikon shooter I shoot uncompressed all the time – 90% of the time I don’t need to, but it just saves me having to remember something when I do need the option.

raw file compression

Would this 1DX shot be served any better through UNCOMPRESSED raw recording?  Most likely NO – why?  Low Dynamic Range caused in the main by flat low contrast lighting means no deep dark shadows and nothing approaching a highlight.

I don’t see it as a costly option in terms of buffer capacity or on-board storage, and when it comes to processing I would much rather have a surfeit of sensor data rather than a lack of it – no matter how small that deficit might be.

Lossless raw file compression has NO positive effect on your images, and it’s sole purpose in life is to allow you to fit more shots on the storage media – that’s it pure and simple.  If you have the option to shoot uncompressed then do so, and buy a bigger card!

What pisses my off about Canon is that it would only take, I’m sure, a firmware upgrade to give the 1DX et al the ability to record with zero raw file compression – and, whether needed or not, it would stop miserable grumpy gits like me banging on about it!

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Lee SW150 Mk2 Filter Holder – Review

The Lee SW150 Mk2 Filter Holder

PURE SEX - and I've bloody well paid for this! My new SW150 MkII filter system for the Nikon 14-24. Just look at those flashy red anodised parts - bound to make me a better photographer!

PURE SEX – and I’ve bloody well paid for this! My new SW150 MkII filter system for the Nikon 14-24. Just look at those flashy red anodised parts – bound to make me a better photographer!

I’ve just finished part 1 of my video review of the Lee SW150 Filter holder system for super-wide lenses and uploaded it to my YouTube channel:

First off – please forgive the shirt folks!

The SW150 Mk 2 filter holder is designed to fit a list of different lenses:

  1. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

  2. Nikon 14mm f2.8 D AF ED

  3. Canon EF 14mm f2.8 L II USM

  4. Samyang 14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC

  5. Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 DG HSM II

  6. Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 PRO FX

and according to the Lee website, additional lenses will be catered for; as the need arises I presume.

I never subscribed to the original incarnation of the SW150, for two reasons:

  • It ‘leaked light’ at the rear surface of the filter (though that was fairly easy to correct with a home-made baffle mod).

But that was of no consequence to me because Lee always gave the impression that:

  • They would not produce the Big & Little Stopper filters in 150mm square format.

So I’ve always stuck with either the 100mm Lee system or used a B&W 77mm screw-in filter on the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 or a wide angle prime; and I’ve shot many a well-selling image.

nik14-24_24-70

But, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens has more than one advantage over its sister lens:

  1. It’s sharper – by a country mile.
  2. It resolves more ‘line pairs per millimetre’ than the 24-70mm.
  3. Its focal length range is more ‘in keeping’ with landscape photography.

And, like all the other lenses in that list above, that vast front element collects SO MANY MORE photons during the exposure.

So, now that I’ve got the opportunity to use the advantages of the 14-24 f2.8 from behind high quality 10x and 6x ND filters – well, let’s say the purchase of the Lee SW150 Mk2 system is a bit of a ‘no-brainer’ really.

The main improvement to the holder itself is the inclusion of a new baffle or ‘lightshield’ as Lee call it – this can be purchased separately as an upgrade to the original Lee SW150 Mk 1.

But you’ll have to do without the sexy red anodised bits that come with the new Mk 2 version if you go that route – these have just got to make me a better photographer!

Part 2 of the video review is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0AkHV8RsDw&t=3s

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Lightroom Dehaze – part 2

More Thoughts on The Lightroom Dehaze Control

With the dehaze adjustment in Lightroom (right) the sky and distant hills look good, but the foreground looks poor.

With the dehaze adjustment in Lightroom (right) the sky and distant hills look good, but the foreground looks poor.

In my previous post I did say I’d be uploading another video reflecting my thoughts on the Lightroom/ACR dehaze adjustment.

And I’ve just done that – AND I’ve made a concious effort to keep the ramblings down too..!

In the video I look at the effects of the dehaze adjustment on 4 very different images, and alternative ways of obtaining similar or better results without it.

You may see some ‘banding’ on the third image I work on – this is down to YouTube video compression.

In conclusion I have to say that I find the dehaze ‘tool’ something of an anti-climax if I’m honest. In fairly small positive amounts it can work exceptionally well in terms of a quick work flow on relatively short dynamic range images.  But I’m not a really big fan in general, and It’s possible to create pretty much the same adjustments using the existing Lightroom tools.

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

HDR in Lightroom CC (2015)

Lightroom CC (2015) – exciting stuff!

New direct HDR MERGE for bracketed exposure sequences inside the Develop Module of Lightroom CC 2015 – nice one Adobe!  I can see Eric Chan’s finger-prints all over this one…!

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Twilight at Porth Y Post, Anglesey.

After a less than exciting 90 minutes on the phone with Adobe this vary morning – that’s about 10 minutes of actual conversation and an eternity of crappy ‘Muzak’ – I’ve managed to switch from my expensive old single app PsCC subscription to the Photography Plan – yay!

They wouldn’t let me upgrade my old stand-alone Lr4/Lr5 to Lr6 ‘on the cheap’ so now they’ve given me two apps for half the price I was paying for 1 – mental people, but I’ll not be arguing!

I was really eager to try out the new internal ‘Merge’ script/command for HDR sequences – and boy am I impressed.

I picked a twilight seascape scene I shot last year:

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

I’ve taken a 6 shot exposure bracketed sequence of RAW files above, into the Develop Module of Lightroom CC and done 3 simple adjustments to all 6 under Auto Synch:

  1. Change camera profile from Adobe Standard to Camera Neutral.
  2. ‘Tick’ Remove Chromatic Aberration in the Lens Corrections panel.
  3. Change the colour temperature from ‘as shot’ to a whopping 13,400K – this neutralises the huge ‘twilight’ blue cast.

You have to remember that NOT ALL adjustments you can make in the Develop Module will carry over in this process, but these 3 will.

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

Ever since Lr4 came out we have had the ability to take a bracketed sequence in Lightroom and send them to Photoshop to produce what’s called a ’32 bit floating point TIFF’ file – HDR without any of the stupid ‘grunge effects’ so commonly associated with the more normal styles of HDR workflow.

The resulting TIFF file would then be brought back into Lightroom where some very fancy processing limits were given to us – namely the exposure latitude above all else.

‘Normal’ range images, be they RAW or TIFF etc, have a potential 10 stops of exposure adjustment, +5 to -5 stops, both in the Basics Panel, and with Linear and Radial graduated filters.

But 32 bit float TIFFs had a massive 20 stops of adjustment, +10 to -10 stops – making for some very fancy and highly flexible processing.

Now the, what’s a ‘better’ file type than pixel-based TIFF?  A RAW file……

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

So, after selecting the six RAW images, right-clicking and selecting ‘Photomerge>HDR’…

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

…and selecting ‘NONE’ from the ‘de-ghost’ options, I was amazed to find the resulting ‘merged file’ was a DNG – not a TIFF – yet it still carries the 20 stop exposure adjustment  latitude.

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

This is the best news for ages, and grunge-free, ‘real-looking’ HDR workflow time has just been axed by at least 50%.  I can’t really say any more about it really, except that, IMHO of course, this is the best thing to happen for Adobe RAW workflow since the advent of PV2012 itself – BRILLIANT!

Note: Because all the shots in this sequence featured ‘blurred water’, applying any de-ghosting would be detrimental to the image, causing some some weird artefacts where water met static rocks etc.

But if you have image sequences that have moving objects in them you can select from 3 de-ghost pre-sets to try and combat the artefacts caused by them, and you can check the de-ghost overlay tick-box to pre-visualise the de-ghosting areas in the final image.

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

Switch up to Lightroom CC 2015 – it’s worth it for this facility alone.

Andy Astbury,Lightroom,HDR,merge,photomerge, merge to HDR,high dynamic range,photography,Wildlife in Pixels

Click to view LARGER IMAGE.

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.