HDR vs Bracketing: I reviewed past UHH discussions concerning the topic and never quite read anything that addresses my question. I'm trying to wrap my brain around these two...

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

I reviewed past UHH discussions concerning the topic and never quite read anything that addresses my question. I'm trying to wrap my brain around these two techniques. Which one produces the most natural looking image? I've experimented with both and it seems like bracketing provided the best exposure, IMO. I used a D750 and took 5 shots using 2 exposure stops between each. Isn't HDR a form of bracketing? So why the difference in IQ?

User ID

wannabe63 wrote:

I reviewed past UHH discussions concerning the topic and never quite read anything that addresses my question. I'm trying to wrap my brain around these two techniques. Which one produces the most natural looking image? I've experimented with both and it seems like bracketing provided the best exposure, IMO. I used a D750 and took 5 shots using 2 exposure stops between each. Isn't HDR a form of bracketing? So why the difference in IQ?

Try something less than 2 stops each for your 5 shots. Thaz quite a spread.

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

User ID wrote:

Try something less than 2 stops each for your 5 shots. Thaz quite a spread.

I did like the results from the 2 stop setting but wondering why it was better considering HDR is a form of bracketing.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Quite frankly, if you exploit your camera capabilities (meaning one has to learn it) there is no need for either but in extreme lighting conditions.

Flash is still needed.

SuneBonobo Loc: Maryland

wannabe63 wrote:

I reviewed past UHH discussions concerning the topic and never quite read anything that addresses my question. I'm trying to wrap my brain around these two techniques. Which one produces the most natural looking image? I've experimented with both and it seems like bracketing provided the best exposure, IMO. I used a D750 and took 5 shots using 2 exposure stops between each. Isn't HDR a form of bracketing? So why the difference in IQ?

Not quite understanding. What did you do with the bracketed exposures? Did you combine them in PP software?

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

Rongnongno wrote:

Quite frankly, if you exploit your camera capabilities (meaning one has to learn it) there is no need for either but in extreme lighting conditions.

Flash is still needed.

I should have mentioned that the subject matter is landscapes so flash won't have an effect. I will be shooting landscapes in Iceland which has a wide variety of lighting. I will mostly not do either HDR or Bracketing but a fellow photographer mentioned that on some occasions he used bracketing and that got me thinking of the two techniques which one would produce the better image.

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

SuneBonobo wrote:

Not quite understanding. What did you do with the bracketed exposures? Did you combine them in PP software?

Sorry. I didn't say. Yes I merged them in LR 6.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I would say HDR is bracketing. A typical HDR would be proper exposure a a shot say 2 stops faster and a shot 2 stops slower. To me you are bracketing.
HDR is as described above. The manipulating of some HDR is what confuses some as to what HDR is, it expands your visual range of the camera.

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

Picture Taker wrote:

I would say HDR is bracketing. A typical HDR would be proper exposure a a shot say 2 stops faster and a shot 2 stops slower. To me you are bracketing.
HDR is as described above. The manipulating of some HDR is what confuses some as to what HDR is, it expands your visual range of the camera.

Thanks for your response.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Nikon in camera HDR takes two rapid fire shots while some other brands take 3-5. I’m sure they do a better job but a tripod is a must but not so with Nikon. Here are two handheld shots, one without and one with HDR.

User ID

wannabe63 wrote:

I did like the results from the 2 stop setting but wondering why it was better considering HDR is a form of bracketing.

Bracketing is just culling. You keep the least flawed (aka the most acceptable) frame and discard the rest.

HDR is compositing. The software finds the least flawed (aka best rendered) elements or sections from every frame and builds a final single image using those elements.

To your taste, for the images that youve made, 2 stops works best. Thaz "medium steep" but if the shot needs it, it needs it. The example below is that type of scene:
.

Sony in-camera HDR at maximum range

(Download)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

User ID wrote:

Bracketing is just culling. You keep the least flawed (aka the most acceptable) frame and discard the rest.

HDR is compositing. The software finds the least flawed (aka best rendered) elements or sections from every frame and builds a final single image using those elements.

To your taste, for the images that youve made, 2 stops works best. Thaz "medium steep" but if the shot needs it, it needs it. The example below is that type of scene:
.

Many people bracket for HDR. The difference is with bracketing you can shoot raw and merge the images in whatever software you’re using. You can also choose which frames to use. I think the OP is talking about that rather than just bracketing for one best exposed shot. The difference with in camera HDR is that the merge is done in camera and you end up with a JPEG.

User ID

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Many people bracket for HDR. The difference is with bracketing you can shoot raw and merge the images in whatever software you’re using. You can also choose which frames to use. I think the OP is talking about that rather than just bracketing for one best exposed shot. The difference with in camera HDR is that the merge is done in camera and you end up with a JPEG.

Very well may be. Perhaps the OP will explain which way he meant as his version "bracketing".

If he means bracketing for purpose of HDR then it seems his intended theme may be "Difference between in-camera HDR and HDR via PP." If so the current thread title is just a red herring (a well respected UHH Sacred Tradition).

wannabe63 Loc: Bellevue, Washington

User ID wrote:

Very well may be. Perhaps the OP will explain which way he meant as his version "bracketing".

If he means bracketing for purpose of HDR then it seems his intended theme may be "Difference between in-camera HDR and HDR via PP." If so the current thread title is just a red herring (a well respected UHH Sacred Tradition).

My apologies for making my question so vague and hard to understand. I'm fairly new at this. What I'm trying to get from you hoggers is when in a situation where the lighting is extremely uneven would bracketing or HDR produce a better image. As I understand it the difference between the two is one is merged in camera and the other is merged in post. However, it seems like a 5 shot exposure merged in post would provide a higher level of detail than a 2 shot exposure in HDR. I would take a normal shot exposing as the scene warrants but also take a HDR or bracket shot in the event it looks like the single exposure looks bad.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

wannabe63 wrote:

My apologies for making my question so vague and h... (show quote)

Some people bracket because they’re not sure of the exposure so they want options and they choose which one they like best and they just work with that one image. In that case you wouldn’t want 2 stops between images, probably no more than 1 stop. Most modern cameras have enough dynamic range that with the correct exposure and good processing software you can achieve an exposure with both good hilight and shadow detail without HDR. I will occasionally use HDR, but only by bracketing and merging in Lightroom. I’ve found that usually there’s no real advantage to more than 3 shots, 2 stops apart. The advantage to this method is that starting with raw files gives you more options and you can try merges with different exposures, often 2 is enough. If you’re looking for quick and easy without much if any processing then in camera can work well. The big danger with either method is overcooking the processing so it looks ridiculous.