>>3977484(cont. from
>>3977587)
>The PDR I used seems to agree with the edited example, You have no clue what the DR is in the edited example because you are imagining how sliders in LR translate to stops of DR. And in doing so you are mentally fitting those numbers to your preconceived expectations. To actually know how those slider steps translate to DR...and keep in mind some of them are curved so you HAVE to inspect every increment...shoot a Stouffer transmission step wedge. Then measure the changes introduced by each slider increment in LR. (BTW, you should have figured out by now that I've done this, which is why I know that some sliders are not linear, but I did it with a much older version. One of us would have to do it again to know how the slider increments translate to real world DR.)
Alternatively, you could carefully spot meter areas of highlight and shadow in the scene and make meticulous notes.
My gut feeling is that the scene range had to exceed 10ev, but I wasn't there with a spot meter so that's not the correct argument. The correct argument is simply: you're doing this wrong.
>Any scene with shadows and the sky will exceed the 10 stops of 5DsR. What camera do you think would be required to produce the attached image? Left is unprocessed, right is processed, single frame (no HDR, no GND filters obviously).
>It's super annoying being forced to bring a tripod just to not have your sky blown out together with the shadows of your trees being noise free.You can hand hold and blend an auto exposure bracket at 5 fps. Occasionally you will have moved far enough in between shots to make aligning them later a PITA, but with an IS lens your success rate will be 100%.
>Also:>The tripod argument falls apart anytime you do real world landscapes where wind exists.Moving branches can throw off automated HDR tools. They're trivial for a manual blend.
