Sony NEX-7 NEX-5n SLT-A65 reviews - autobracketing and HDR

[Isaac]

(Sony NEX-7) "For photographers who can't be bothered doing computer-based multi-exposure HDR, the NEX-7 will do it for you."

Perhaps that misses the point - for someone who buys the NEX-7 out of delight in the camera itself (and bragging rights), I think "iAUTO mode" (also AUTO+ on other models) will detect that the scene could benefit from exposure fusion, and take and blend the exposures without bothering the photographer with such details. Camera owner gets better exposed JPEG photos - mission accomplished.

Edit: More than that - I think there's a point about the immediacy of seeing both the "correct" exposure and the fused multi-exposure and the scene before you. I wonder whether we'll start to think of exposure fusion as what photos should "normally" look like, and start to think of single "correct" exposure as somehow "dated" or artificial?

I'm just guessing that HDR is being used mostly as a marketing term and is actually exposure fusion rather than tone mapping? (I'd also guess that the "inexplicable" auto-bracket +/- .6EV limit is "marketing" driven - to take control of RAW capture it seems we need SLT-A77, product differentiation and all that.)

(Sony A65) "For some reason Sony has decided to remove the on-screen Steadyshot indication that previous models provided."

I always use the feedback from the "SteadyShot scale indicator" on SLT-A35 to guide me towards holding the camera still - I think that's a great use of technology. I'm still disappointed that there's no Digital Level Gauge on the SLT-A35, unlike A33/A55, to guide me towards levelling the camera.

[Guillermo Luijk]

I'm just guessing that HDR is being used mostly as a marketing term and is actually exposure fusion rather than tone mapping?

Exposure fusion is tone mapping (you are mapping the entire scene tonal range, to a single output image to be displayed in a LDR output device, through two or more input exposures). Differentiating HDR (which stands for High Dynamic Range, no more, no less) from exposure fusion means not knowing what the concept of HDR is about.

Regards

[Guillermo Luijk]

Maybe I don't know what the concept of HDR is about :-)

Exactly, that is the point. You just read what others have to say, but don't grasp the concept. If you did, you would understand than exposure fusion means tone mapping, because tones are being mapped in the process.

[kencameron]

There may be no real argument here. Photomatix and other HDR programs use "tone mapping" and "exposure fusion" as terms for different algorithmic processes for getting from multiple exposures to a single image. I don't think Guillermo is claiming that there are no differences between those processes - or is he?. On the other hand, the point he makes that all forms of HDR processing involve something that can reasonably be described as "tone mapping", with a wider range of tones being mapped to a narrower space, seems to me incontrovertible - would anyone argue with that?

[kencameron]

You are the only person using "tone mapping" as a synonym for all of digital photography. As a synonym for HDR, it is arguable, but also risky, because the phrase has a well established narrower meaning in the context of HDR software.

As for the meaning of your original post, it may be clearer to you than to your readers. I don't find in it, on re-reading, exactly the point that I was making. But I happy to accept that you had already thought of it.

[kencameron]

Some readers take that as an opportunity to explore what was said and establish a common understanding

That is exactly what I was trying to do in my first post. It would seem that my meaning was clearer to me than it was to my readers

[kencameron]

I don't think you're in a position to make Guillermo Luijk's meaning clear (and that's reflected in the wording you originally chose).

No indeed. I don't recall claiming to be in such a position. I was simply trying to "explore what was said" by both of you and express a third point of view. Perhaps my mistake was not treating it as a private conversation.

Too much already about this. Perhaps we can agree that a  more interesting question is the one raised in your original post, about the  increasing role of software in digital photography, with HDR as a particularly interesting growth area. I just came back from a bike ride along the NSW South Coast on a hot windy hazy day on which I took my ultraportable waterproof camera, a Sony TX10. I love its Superior Auto mode (or something like that) in which it takes multiple images and combines them to address a range of photographic problems - low light, high contrast, backlighting etc. Yes, I could probably do better with manual exposures on my full frame DSLR, using a tripod and a filter or two, but only at the expense of carrying much more weight and (given my age and infirmity) covering less ground and/or falling off my bike. Noting also that my intended use is a blog post and not a print. Sony's Panorama mode is also no doubt a a fine thing, although I rarely use it as I  prefer stitching my own shots to better control distortion. Kudos to Sony (IMHO) and other non-CaNikon manufacturers for innovation in the use of software. Noting the contribution to that innovation of the open source software developers who have made a lot of the running with both HDR and Pano.

[Trevor Murgatroyd]

When I read the OP's first post, I understood immediately. I am an occasional user of Photomatix and assume them to be more expert than I. Since their software makes a distinction between "exposure fusion" and "tone mapping" I assumed this distinction to be valid, and to be the one represented in the OP's post.

I have also read with interest and admiration Guillermo's many posts on this forum as an expert in this area. In taking issue with the OP's post, he must also have an issue with the distinction that Photomatix makes. This would have been an opportunity for Guillermo to explain and educate as he has done on many past occasions.

Instead Guillermo's response seemed surprisingly and perhaps unintentionally supercilious and this may have influenced the OP's subsequent responses.

Since I have developed a preference for what Photomatix calls "exposure fusion" over what Photomatix calls "tone mapping" I would appreciate learning Guillermo's explanation (or that of others more expert than I) of the differences in these procedures, regardless of how they might be named.

Trevor