# HDR vs ML Dual ISO



## meywd (Dec 13, 2014)

I went on a trip yesterday and the scenery was amazing, being in a valley/canyon there was a big difference in light between the shadows and the bright sky, so thought maybe i can see which is better HDR or Dual ISO, below are two shots, one with each technique, both are taken with the 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon, the first is the dual ISO @ 100 and 1600 ISO, the second is the HDR made with 11 frames all at ISO 100, i am not very good at processing yet so it may have effected the result.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 13, 2014)

I like the HDR one more. I'd just work on the sky a little now. Nice shot.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 13, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
I think both have their merit, the best test would be to show us the best of the single ISO shots for a viable comparison of the improvement both techniques brought to the shot. 
I'm sure the multi frame low ISO HDR is great when things are still and you have time to set up. I'm equally sure that the ML dual ISO is fantastic for the just take the shot or miss it completely scenario. Horses for courses! ;D
Thanks for the direct comparison. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## meywd (Dec 13, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> I think both have their merit, the best test would be to show us the best of the single ISO shots for a viable comparison of the improvement both techniques brought to the shot.
> I'm sure the multi frame low ISO HDR is great when things are still and you have time to set up. I'm equally sure that the ML dual ISO is fantastic for the just take the shot or miss it completely scenario. Horses for courses! ;D
> Thanks for the direct comparison.
> ...



I agree completely, i only made the comparison to know/show the limits of dual ISO compared to HDR, and to see if it solves the issue of Canon sensors.

Here are two shots from the 11 that made the HDR, both are on the darker side of course to show the sky.


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 13, 2014)

Hi meywd. 
I have to say the second shot is to me acceptable, but only you (and anyone else there at the time) know the true colours I should be seeing. Of course having seen the HDR version, and assuming that the colours of that are what you actually saw then I can see that both techniques are a significant improvement on the single shots. 
I apologise if I gave the impression I was being critical, it was not my intention, I have no idea how to create the HDR image save for showing a bit of software the 3 images and letting it go to work in full auto mode. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## meywd (Dec 13, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi meywd.
> I have to say the second shot is to me acceptable, but only you (and anyone else there at the time) know the true colours I should be seeing. Of course having seen the HDR version, and assuming that the colours of that are what you actually saw then I can see that both techniques are a significant improvement on the single shots.
> I apologise if I gave the impression I was being critical, it was not my intention, I have no idea how to create the HDR image save for showing a bit of software the 3 images and letting it go to work in full auto mode.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



well yeah HDR does make the colors more saturated or tinted?, however increasing saturation on the single shots doesn't produce the same result, is it a detail the human eye cannot see? i don't know, but yeah the single frames are more color accurate.


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 13, 2014)

Good comparison, Meywd!

To me, the DualISO with ML renders the best shot here.
In the "regular" HDR I see a slight tint of green, that, to me, doesn't look natural, judging from the surrounding colours of the mountainsides. Also the hint of halo at the cliff-to-sky transitions seems like effects I also tend to get from some tools I've used for HDR processing. Both versions have great skies - my experience is that it is easy to get greyish sky, without much depth and tone, while doing regular HDR.

Not out to criticise your processing of the shots, we all see things differently and have varying tastes, but the various methods does deliver different results. The choice to make is: Can I get what I need from one shot only, or do I need a bracketed series? I haven't done DualISOs myself (can't process the resulting DNG files), so I can only imagine what the time differences would be between waiting for the tool to render the DNG file from the dualed CR2, compared to the processing time with bracketed shots in a HDR tool.

Btw: Has anyone tried to make a bracketed series of DualISOs, and then processed those to a HDR? I would assume that with the right treatment one should be able to squeeze out a little more from such an attempt.


----------



## climber (Dec 13, 2014)

In this case I would manually blend 2 (or more) exposures for canyon and sky. It would be easy blending because of "hard" transition from rocks to sky. And you would eliminate the ghosting effect in the clouds too.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 13, 2014)

I like the Dual ISO version myself. The HDR looks a bit overdone, especially the sky and the water below, weird yellow/ greenish cast.

By the way, where is this place? Its beautiful.


----------



## meywd (Dec 13, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Good comparison, Meywd!
> 
> To me, the DualISO with ML renders the best shot here.
> In the "regular" HDR I see a slight tint of green, that, to me, doesn't look natural, judging from the surrounding colours of the mountainsides. Also the hint of halo at the cliff-to-sky transitions seems like effects I also tend to get from some tools I've used for HDR processing. Both versions have great skies - my experience is that it is easy to get greyish sky, without much depth and tone, while doing regular HDR.
> ...





K-amps said:


> I like the Dual ISO version myself. The HDR looks a bit overdone, especially the sky and the water below, weird yellow/ greenish cast.
> 
> By the way, where is this place? Its beautiful.



Yeah i agree, i am still a beginner and i need more practice, will see if i can process it better.

this place is called Wadi Numeira, its located to the south of the Deadsea on Jordan side.


----------



## Famateur (Dec 13, 2014)

climber said:


> In this case I would manually blend 2 (or more) exposures for canyon and sky. It would be easy blending because of "hard" transition from rocks to sky. And you would eliminate the ghosting effect in the clouds too.



+1


----------



## meywd (Dec 25, 2014)

here is another try at processing it, tried to make it as natural as possible


----------



## rpt (Dec 25, 2014)

I am a fan of DualISO with ML. I prefer it to HDR with multiple shots as you can shoot moving subjects with that. Also if you are shooting against the light it works well. It works well with EC +4 and Auto ISO.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 30, 2014)

rpt said:


> I am a fan of DualISO with ML. I prefer it to HDR with multiple shots as you can shoot moving subjects with that. Also if you are shooting against the light it works well. It works well with EC +4 and Auto ISO.



I'm quite new to ML DualISO, I'm still trying to learn how to exposure with that.

Here's one from about 2 weeks ago:


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2014)

tpatana said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > I am a fan of DualISO with ML. I prefer it to HDR with multiple shots as you can shoot moving subjects with that. Also if you are shooting against the light it works well. It works well with EC +4 and Auto ISO.
> ...



That's a great shot, perfect lighting balance, or rather in this case exposure balance. I'd just get the guy to take his fat wallet out of his back pocket next time !


----------



## lintoni (Dec 30, 2014)

And yes, it is a great shot, well done!


----------



## tpatana (Dec 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...



Thanks.

It was just a quick snap I took, wasn't planned. Next time I make sure someone steals his money


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 30, 2014)

rpt said:


> I am a fan of DualISO with ML. I prefer it to HDR with multiple shots as you can shoot moving subjects with that. Also if you are shooting against the light it works well. It works well with EC +4 and Auto ISO.



ML's dual_iso is designed for *motion* in high dr when you cannot bracket.

Otherwise, it has several drawbacks vs. static hdr tonemapping/fusing:

loss of resolution in highlights and shadows
difficulty to check for focus in camera (interlacing)
auto white balance is broken
time-consuming post-processing with cr2hdr
you cannot customize how frames are merged
inability to use it with software that wants cr2 like dxo

In practice, dual_iso works great and much better than you'd expect - but when pixel peeping, full bracketing is definitely the way to go.


----------



## meywd (Apr 25, 2015)

With the release of Lightroom 6 and the new RAW HDR feature i wanted to see how the result would, and so I made two HDR photos, one with 11 exposures, and one with the brightest and darkest two.

Now let me say this first, Lightroom 6 merge feature is very very slow, what would take minutes with other tools, takes hours with Lightroom, maybe because its raw data, but Panos with it are not worth it if you are merging many photos.

As for the images, well as i expected, there not much difference that its better to use 2 exposures to minimize ghosting, below are the images, first the 11 exposures then the 2 exposures.


----------

