# Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots



## Drizzt321 (Aug 16, 2012)

So, I think I'll start a 5d3 in-camera HDR shots. Here are a few from today testing out the TS-E 24mm I'm borrowing through Canon CPS. Really cool lens, very interesting using it. Mostly was using Art Vivid, but I think the first one there is Natural.


----------



## Ricku (Aug 16, 2012)

That's terrible! 

Maybe in camera HDR will be good in 5D Mark 5 or 6, but right now it is truly useless.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 16, 2012)

Maybe this will be the new trend in HDR, find the crazies in-camera HDR that you can find and post it!

Personally, I actually found #3 to be the most interesting. The sorta pixelated & blurred is unique. Not something you'd really ever see if you HDR'd it properly.

EDIT: I also found #2 to be fairly nice. The crazy blur/plane of focus is due to the Tilt-Shift lens, not the HDR process. At least not mostly. I think I had a small bit of shift, maybe not, and a pretty good tilt after a 90 degree rotation.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Aug 16, 2012)

I actually find the 5d3 In camera HDR extremely useful for travel shots.
I recently went to several places by the beach (Santa Monica etc) and with the bright sunlight, and the location of the sun, i had many shots that have the people underexposed because of shooting into the sun.

On ideal shoots, you'll use an ND Filter or photoshop to recover shadows and highlights etc…but when travelling, i don't want to have to do any of that..i don't even shoot in RAW..i want everything as simple as can be.

This is where i find the HDR feature extremely useful. For shots that have too large a range from highlights to shadows, i just use the in camera HDR and it solves almost EVERYTHING…i rather have an image where i can see everything but look "fake" than have an image that have underexposed areas especially family faces that you can't see.

here's an example of how the HDR helped…without it, the building would've been so dark you won't see it clearly at all. This is just one example..i've use the HDR ALOT during my trip since it was much easier than struggling with filters and locking exposures and taking multiple shots etc…HDR is a quick fix for normal generic shooting.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 16, 2012)

No sorry not for me, they would have been much nicer processed properly but I dislike HDR anyway.


----------



## DB (Aug 16, 2012)

For some reason they all look very blurry. Perhaps it might be a good idea to put the camera on a tripod, then test in-camera HDR versus multiple bracketed exposures of the same composition, that are then processed in PS or Photomatix etc.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 16, 2012)

not for me neither...


----------



## Viggo (Aug 16, 2012)

I found the "natural" setting to be most to my liking, but it didn't do much, other than make a normal metered image duller.

I trust in Photomatix and a natural look to expand DR, not to see it like I am aón acid. 

The TS lenses on the other hand are wonderful. I'm trying to sell my 17mm, but impossible to get rid of! People just don't get how great it is I think. Tons of 14 L II's going away the moment the add is placed.....


----------



## K-amps (Aug 16, 2012)

Ricku said:


> That's terrible!
> 
> Maybe in camera HDR will be good in 5D Mark 5 or 6, but right now it is truly useless.



It has it's uses. I think it does a pretty good job of removing ghosting for an in camera operation, however I find the need to PP them in LR or CS5 later on to look their best. One thing I always need to do it increase contrast and reduce saturation.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm not a fan of HDR and i agree that true HDR is best done PP.
However like i mentioned, for quick general shooting especially during vacations where you take hundreds of photos and don't want to spend you nights in the hotel room doing PP, the in camera HDR does work sometimes when you don't have the luxury time to do trial and error.
in fact, as much as possible, i don't want to carry around a big bag with all my filters and tripods etc..i just carry the camera and 1 lens so in a situation like the one i posted above where i was shooting into the sun directly, without the HDR, this photo would never have worked.
You might say i'm facing the wrong direction, shooting in the wrong time of the day etc..but it is what it is..i was there at that time and i was shooting that position..just imagine a person standing there..without HDR, you will never be able to correctly expose him.

I'm not sure what Canon had in mind when they included this feature int he camera but i'm sure glad they did…Althougth i's only use it 1% of my shots…at least it's there to save the shots that otherwise will not be captured properly


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 16, 2012)

DB said:


> For some reason they all look very blurry. Perhaps it might be a good idea to put the camera on a tripod, then test in-camera HDR versus multiple bracketed exposures of the same composition, that are then processed in PS or Photomatix etc.



All shots were done on a tripod. You'll notice I was playing with the TS-E 24mm Tilt-Shift lens, which allows selective focus and moving around the plane of focus and other tricks like that. There's also quite a bit of movement in one or two of those shots, which combined with a slower shutter speed would make parts of it blurry.



Viggo said:


> I found the "natural" setting to be most to my liking, but it didn't do much, other than make a normal metered image duller.
> 
> I trust in Photomatix and a natural look to expand DR, not to see it like I am aón acid.
> 
> The TS lenses on the other hand are wonderful. I'm trying to sell my 17mm, but impossible to get rid of! People just don't get how great it is I think. Tons of 14 L II's going away the moment the add is placed.....



I agree, I find the natural setting generally gives better HDR images, but it comes out much duller and flatter than a plain old image. I was using the Art Vivid to "pop" the colors, although in some (well, most) cases it went a bit overboard.

Hmmmm...how much are you looking to part with the 17mm? Probably more than I can pay right now, especially since there's only a small amount of stuff I'd use it on. Ah well, I can dream, right?


----------



## blaydese (Aug 17, 2012)

Very nice stuff, I enjoy the enthusiastic effects you've produced and glad to see someone suing the in camera HDR effect. Canon put it there for a reason.

Keep up the great work !

Peace! 8)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 25, 2012)

blaydese said:


> Very nice stuff, I enjoy the enthusiastic effects you've produced and glad to see someone suing the in camera HDR effect. Canon put it there for a reason.
> 
> Keep up the great work !
> 
> Peace! 8)


I totally agree ... forget the nay sayers, you cannot please everyone ... I liked the pics and I'm sure many people will like them as well.


----------



## pierceography (Nov 4, 2012)

#3 is a great shot. I'm not sure if that's ghosting in the ferris wheel or just how it lit up, but either way it's a nice effect!

I'll probably never use in-camera HDR. It's a point and shoot gimmick that found its way into SLRs. I do like HDR, and it certainly has its uses... but the shot needs to be properly processed, and there's just no way to do this with the camera taking wild stabs at what it thinks the best exposure/values should be for HDR.

If I ever need to get a quick HDR shot in the field, I'll just use my iPhone + app. Results will be MUCH better, given that you control them. Otherwise, it's bracketing and PP HDR for me.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 13, 2013)

Sunset in Goa - India


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Sunset in Goa - India



Wow! Great shot. I can't believe that's an in-camera HDR.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 13, 2013)

pierceography said:


> I'll probably never use in-camera HDR. It's a point and shoot gimmick that found its way into SLRs.
> 
> If I ever need to get a quick HDR shot in the field, I'll just use my iPhone + app. Results will be MUCH better, given that you control them.


I find that hard to believe, but I would like to see an iPhone + app producing "MUCH better" results than the in camera HDR of 5D MK III, in the hands of a same photographer who has taken both the shots with an iPhone and a 5D MK III. I'd love to be proven wrong, coz I have an iPhone and if it is much better than the in camera HDR of 5D MK III and the convenience factor would be awesome.


----------



## emag (Jan 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> "... forget the nay sayers, you cannot please everyone ...


+1 
I use HDR for a lot of my panos, but I PP in LR. Having it in camera would be nice even though it might still need tweaking.


----------



## blaydese (Jan 14, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Sunset in Goa - India



Nice shot ! Like the color of the roots, that is cool. But the whole shot needs to be rotated so it's not tilted. I think that ship is going to slide away. 

Peace! 8)


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 14, 2013)

Ricku said:


> That's terrible!
> 
> Maybe in camera HDR will be good in 5D Mark 5 or 6, but right now it is truly useless.


I think few of us here are surprised that you would say so, especially about the 5D3.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 14, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > That's terrible!
> ...



It's limited by the JPEG output, which is heavily effected by the picture style and wb used. It's auto align feature works well for handheld HDR's but needs to be turned off for tripod / serious work. It works well for images with back lit foliage, which would be a royal PITA to correct with multiple exposure blends.
It's a pity that this HDR option can't output as a composited RAW. That would be nice. 
For a gen I feature, it's not half bad. Lots of room for improvement and maturing.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 14, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...


I'm not an artist nor a professional photographer, I'm still learning a lot every day, but I know enough to be a photographer as a very small side business and also submit photos with articles I write. With the little I've used in camera HDR myself on my 5D3 I've mostly seen it as a cool feature. I agree with you about getting it as a composited RAW image, but I would think it might be too much for the internal processor to handle. I think the result should be viewed upon (as someone wisely mentioned a couple of months ago) as a jpeg preview of the blended image of the three RAWs you just shot. Or for some people as a fun and sometimes very nice picture. Me and my children are having a lot of fun with it in creative mode and it does helps your imagination on the way. Like you say, this is a feature that is maturing, this is first gen and will be more developed moving on.


----------



## Crapking (Jan 14, 2013)

Galapagos Islands -an in camera HDR experiment by my teen daughter - I helped touch it up in LR but actually not unpleasant. ??




Tues5d3-30 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure	0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture	f/9.0
Focal Length	14 mm Lens Model	EF14mm f/2.8L II USM
ISO Speed	500


----------



## faif (Jan 14, 2013)

Here is an other HDR-in-camera-shot of the 5D3:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedrichs/6879054890/#in/photostream

looks quite ok for me.


----------



## SachiHawaii (Jan 15, 2013)

Here's a handheld +/-3EV HDR rendered as Standard. First photo shoot with the Mark III. The file came out a bit dark so was processes in Lightroom. I also added a more definitive water line as the weather was foggy (vog - volcanic fog) and the distinction between sky and water was completely unrecognizable.

Taken with 14mm F2.8L


----------



## wcksmith (Jan 15, 2013)

I can't speak to the HDR feature, but I like the last post from Hawaii - good looking image! I will say that the multiple exposure feature is a great one. It takes the same exposure multiple times with the same settings, and has an in-camera blend that generates a composite in RAW. It's very useful for taking a long-exposure shot in bright light to smooth out flowing water, oceans, etc. You still have the issue of moving objects like with any multi-shot exposure. 

So, if you meter for existing light and it's at 0.5 seconds ideal exposure, you can take up to nine images, letting the camera blend them. You end up with a 4.5 second exposure where the highlights are not blown out.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 17, 2013)

Here is one from today, made during harsh afternoon sun ... without the 5D MK III in-camera HDR, this shot would have been long procedure ... but with the in-camera HDR it was just 15 seconds work.


----------



## wayno (Jan 17, 2013)

None of these shots do much for me. I know it's said if you can't say anything nice at all then don't say it but HDR makes me break those rules every time. The halo around the building, the gamma-ey nasty clouds, the OTT colours etc etc - just not for me. Sorry.

The last one works OK for me though - was that taken with a 24-70ii? Sunburst looks familiar...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 18, 2013)

wayno said:


> None of these shots do much for me. I know it's said if you can't say anything nice at all then don't say it but HDR makes me break those rules every time. The halo around the building, the gamma-ey nasty clouds, the OTT colours etc etc - just not for me. Sorry.


Don't be sorry, we get it - you don't like HDR photography ;D ... but seriously, photography itself is a subjective matter, I've known people who do not like photos taken even by Ansel Adams ... so it doesn't matter who likes and who does not, as long as there is a unique feature available in the camera, it is worth exploring and strive to make photos that appeal to the photographer in us. There are lots of amazing locations in the world where weather or the time of day does not yield a good photo ... e.g. when we go on a guided tour/holiday, inevitably we always end up arriving at the location several hours after sunrise (and almost during harsh mid-day sun) ... and because we are in a rush we end up taking whatever shot is possible with our cameras with whatever little time we have ... the only option we have after that is spend a great deal of time post processing the photo. But with cameras like 5D MK III you can get a cool looking shot using the in-camera HDR feature. If it weren't for the in-camera HDR, the photo I've posted above would have looked really washed out and stupid straight out of the camera ... but with the in-camera HDR feature, I am able to upload it here, a hand-held shot, without any post processing ... now that is ultimate convenience. I could have spent some time on post processing to make the darker side of the sky to look same as the nicer blue side, but that would no longer be an in-camera HDR shot ... both photos I've uploaded here are straight out of the 5D MK III *without* any post processing. Kudos to all the people who posted their 5D MK III in-camera HDR photos here, not only is it inspiring to look at other peoples work, I think it also, in a small way, helps people to make an informed decision about getting a camera like the 5D MK III. 



wayno said:


> The last one works OK for me though - was that taken with a 24-70ii? Sunburst looks familiar...


Nope ... it was made with 16-35 f/2.8 L II ... at f/16 ... 17mm ... ISO 100 ... Av mode ... auto White Balance ... Standard Picture Style ... due to a previous photo shoot, and over sight on my part, the Metering was set to Evaluative and Exposure compensation was set to +1


----------



## blaydese (Jan 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Kudos to all the people who posted their 5D MK III in-camera HDR photos here, not only is it inspiring to look at other peoples work, I think it also, in a small way, helps people to make an informed decision about getting a camera like the 5D MK III.



^^^^ Agree 100%

also very nice picture Rienzphotoz, that only took 15 seconds? WOW!

Peace! 8)


----------



## wayno (Jan 20, 2013)

Point taken  Each to their own. I see some amazing HDR but about 1% of the time. The most amazing HDR for me is when it doesn't look like HDR. So often it has that 'confected' artificial look I find. It becomes a processing look of its own and often due to non-judicious post processing - or people taking too much of a dynamic leap.

But just my opinion obviously.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2013)

wayno said:


> Point taken  Each to their own. I see some amazing HDR but about 1% of the time. The most amazing HDR for me is when it doesn't look like HDR. So often it has that 'confected' artificial look I find. It becomes a processing look of its own and often due to non-judicious post processing - or people taking too much of a dynamic leap.
> 
> But just my opinion obviously.


I understand what you are saying ... IMHO, in the resent years HDR photography technique has influenced a lot of people and many probably tried to emulate that technique and probably didn't fare well, so I suppose the fault lies more with the photographer's ability to use HDR correctly rather than some fault of HDR ... after all it is just a tool ... the same applies to any photography technique ... take saturation for example ... I've seen photos where they have been post processed so bad that the saturation looks artificial, but that is the fault of the photographer and not the fault of saturation. 
This is where 5D MK III shines ... see this pic ... it was made in a very dimly lit corner of an exhibition booth today at the Offshore Middle East Conference ... when I saw that food, I immediately wanted to see what the 5D MK III's in-camera HDR could come up with ... the photo is handheld and no post processing, it is straight out of the camera ... I didn't pay any special attention to composition ... all I did is, set it to f/16 on Av mode, ISO 100, enable in-camera HDR to Natural, point and shoot. IMHO, nowhere does the photo look like HDR.


----------



## wayno (Jan 21, 2013)

I completely agree. That is what I call good HDR.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 21, 2013)

Mehhh... HDR = "Clown Barf" images for the most part

It's like playing the guitar... lots of people can do it but only a few are really good at it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> Mehhh... HDR = "Clown Barf" images for the most part
> 
> It's like playing the guitar... lots of people can do it but only a few are really good at it.


So do you call Guitar = "Crown Barf music for the most part"? ... HDR is a tool just like a Guitar ... the output is dependent on the person using it ... therefore, HDR is not "Clown Barf".


----------



## cycomachead (May 11, 2013)

I use in-camera HDR quite a bit since I bracket many shots. I usually end up deleting the in-camera version since it's JPEG and for natural style mine usually seem soft and low contrast. HOWEVER, it is really handy to preview shots that way. If they could be TIFF instead of JPEG, that would be incredibly helpful. 

I've only had the 5D3 for a little while, but I think I'm tending more towards 5 shot brackets since that's supported now and I like the extra latitude.

Overall, it's not bad for in camera and it's handy to have, especially if I want to try something quickly.

Has anyone else notice significant battery drain with lots of HDR use?


----------



## hammar (May 13, 2013)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/8733473482_19c81e5f86_b.jpg

Built-in 5D Mark III HDR, Art Vivid. I like the results except for the transitions between sky and land (trees etc) - glow.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 26, 2013)

hammar said:


> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/8733473482_19c81e5f86_b.jpg
> 
> Built-in 5D Mark III HDR, Art Vivid. I like the results except for the transitions between sky and land (trees etc) - glow.



I'm not really seeing what you are getting at in that particular shot. Are you sure you have linked the right image?


----------



## hammar (Jun 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> hammar said:
> 
> 
> > http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/8733473482_19c81e5f86_b.jpg
> ...



Yes, I might have been a little unclear - the image is cropped to exclude the sky part as it looks bad. Which in hindsight might have been a bad idea since this thread is about the performance of the built in HDR function 

Here is a truck I'm more happy about:


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 28, 2013)

Gave this a try the other day on a street scene. I was pleasantly surprised to be honest.




I still don't see myself using it though. It's more of a gimmick to an advanced user, but a newbie might appreciate it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 28, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Gave this a try the other on a street scene. I was pleasantly surprised to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like you forgot to attach the image


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 29, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > Gave this a try the other on a street scene. I was pleasantly surprised to be honest.
> ...




Nope. It was a crappy throw away image. What impressed me was the tonality and the colour. Not on the Standard setting though; that was diabolical.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 3, 2013)

You're right though, Rienz. What's the point of _talking _about an image instead of showing it.


I'll do another one and post it when I can. 




Art Standard was the setting I was talking about. I found the other settings to be either dull, or completely over the top.


The other problem I found was that the ghosting was badly controlled by the camera.




But, like I said before, I just see it as more of a gimmick than a useful feature. Someone who wants to do it properly will just fill their card with a good set of bracketed images and go to town on them at home.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 13, 2013)

Here's an in-camera HDR shot with the 5D MK III made during the monsoons in India ... image is straight out of the camera ... no PP other than resize for uploading.


----------



## blaydese (Sep 3, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Here's an in-camera HDR shot with the 5D MK III made during the monsoons in India ... image is straight out of the camera ... no PP other than resize for uploading.




Very nice ! ;D

I wish I could afford a MKIII :-\

Peace! 8)


----------



## niteclicks (Jun 8, 2015)

No room for a tripod, so hand held.


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2015)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Here is one from today, made during harsh afternoon sun ... without the 5D MK III in-camera HDR, this shot would have been long procedure ... but with the in-camera HDR it was just 15 seconds work.


Nice photo. It looks natural to me. Can you please share some details? Did you use the 2-stop bracketing and normal blend mode for example?


----------



## niteclicks (Jun 8, 2015)

I played with different settings that morning. I don't have the originals on this computer to check, but I believe it was +/- 1 ev, picture style faithful, and HDR mode Natural. I think the Faithful picture style along with my unsteady handholding helps soften it some, actually I was surprised how well they all came out even the +/- 3 ev's I took didn't have to much ghosting except in the corners. I guess the IS on the 24-105 works pretty good.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 8, 2015)

niteclicks said:


> No room for a tripod, so hand held.



Frankly, muddy and flat.

But that goes for about 50% of the images posted in this thread. A few very nice, obviously worked up well in post, but otherwise bland.

Don't know that in-camera HDR, as implemented in the 5DIII, saves the day. Friends have used it ineffectively, and as I've always enjoyed the processing of 5 RAW bracketed shots, I never bothered trying it once.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 8, 2015)

Having just purchased a 6D and being disappointed with the in-camera "HDR" I hoped that this thread would give me inspiration and maybe a few suggestions. Sorry, but it doesn't. The only images of a scene with a truly high dynamic range are by Rienz. The rest are of what I would call normal dynamic range where some judicious pulling and pushing could have saved the highlights and put detail into the shadows. Many of the posted images are flat and meh. 
I have yet to process a 6D RAW file that is not superior to the in-camera HDR taken at the same time. Post-processed HDR using RAW files in Lightroom 6 is a different matter - this works very well and without the "HDR-look" - see attached file. Silly that the 6D does not save the original files, just the HDR jpeg.
Of course the in-camera HDR can be done in the field, but I rarely post anything without at least cropping and leveling.


----------

