Yesterday I took some time to do a handheld HDR macro test using some of the flowers in my yard as subjects. Like many photographers I enjoy macro photography of flowers. I’m often out at open garden events and other locations in bright, harsh sunlight… which is far from ideal. I’ve been wondering for a while now if I could use the in-camera HDR function of my E-M1X to help deal with harsh lighting conditions.
I spent a little over an hour in my yard yesterday, sitting on my trusty stool, photographing various blossoms handheld. With each subject blossom I began with a handheld macro capture using the M.Zuiko 60 mm f/2.8 macro lens with an aperture of f/8, at ISO-200. Then, I changed my camera settings to HDR1 and did another handheld capture at the same f-stop and ISO value.
The HDR1 function takes 4 consecutive images at a range of exposures that are automatically predetermined by my E-M1X, then combines them in camera into a single high contrast photograph. Output is both RAW and jpeg. I processed the corresponding RAW files for each set of test images.
In order to minimize the potential effects of outdoor breezes which tend to strengthen during the day, I started the test a little after 10 AM and finished before 11:20 AM. I mainly chose blossoms that were in direct sunlight.
Before starting this test, I had no idea if using the HDR1 function handheld would produce any useable macro images or not. My goal was to achieve a neutral exposure (i.e. no use of exposure compensation or purposeful underexposures) with each blossom for comparison purposes Shutter speeds did vary occasionally between my standard and HDR1 captures in order to achieve a neutral exposure. I used the E-M1X’s in-camera metering as my guide for exposure.
NOTE: Click on images to enlarge.
This handheld HDR macro test was instructive in a number of ways. The first thing that was reinforced for me was how good the RAW files are from the E-M1X’s 20.4 MP micro four thirds sensor. Even in strong, direct sunlight I was able to achieve good balanced exposures… and the RAW files responded very well in post.
I had no problem getting, good useable handheld images using the HDR1 function. The incredible IBIS (in body image stabilization) of my E-M1X continues to amaze me. I had no problem holding my E-M1X steady as it took 4 images using its mechanical shutter in rapid succession.
As you can see from the HDR1 image above, my E-M1X adjusted the output files by -0.5 EV even though the image was captured at a neutral exposure. To my eye the colours are a bit deeper and richer when using the HDR1 function. Since I hate working in post, a big benefit for me was that these HDR1 RAW files did not require nearly as much work in post when compared to the standard macro exposures.
As photographers we often think about using an HDR (high dynamic range) approach when we are facing dramatic differences in light in the same composition. For example, shooting from inside a dark tunnel at a subject in bright sunlight outside of the tunnel. This type of extreme lighting differential is not typically found with flower photography. But… we do often have to deal with a white blossom in bright sunlight as illustrated in the image above.
As we can see with the HDR1 image above, this technology helped retain more of the highlight areas on the blossom when compared to a standard macro exposure. As I continued my handheld HDR macro photography test, the benefits of using this technology for flower photography became more obvious.
The image above is our next handheld HDR macro sample image… this one is a standard exposure captured at 1/60.
The image above is the handheld HDR1 version which was captured at 1/50. When my E-M1X combined the 4 HDR progress images it resulted in the exposure going to -0.5 EV. Since I was shooting handheld the subject framing in the compositions are slightly different. As you examine the two images you’ll see more details in the HDR1 version, especially at the top of the blossom. Let’s have a look at some 100% crops of each of these images.
As you toggle back and forth between the two 100% crops above, the differences in amount of visible detail is very apparent. My first thought was that the difference could have been caused by my handholding technique. Having said that, it is counterintuitive that a macro image shot at a slower shutter speed (i.e. 1/50 vs 1/60) and combining 4 images into one would be sharper. My curiosity was piqued, so I looked at other pairs of test images.
The pair of images above helps to demonstrate the additional shadow detail that was available in the HDR1 version. Now… let’s have a look at another set of 100% crops.
When toggling back and forth between the two 100% crops above you will see a significant difference in the amount of visible details.
Not all of my pairs of test images showed this degree of detail enhancement with the use of HDR1. But… to my eye the colours were slightly deeper and richer… and with better overall balance. And, on a worst case basis none of them had any loss of detail.
Here are 100% crops from the two images above.
With our next pair of sample images I had my small, single AF point focused on the tip of the filament coming out of the blossom.
Now let’s examine the tip of the filament in each image.
We can see that there was very good detail at the end of the filament in each image. To my eye there is slightly more detail in the visible petals in the HDR version.
In both of the test images above we can see that there was a very strong reflection in both images that using HDR1 did not overcome. I could have done some work in post to eliminate the issue in both versions, but I chose not to. I felt it was important to point out to readers that HDR1 is not a magic bullet solution for every scenario. Sometimes additional work in post may be required.
Obviously this is just an initial test so there is a lot of additional work to do to help establish when an HDR1 image could be improved further by either overexposing or underexposing the base photograph.
My initial handheld HDR image test revealed that HDR1 technology can be used handheld for macro photography. It also indicates that HDR1 technology can help reveal additional details in a macro image. As we know, everything photographic comes with a trade-off. In this case each HDR1 image uses 4 mechanical shutter counts.
As this article comes to a close, here are four additional handheld HDR1 test images, along with 100% crops from each.
I suppose the question that is begging to be asked is whether I’ll continue to use my E-M1X’s HDR1 (high dynamic range) in-camera technology for my handheld flower macro photography. The answer is… absolutely!
Technical Note
Photographs were captured using camera gear as noted in the EXIF data. Images were produced from RAW files using my standard process. This is the 1,305 article published on this website since its original inception in 2015.
How you can help keep this site advertising free
My intent is to keep this photography blog advertising free. If you enjoyed this article and/or my website and would like to support my work, you can purchase an eBook, or make a donation through PayPal. Both are most appreciated.
Our eBooks…
The Finding Visual Expression eBook is designed to provide readers with some photographic inspiration and composition ideas. The Little Camera That Could details our extensive experience using the Nikon 1 system. Our eBooks also include a number of travel photography publications including Images of Ireland, New Zealand Tip-to-Tip, Desert & Mountain Memories, Images of Greece, and Nova Scotia Photography Tour. We also have a business leadership parable… Balancing Eggs.
Donations support this website…
If you click on the Donate button below you will find that there are three donation options: $7.50, $10.00 and $20.00. All are in Canadian funds. Plus, you can choose a different amount if you want. You can also increase your donation amount to help offset our costs associated with accepting your donation through PayPal. An ongoing, monthly contribution to support our work can also be done through the PayPal Donate button below.
You can make your donation through your PayPal account, or by using a number of credit card options.
Word of mouth is the best form of endorsement. If you like our website please let your friends and associates know about our work. Linking to this site or to specific articles is allowed with proper acknowledgement. Reproducing articles, or any of the images contained in them, on another website or in any social media posting is a Copyright infringement.
Article and images are Copyright 2023 Thomas Stirr. All rights reserved. No use, duplication or adaptation of any kind is allowed without written consent. If you see this article reproduced anywhere else it is an unauthorized and illegal use. Posting comments on offending websites and calling out individuals who steal intellectual property is always appreciated!
Hi Thomas,
This is an interesting article on HDR 1 as you seemed to illustrate that the RAW file produced by the E-M1X is a composite of 4 exposures blended together and tone mapped and it looked as if they are indeed an improvement over standard exposure from your examples. I tried this mode before awhile ago on my E-M1X and I was led to believe, by the experts at DPReview and Peter Baumgarten (OM Ambassador) that the RAW files produced through HDR1 were supposed to be identical to the standard exposure. Only the JPEG files were tone mapped. My question to you is, how do you managed to get the camera to tone map the multiple exposures together to get the RAW file? Thanks!
Hi David,
Here is some information from the E-M1X Instruction Manual that pertains to [HDR1] and [HDR2}. I included the entire passage as I thought readers may be interested in all of the information. The last line from the passage indicates that recording in RAW + JPEG format is possible when using [HDR1] [HDR2]
“Each time you take a photo, the camera will take a series of shots while varying exposure and combine them into a single picture. Choose [HDR1] for natural looking results, [HDR2} for a more painterly effect.
[ISO] is fixed at ISO 200
Shutter speeds can be as slow as 4 s. Shooting will continue for up to 15 s.
Picture mode is fixed at [Natural] and color space at [sRGB].
The combined picture is saved in JPEG format. If [RAW} is selected for image quality, it will instead be recorded in RAW + JPEG format.”
Tom
Hi Thomas, the manual’s vague explanation had become a constantly debated issue on DPreview for many many years ago (since the E-M1 Mark 1 and E-M5 Mark II can do that as well) and eventually created 2 camps; one camp sees a difference in the RAW file generated through HDR1 and HDR 2 and the other says there is no difference and only the JPEG files are tone mapped. The JPEG camp eventually won out and whoever claimed that there was a difference in RAW files were quickly silenced. You are not the only person that noticed it. Thomas Eisl also noticed that as well and created a nice DR chart when he posted similar findings, but he was quickly corrected by the JPEG camp and quickly took down his initial article in regards to the HDR feature. What really piqued my interest in your article is that, I can clearly see the difference in both color and detail retention and your article gave me some valuable clues and ideas why it’s doing that. So yesterday, I went to my local botanical garden and use your settings and took some pictures of a small baby turtle resting on a lotus leaf in a high contrast situation with both normal exposure and HDR1. If I process the HDR1 as is with the in-camera’s RAW EDIT function, the resulting JPEG is the same as a normal exposure. But if I take that RAW file and edit it using DXO PL5, I get a resulting image that has better colors and improved contrast, which shows better detail retention of the turtle shell. This reminds me of a RAW file that came out of HHHR or Tripod Hi-Res, except it’s in a native resolution. Both my E-M5 Mark II and my E-M1X using the HDR1 behave in a similar way. Many years ago, I asked an Olympus tech at their professional meet if HDR1 indeed generates a RAW file different from standard exposure. They confirmed it was, but did not elaborate further and did not want to embroil themselves in the internet argument that they obviously were aware of.
From my initial experiments, I believe that staying at ISO 200 is to prevent clipping of the highlights, as ISO 200 provides the best DR from the camera and then the multiple exposures provide better color sampling and allow better shadow area recovery. This is what I saw from your samples and my experiments. By reducing the base exposure by -0.5ev, and then in post recover the shadow area by the same amount does indeed improve the quality of the end product. This is the same way I would do using tripod Hi-Res by underexposing the scene by -0.7ev to recover more of the highlight area and then in post recover the shadow area by a similar amount. I did that and I was surprised of the outcome. So I guess I was not looking at the RAW file this way initially, but rather I thought the RAW file was tone-mapped, but in reality the RAW file generated by HDR1 can be pushed further than a RAW file taken with a normal exposure.
As usual, I thank you again for allowing me see HDR 1 in a different light. I think I could use this for landscape as well with my E-M5 Mark II since it does not have HHHR. Thanks again Thomas!
Hi David,
Since I don’t frequent photography chatrooms and involve myself in these kinds of rather meaningless debates I was totally unaware of the ‘controversy’… such as it is. From your comment it appears to me that Thomas Eisl was not ‘corrected’ but rather bullied into submission by an online mob.
As a separate aside, if I would have listened to ‘chatroom experts’ I would have never been able to get the performance out of my Nikon 1 system that was actually possible.
‘Common knowledge’ typically erodes to the lowest level of mob acceptability. After that, mindless parroting of accepted beliefs take over which further cements the mob mentality.
I suppose I look at things pretty simplistically. If a camera’s manual states that a particular technology saves files in both RAW and jpeg I accept that as fact, and assume that a manufacturer would not lie. It is then my challenge to figure out how to make the most of that technology.
Based on the work that I have done with HDR1 it is clear to me that the RAW files have more latitude in post than does a standard exposure. How and why that happens technically is of absolutely no concern to me. It is there for me to use. I use DxO PhotoLab 4 as my main RAW processor and the software does an excellent job with the initial file processing. Additional latitude provided by HDR1 can be further capitalized upon when I take the DNG file into PhotoShop CS6. Since I hate working in post, the fact that I can create handheld output of a single HDR1 RAW file with more latitude in post than a standard exposure.. and thus avoid the hassle of stacking multiple RAW files in post… is wonderful.
From my perspective, the increased detail that is possible when using an HDR1 RAW file indicates that multiple RAW files are being stacked in camera. Whether someone else believes that to be true or not is of no consequence to me. I see the practical advantages of using HDR1 handheld and will continue to use it… regardless of what the mob may believe.
Tom
Your articles are always interesting and helpful. Can you tell me your reason for using the mechanical shutter instead of the ‘silent’ one?
Hi Colin,
I’m glad that the article was helpful for you.
When I set my E-M1X to HDR1 the camera defaults to Sequential High for the shutter setting. This setting uses mechanical shutter. I checked today and my E-M1X did not give me an option to change the shutter setting when in HDR1 mode. So, there was no conscious decision on my part to use mechanical shutter.
Tom
Thanks for this new article. I don’t miss one.
Can you explain to me what is the difference between HDR1 and HDR2?
Saluti
Riccardo Antonelli
Hi Riccardo,
My understanding is that HDR2 is a much more aggressive setting which produces an even higher contrast output. Everyone has their own preferences when it comes to photography. For my purposes I find HDR2 too aggressive.
Tom
Very good and persuasive presentation. I need to use HDR1 more. Who is the maker of this stool you have referred to? I think I want one.
Hi Damian,
My stool is an ‘Eclipse’ brand which is likely a house brand for Bass Pro Shop. If my memory serves I paid under $20 for it a few years ago. I use mine so frequently that it is really starting to show signs of wear… so I’ll likely need to replace it in the spring.
Tom