Are in-camera HDR and panorama modes better than shooting for post-processing?
Asked 9/6/2014
4 views
2 answers
0
Modern cameras can align frames, lock settings, and automate bracketing, so in theory in-camera HDR and panorama modes seem like they should outperform manual capture and post-processing. In practice, do current cameras produce results good enough that an experienced photographer would usually choose the in-camera mode over shooting a bracketed sequence or pano for later processing?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
7
Whenever you compare in-camera to post processing you end up with exactly the same advantages to post processing:
Control
Lightroom for photos or photomatics for HDR has lots and lots of options and sliders, there's no way you can get all of them into a camera-size interface - and even if you could they are things you want to change and experiment with after taking the picture not set and hope for the best.
Processing Power
I'm typing this on my i7 laptop with 16GB of memory, I don't care how good the camera chip manufacturers are there's no way they can match the raw processing power of this computer.
Also, on this computer I don't care if stitching takes a long time, on the camera things better finish quickly so I can take the next shot.
Software
The software available for your computer is way better than what's in the camera - and even if it wasn't so when the camera was made Lightroom released two major versions since the last firmware update for my camera.
With smartphone cameras the software does get updated but the actual camera isn't as good and still the mobile software is nowhere as good as Lightroom, Photoshop and Photomatics.
Originally by user2481. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2481
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually no—convenience is the main advantage of in-camera HDR and panorama, not ultimate quality.
Post-processing still tends to win for three reasons:
- control: Desktop software offers far more options for alignment, blending, projection, and HDR tone mapping than a camera interface can provide.
- processing power and software: Computers can run more sophisticated stitching and HDR algorithms, and those tools keep improving over time.
- capture flexibility: A skilled photographer can choose exposure, focus, and bracketing based on the scene, rather than relying on a camera’s generic decisions.
Also, in-camera composite outputs are often limited compared with a full RAW-based workflow, which reduces flexibility for later editing.
Sensor-based alignment sounds appealing, but image-content alignment is already very accurate in good software, and software gives you choices when automatic decisions are not ideal.
So the practical summary is: in-camera modes can be useful for speed, previews, and casual shooting, and may beat what an inexperienced shooter could do manually. But if maximum image quality and control matter, experienced photographers generally still prefer to capture the source frames carefully and process them afterward.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is exposure bracketing still worth using with modern RAW editing software?
How do I use auto exposure bracketing on a Nikon D200, and should I shoot in single or continuous mode?
Can a Canon EOS 350D keep the mirror locked up for all three AEB shots?
What’s the best workflow for bracketed-exposure panoramas in Photoshop?
Can the Canon EOS 70D use auto exposure bracketing in Manual mode?