hmm, probably not the best scene to test this on as there isn't a great deal of dynamic range in the 0EV image, as would be expected there is very little difference between the two
Your critiques please. An experiment in the bush with HDR to see if it captured more detail and colour range or not. 24-105 lens at 24mm, iso100, f22 to get blurry water look, Hoya UV filter pretecting lens. The HDR set made from same but with a +1EV and -1EV either side and only used cs4 to do the HDR.
As Paul said, photograph something with more range, e.g. something with the sky/dark shadows in it. Also use +/- 2 Ev to see more effect.
Canon 5DIII | 7D | 24mm f1.4L II | 17-40mm f4L | 50mm f1.2L | 85mm f1.2L II | 70-200mm f2.8L II | 300mm f2.8L IS II | 1.4x III | 2x III | 580EX II
You realise that to be effective (HDR) the scene needs a large dynamic range?
And that at ISO 100 you have about 12 stops of DR already. So -1 and +2 will at best give you 14stops...
I think the HDR image does look a touch better due to the less blown hilites on the water.
Canon 5DmkII, 400L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 24mmf3.5 TS-E, Canon 70-200f2.8L, Tamron 90mm SP AF Di f2.8 Macro, Sigma 50mmf1.4 EX HSM, Nissin Di866 flash, Manfrotto 190xprob & Markins Q3t head, Lee filters, Lowepro Flipside 400AW, Yong Nuo rf 602 triggers.
Thanks guys for all your comments above, points noted. Lighting was quite strong and was hoping it might pull out a bit more detail in the shadows. Have done traditonal blue sky landscape HDR thing before and wanted to see if it would do anything for a scene like above.