1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION
Really the answer to the question involves 3 parts. 1) First I edited my original post above to include. That this is only about processing "One Image" in the HDR Processing screen. I've never tried to process more than one at once, and didn't know it's purpose, that of processing more than one, and doing some-sort-of combination of images. Combining images was not apart of the question at all. 2) As Shadowsports points out. A feature request seems logical. (Although his example was a Star Trek motion picture transporter accident). I will post a simple example, of one photo, not an "oh no they're forming" example. (umm that's a quote from the movie if you didn't get it...) Could the processing be done in another tool? Maybe, but the work is done for me already, why not use it, before I have to. And the results sometimes are where I need it. 3) Using the Exiftool is the ticket to fix the problem in the mean-time, if its that important to me. I can add the data back in from the original .CR3 file. It was not exactly what others had posted on this thread, but rather reminding me of the tool. So that's what prompted me to look up how to copy one files data to another. So all I'll need to do is: exiftool -TagsFromFile {file...}.CR3 {File... HDR-Processed}.jpg
@robertkjr3d wrote:"I'm just using it on one file. Try it yourself. It does great things. Regardless the question was to do with shot settings not being saved into the file. Perhaps understandable if more than one file? (one person suggested, that it should see the shots have the similar or the same settings and just record them....) But I was really talking about just 'One File' so of course it should forward those off to the resulting file."
I understand what you are doing and have done it with one file in DPP and in other raster editors before.
In your case (one properly exposed file), DPP is simply adding it's presets with some adjustability (that are intended for a bracketed composite) to your properly exposed image. Although I knew what the results would be, I ran one of my underexposed bracketed files and used all of the "Art" presets and played with the sliders as you requested (see attached). I'm not impressed. Note that the key word in all but the Natural preset is "Art" (I used Natural in my previous composite). These, as the name implies, are for artistic renderings of what would be a normally exposed image. If art is what you are after instead of a natural looking scene, by all means have at it. But you can not expect accurate EXIF data from an artistic rendering of an image. If anything, maybe the preset used and its slider values, but certainly not the exposure triangle as that is long gone when you add the Art presets to manipulate your image.
With Art Standard +Brightness applied.
Newton
@robertkjr3d wrote:i agree, that above example sucks. If its that underexposed, usually the 'art standard' in the hdr tool, will just bring out 'noise', I don't see noise in the above picture, but I'll trust your word that it came from 'art standard' settings. But I've gotten some great results, with more reasonable photos. It's not going to work miracles with 'bad photos', that is not what I meant. It's not Topaz... which claims to work miracles. Although I've seen some night-and-day results. It seems though that people have not used this tool. Whether or not it was intended for, I found it very useful. As the example in my solution...
Of course it sucks, but it is one image in a series intended for HDR compositing and, other than that, not intended for editing (if that makes sense). My original exposure setting for the series was 1/160th, f/5.6, ISO 1000, using the R6II in AEB and an RF 100-400mm at 100mm, lighting is a 40watt LED lamp bulb. My AEB settings were -2 stops, normal exposure (original settings mentioned), and +2 stops. The image that I used at your request was changed by the R6II to 1/160, f/5.6, ISO 250. So the camera/AEB changed the ISO to get my -2 stop request. To get my +2 stops, it adjusted my shutter to 1/40th and left other settings the way I had them. That is why so many responses to your query seemed out of place.
Personally, I am happy that you are getting the results you want and I'm not trying to change what you are doing to achieve that, just pointing out that what you are doing is not HDR. It's great that you aren't having to use another program to get the results you like.
"but I'll trust your word that it came from 'art standard' settings"
A picture is worth a thousand words, LOL!
Newton
