RomiK

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B... I think I was shooting this jelly between the strobes, they were little up front... but then with some luck the resulting crop may give that... 🙂 

34 minutes ago, Chris Ross said:

I have a friend who had tri-focals done a while back, I believe he had them changed to mono-focals, apparently a common side effect is visual disturbances at night, some people get used to them and some don't.  There is also an enhanced depth of field option which keeps a wider range in focus. 

😱 uh oh the rule of thumbs is not to mess up with implants once implanted! It's not like you can change them at will. Your friend must have been real unfortunate as such strong aversion is very rare - see below. I would say this

- there are several manufacturers of trifocals, some better some worse. Zeiss is one of the best but more below 

- there several applications for different specifics. One is night drivers. I you are a night driver they should recommend certain kind which is not as good in daylight but is more suitable for night drivers. For Zeiss AT Lisa types - yes, there are  circular artifacts coming from spot lights in certain conditions (not oncoming traffic but imagine guiding lights in tunnels, lights lighting the street if you look directly at them... - the light must be real tiny intensive spot). But that's nothing for people driving through the night on average. And also the tolerance to these build over time.  Professional truck drivers with night shifts - might be an issue. Might get too tired before get used to it and develop a block and aversion. Regular folks riding sometimes - nothing that difficult.

- Another example - trifocals are light hungry - so if you work in a warehouse with less then average contrast light conditions you may get tired. When I go shopping into these big warehouses like Costco, Makro etc I always am hungry for light. Night vision is fine as there is - surprisingly - enough contrast. Fog is fine as - surprisingly - the daylight has a lot of intensity. But warehouses are less than ideal. But again - still nothing that would cut into benefits trifocals bring to life.

- obviously like with everything all things are person specific. But given the amount of implants your friend must have been one of the very very unfortunate - either he got wrong type of IOLs given his profession or his mind could not overcome this which could happen but it is like one in tens of thousands.

So my advice is not be scared of by negative experiences, these are really really rare but like in marketing - one satisfied customer will bring 10 and one dissatisfied will repel 1000

I reiterate for everyone interested - do it (at least the consultation) but also do your research as far as your profession and lifestyle.   

6 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

 

 

Interesting (my eye doctor says I have beginning cataract, but it is not yet at a stage that would deserve surgery)...

 

I did not know that bifocal or even trifocal replacement lenses for cataract surgery exist. I guess the advantage of trifocal is that you do not need external multifocal glasses for near sight? What are the disadvantages?

I do not understand how you focus with trifocal lens in the eye: upper part of vision is far and when you look down it is near (similar to how it would be with external multifocal glasses) or is it different? What means "...focusing by hands..."?

 

 

Wolfgang

 

I'd have to point you to some reading through google search... the design of lenses is circular ... so wherever you look and point your sight to you see sharp - within the lens parameters...  With single or dual focus lenses you still needed glasses mostly for near reading as the lenses were set to see far. With trifocals no more, no glasses needed... I could really write pages but google better for that... the main takeaway is it works, the surgery is safe, performed annually on millions and the side effects are none. Yes there are some artifacts but in a manner which will not affect your life or quality of vision. The net is still huge benefit.

2 hours ago, TimG said:

For anyone else, like me, who didn’t know what IOL was: “Intraocular lenses (IOL)”. Essentially eye surgery to replace the lens. Sounds rather scary…… Really glad it worked for you RomiK. 

Thank you @TimG . To ease up worries for anyone and send you guys to your ophthalmologist for consultation 🙂 I would like to add that IOL replacement - or a cataract surgery as it is known - is a standard procedure and technology which has been there since 1950ies and more about it for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract_surgery

Roughly half of population will undergo this surgery anyway because of a deterioration of lens due to age. I did it rather early at the age of 46 for convenience - couldn't stand wearing glasses during sport activities - and the team sold me on that idea just by stating that likely I'd have to go through that procedure anyway and this way I might enjoy clear vision much longer before death 🤣

From a diver's perspective there are no limits on this activity, you can dive the same 100m depths as before without worries 🤣. Photographers will still able to use their expensive viewfinders no change but the ones using the monitors will have to adjust to the fact that they will no longer focus by eyes - they will focus with their hands. Minimal focus distance is still pretty close, much much closer than before. I see clearly pixels on my retina monitor from the distance of 30cm. 

But because I no longer focus by eyes but by a distance to a subject (hence focusing by hands) the next crisp focus distance is - say - 50cm and so on. Between those the vision is like you compare sharpness of cheap zoom with a sharp prime.  Ask you doctor about the Zeiss AT Lisa  as that is the name of trifocal lenses I have, trifocals are on the market since 2012 roughly.

Either way you won't need to spend big on prescription masks so you might actually save money 😁. Good luck 🤞.

For all aging folks with presbyopia I wanted to share my experience with IOLs which I have at the age of 56 for almost 10 years now. I know it's a controversial issue for some. Nevertheless I would recommend this solution to anyone whom their doctor would approve this. It has its own challenges and things to adjust to but by far - and not only for divers -  it is the best thing they could do to solve the problem. Happy diving.

The mounting also very much depends on negative buoyancy it adds. Backscatter states -600g, one YT reviewer said "heavy" - it would be interesting to get accurate number.

NA-A1 with 180mm glass and Shinobi are neutral, I used it frequently like this. (minus the beer 🤣)

It also depends on style of diving. I can jump with mine from live aboard and carry it comfortably on a zodiac. Ball mounts are not that friendly.

And then it also depends on the state of your vision. I have IOL implants so I focus by hands. Untreated presbyopia will move your focus point further so back mounting for macro won't be that useful. Many factors at play.

@Davide DB 

6 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

 

Romik, I don't have an HDR monitor hence I didn't download your image nor I I did not intervene in the discussion when analyzing the image.
I am intervening just by commenting on some statements.

In a introductory technical paper I read:

 

 

And more important:

 

 

From the two industry links I read completely different standards.

 

 

As you see from this table the highest standards (true blacks) have a maximum brightness of 600 nits while having an incredible low black level.

So the whole point is having a contrast ratio, a DR that fits the human eye.

 

 

The above image explains why you can have a perfect HDR monitor with only 400 nits. (source: https://www.leader.co.jp/uploads/2022/03/wp2_hdr_e1_181205.pdf)

 

I don't dispute the theory behind HDR and bare necessities and principle it describes. I am disputing the practical world use of such and encouraging anyone to see it for themselves. Our eyes are not placed in darkness nor we consume the content in the darkness. And so the need for the high brightness HDR displays is very much obvious and justified. Blacks will always be blacks but the highs will have different impact based on relative luminosity around.

And so back to HDR images - by the ability to display high dynamic range and the highs especially during the content consumption is making drastic impact - in a positive way - on the images impact.

with SDR image (Jpeg or on SDR screen) cranking up the brightness will only bring the whole image up. On 400nits HDR screen the highs will stop short of having meaningful impact even in room with average lightning as the human eye will perceive the brightness relatively...

So that's my line of thinking why HDR images will take over the online world soon. Not that important for all of us who print the images and sell them 🙂 but for online world and marketing it will be super important.

Here is a raw file if you want to take a crack at SDR / HDR development and see for yourself. It's exposed a bit to the right but not clipping. Myself I see differences when .avif displayed on Apple Studio display 600 nits and XDR Pro with 1600 nits.

20240321-113515.ARW

I will try to help you to see HDR image using SDR tools 🙈😁 it's not perfect but it may show the spirit of it. I just took picture from the HDR 1600nits screen and converted HEIC into JPEG. While it might not show the luminance it shows details on the sharks back which you won't be able to get and display using SDR approach - even if you would be masking . Plus that luminance creates a real depth for the image but that can't be seen using SDR tools ... 

BTW none of you bothered to download and see my .avif image from the other topic (shows zero downloads) - that one actually shows nicely also the point why you need high brightness HDR display... I guess it's difficult to discuss a topic without seeing what is topic about. 

Otherwise we can continue this discussion in perpetuity as none of the parties seems to understand what the other one has in mind. I am bringing examples at least... but nobody bothers to watch them (disclaimer though - they only show in specific HDR matching conditions - screen, software)

Guys, actually all of you, please read that text on picture one more time and try to put it into perspective. I din't choose it random nor did PCMag guys hunted for the biggest number. 

The key for you to understand that test and why is relevant for HDR are those percentages of white and that it was HDR signal (whether provided by AppleTV or what IDK)... So please read it again, think it through and hit me again... in the context of what I was saying about why the peak brightness is important for HDR...

1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

Excuse me dynamic range is what it is. The human eye is sensitive to contrast and dislikes excessive illumination levels or too bright images it even disturbs some individuals

This is not about charts is about reality. Having a bright display when you don't need it makes no difference

Having a phone with bright display that you use on the beach is a good idea hence all mobiles have super bright screens but thats a different story

 

You brought the topic and now you are not happy with the conclusions of those who actually designed the standard?

 

Am OLED screen 500 nits with tru black gives a truly immersive home cinema experience much better than other technologies and has very good transition.

This is why the best Tv on the market they only have peak brightness of 500-600 nits that coupled with true black give the best viewing experience for the human eye

 

 

And yes the image looks way better on an OLED than IPS panel which is why HDR content is better viewed on a Tv Set or an OLED monitor which are rare and expensive

 

 

 So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

No you posted images with the objective of showing they were HDR and you asked to edit them to show how they looked

Unfortunately they image you posted have very little dynamic range

I was mislead by your incorrect processing of your example where you made the image actually clip

Clearly you can stretch black and whites to fill up any stops you like but this is NOT an accurate rendition of the scene and neither is required it does not look good either

You seem to also make a lot of confusion between brightness and dynamic range

 

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries.

 

Dynamic range is the difference between the darkest and the brightest part of an image AS CAPTURED not as displayed. 

A display that is 400 nits peak but has a black level of 0.001 has a dynamic range of 400:0.001=400,000 or 18.6 stops

A display that has 1000 nits and black level of 1 has 1000:1=1000 or 9.98 stops like your atomos monitors that are not high dynamic range they are just bright

 

A bright screen is easier to see in daytime however that does not make it HDR. Dynamic range is scene referred you can have a high dynamic range scene that is very very dark the issue is displays are not good with blacks hence and cameras neither.

 

 

The recommended display from adobe is very much aligned to VESA 1000 that has a contrast ratio of 20,000 or 14.28 stops more is not necessary really because there are no cameras that can do more.

Besides OLED screen that have true blacks achieve an the same dynamic range with a peak brightness of 500 because their black level of 0.0005. I have HDR Tv since the first release and now have 3 OLEDs in my house I rather have tru blacks than get tanned in front of my screen.

 

As I see that you don't really understand the topic even for displays you may want to have a look at this

https://displayhdr.org/performance-criteria-cts1-1/ where you can see plenty of 400 500 600 nits displays are perfectly fine as long as they have good blacks. Your screen is at home not in the sun if you cant see it darken the room it has worked for cinemas since forever.

 

Your recommendation to watch  HDR content on 400-500nits ... what can I say... it just show kinda disconnect between your theory and the reality...

You seem to be good to put arguments on paper. In real life though, if it was as you say, OLED HDR TVs would not be pushing range of 1300 nits give or take and the newest wouldn't go for 2000 - even though OLEDs provide pitch blacks. And it would be good for the environment no? Saved energy.

Yeah and Apple which obviously have no clue about movies and pictures wouldn't reequipping their laptops and professional monitors with 1600nits screens... Yeah, not really needed for grading HDR movies and pictures🤦‍♀️ 

But from some reason the market concluded they need indeed the higher brightness to fully capture HDR requested. My samples were from 7m depth with sand rocks bottom and sun above. Really not that many chances for blacks. And so 450nits screen wouldn't be able to display what was it like there even if you would watch it in pitch dark. Technically? Doubt it. Perception-wise? Absolutely not.

And so I would suggest to get over the fact that not everything can be expressed in charts and the real world is different. The real world is our eyes and their perceptions. And again nitpicking on my words in pedantic way is like not helping - you knew what I meant by high brightness HDR but you just chose to pick what you liked from it.

So thank you for the lecture about the dynamic range but it was unnecessary.

43 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

You asked to examine two images and I did

During that process I confirmed using your own example that the use case for HDR in underwater photography is very small 

your own examples dont fit into this 

they are dull images with low contrast what else do you want to prove exactly?

well I offered raw files as you said the resulting images were just overexposed and clipped pieces of garbage 🤣 and that was before we learned you were looking at HDR files on an SDR display ... perhaps you learned something new too 🤣 so perhaps next time refrain from commenting until you actually see the subject of debate in the environment it was intended for - in this case it was high brightness HDR screen in HDR profile and correct software - until you do that the debate held over the analysis charts is pointless, you need to see HDR  to believe it.

Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries. 

other than that I believe that the topic subject is exhausted and I am looking forward to Sony's ISO debate in a different forum and different time.

10 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I think you don’t understand how the camera operates

when you apply a picture profile the metering changes to take into account the fact the data will be compressed in 10 bits by the camera image pipeline 

this results in a change of the ISO however when data is recorded to file the data is processed as is even if the metadata is different 

when you take a shot at ISO 800 in slog3 the camera is actually shooting at ISO 100 because the log processing will expand later on the data

picture profiles are never to be used for photos under any circumstance because the alterations compromise the results 

In the specific of hlg2 there is no ISO shift therefore your raw files are totally identical to a standard photo without picture profile

the image i showed from rawdigger are exactly as the scene was they are not compressed in any shape or form

they are basically low dynamic range images and you can see they look pretty much as they would if you shoot ambient light without flash

the HLG curves do not shift ISO because they are made of a standard gamma for shadows and log for highlights so you can see record the raw data as is and compress into 10 bits using the algorithm 

hence in both your examples there was no HDR to be found and the images are just what they are

if you want to shoot images that have potential to be HDR the best is to shoot without picture profile and use zebra to check clipping

you can still use hlg2 if you really want to produce an heif out of camera though am not sure how it will be interpreted

in summary your two raw file fall in the low contrast use case I mention at the outset

my sunburst have some HDR potential but in my opinion didnt benefit a great deal either and for compatibility reasons not worth even bothering 

 Who was talking about ISO in the thread about HDR pictures ? 🙈 It has nothing to do why we discuss HDR imagery. You just muddy up the topic subject again.

You say HDR is of a little to no value for underwater photos so ok, stick to this, sit back, relax and watch how HDR photos will take over the online world the same way as video is doing. It's that simple. No need to muddy up the topic subject. 

Besides research a bit more on Sony's approach to ISO, you will discover some new world a bit different from what you thought. I won't muddy up this thread explaining you this.

So if you have nothing to say to HDR photos and cannot demonstrate that HDR images made from raw files posted would not be better or would be inferior to SDR images made from the same files then it is easy to just stay quiet. All other things you are trying to say just spoil the topic subject and frankly are irrelevant.

30 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

This is the other image again the total dynamic range is around 8 stops before white balance

When you shift the red up and blue and green down this will drop to around 5

 

This is the image preview straight from raw digger

 

The RAW files has the info that the image was captured with Picture Profile HGL2 however no raw processor does anything with this information which is as the preview I show here

 

I believe the op may be confused by the picture profile which is used by the camera to present an image typically for movies where raw data is not saved and photos

 

The picture profile reads the raw information at 14 bits and through a specific gamma curve maps this into a 10 bits video using various compression techniques that try to fit the 14 stops into 10

However this is irrelevant for raw file processing the image shows low dynamic range and a predominance of blue green requiring an element of white balance that will bring the DR to 5 stops which is another classic example of standard low dynamic range image

Both the RAW files posted as example fit in what I defined to be a standard example of underwater photo with low dynamic range, in this case because it is ambient light there is very low contrast

This is where and what I had in mind saying that technical analysis do not say the whole story in terms of resulting HDR image.

(FYI It just happened so that these images were shot with PP HLG as I was testing different scenarios of using Shinobi for video and picture capture. One way was Slog3 for both video and stills, the other HLG for both and I ended up with something else anyway. It's a matter of (in)accessibility of shin obi settings underwater but we covered that elsewhere on this forum.)

But as you pointed out the raw processor does not do anything with picture profile so recorded image still has its 14bit information. And what we do with this information on HDR capable screen is the whole point of HDR grade.

So the image may be flat as you shown above but it does not mean that the place where image was taken was flat. There were sun rays traveling through water and over sand, there were bubbles reflecting. On HDR screen we can extract relevant information from the raw file and display them to mimic actual condition. This is impossible on SDR screen and in SDR process as there are limits on brightness and colors available for display we could agree.

And then there is a problem in rendering the HDR image as unlike video the still image HDR standards are yet to be written and compatibility wars to be won. So for now it's .avif and instagram even though it has its limit as I shown in my newest post.

The attached file will render perfectly fine on iPhone 13Pro and newer as well as on Chrome browser on MacBook Pro XDR screens. But unlike other HDR images I posted on my Instagram account it will render horribly in Instagram app as well as Instagram page looked in Chrome browser.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C50fsLXNkeA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

It's a good showcase imho of why the HDR photography is going to be the next 'thing' in an online world as the sun reflections and it's intensity on shark's skin are giving (otherwise ordinary) image a new depth. But it also shows this area is still developing.

20240321-113515.avif

9 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

@RomiK The cease and desist is directed at you in particular, do you not understand the request to stop throwing insults around and stick to the subject matter?  Massimo is allowed to disagree with you as you are with him but we are requesting both of you do it by clearly and calmly stating your cases.  If you can't solve it that way please agree to disagree.

Do we have double standards here or was it him who called me idiot and stupid first? When you read this topic from the beginning it was him in his second answer diverting from the topic subject and starting personal attacks:

'you make a lot of random assertions that make me conclude you really don’t understand the topic at all especially how it is implemented as your statement show a lot of confusion'

 ... and the discussion went south from there. The problem with pedantic characters like him is that by presenting their one-sided views and disregarding other views which they don't know about or disagree with they tend to spoil the mood of the community. Unless you put him on the leash you might as well call waterpixels.net community 'Interceptor121 private forum'.

See in this topic case he called the images overblown overexposed only to find out that they were not overexposed at the end. But what a mess in the meantime... he even lies about what he views the images on only to admit that for this and that reason he is not using his HDR monitor... and so he makes flat out statements and package them inside some mud made from technical terms ... and do I call him stupid even at this point? 

17 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I a

 I am totally cool 

 

 Great! Then stop being lazy and download that raw file which up until now showed zero downloads and show us all how seriously clipped it is and what a garbage it is. And while at it do it with this attached file which is the one you called garbage - or its avif

Now look up Merriam Webster definition of pedantic

Now see yourself focusing on highlights and whites at -100 completely disregarding the color profile listed which meant there was a curve thrown at the raw file which needed to be corrected. Not the raw file itself but its version processed with that custom Slog3 curve...

See where I am getting? you talk zeros and completely disregards ones... you talk ones and completely disregards twos... 

one thing for sure - you can't grade HDR image on SDR profiled monitor and rely only on visual tools... that's a nogo

20240319-113107.ARW

20 minutes ago, TimG said:

Guys, enough already. Can we move on please?

 

Chris has already asked you nicely to desist.

he (Massimo) is getting red for sure... but what do you do with a pedantic man who is spoiling the subject? He's unstoppable!🙈 

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Messages like why dont you post the make and model of the monitor highlight total ignorance of the subject 

read the adobe documentation to understand why 

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/camera-raw/using/hdr-output.html

you only need a macbook pro with xdr display to show the hdr image (which I have together with a benq hdr display for my studio)

however you dont need that to process or save an hdr image 

and not understanding what is a sensor clipping point is a real issue hdr or not

🤣🤣 you are nonstop! 🤣🤣 and you don't even have HDR monitor 🤣 - your screenshots gave you up - just look below 🤣 maybe also time to learn Lightroom interface a bit -  or you do have one and run it in an SDR mode without even knowing about it 🤣 dunno which is worse 🤣 

You should really refrain from commenting on things you don't understand... and there is a lot of it... that .avif image which you called overexposed garbage, you know the second one with sharks, it is not an art but it is a good demo of the HDR aspect of things. But of course - without viewing it on HDR monitor you will see just an SDR version of it (little lesson for you  - .avif includes meta for different displays) and without viewing it on Chrome browser you will see total garbage which is what you probably did.

So not understanding what you talk about and kinda lying about the tools seems like a real issue to me...

MacBook Pro 14 XDR display

Apple XDR Pro Display

SDR display

... and a screenshot from you 🤣 ... see, Lightroom when running on SDR monitor will display that HDR range red... 🤣 when you press that HDR button it does not mean that miracles happen and your monitor will jump into HDR mode 🤣 if you use MacBook XDR monitor and using say photography profile P3D65 it is SDR... and then you try to comment on HDR images? What a mess 🤣

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

Guys, can we tone it down a little please, please attack the subject rather than than each other.  Robust discussion is quite welcome on the forum, however name calling and other types of personal attack are not.  This is not about who is right or wrong and whether HDR is indeed useful UW, rather it's about showing each other a measure of respect.  Please try to state your arguments clearly to defend your position with facts data and examples, calling the other person an idiot doesn't prove you are right. 

I would love nothing more than to stay on the subject, which was HDR underwater photography, but this @Interceptor121 character is acting like a real internet troll. He clearly does not have a display - even if it was a mobile phone - to view HDR images on yet he concludes that the images are overexposed and bad here and there just based on visual tools of software he is using wrong anyway and completely messes up the thread subject. PLEASE someone with iPhone Pro or MacBook Pro 14/16 tell him that the .avif posted here are not overexposed so he could give it a rest and stop annoying argumenting why it can't be... 

And you @Interceptor121 why don't you finally post exact make and model of the displays you use to judge HDR content. Nothing to be ashamed of if you have the right tools. And if not why don't you just shut up? It is simple as that. And in all your greatness 🙈 you failed to discover a little dirty secret of the test image above and that is that it was shot in (by you for stills despised) SLog3 profile and processed using custom Slog3 to P3 LUT.... You just can't understand and process in your head that the things can be done a bit different in this world 🙈

32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Your images are clipped and the color totally off. Something to do with white balance 50,000K 

 

White balance is a multiplication operation so it will get color off any gamut of your choice

 

The AVIF file you linked looks horrible too and nothing to call your mama about

 

Not sure how you shot that image but the correction -1.15 also looks terrible probably it is clipped all over before and after the white balance correction it gets to total loss

 

It is my example of badly exposed images, nothing will save them, they may look a bit better but still pretty ugly

 

Mine are instead properly exposed

 

Pretty much what I said if you know how to expose the whole HDR thing does not bring any benefits however if you clip all over it gives the illusion of an improvement for as much as it can go in the space (but it is still terrlibly clipped and ugly)

 

I think I have nothing more to add try to improve your technique instead of invoking magic tools

Uh oh it’s worse than I thought 😂😂😂 I’ve tried to help but no more 🤦‍♀️ you really are full of …. Listen it’s ok to say you can’t afford to buy stuff but do not hide your own inability behind a million reasons why this or that could or could not work 🤦‍♀️. Off course you can’t see damned sh.. as you don’t have the monitor to see so you you conclude in your own little brain that the things just can’t be 😂😂😂 but that’s ok we all need to live in the world of trolls … 🤦‍♀️

btw I've had a feeling that you will try to respond with lots of your - ehm - arguments (🤣) so before you do here is a demonstration of those Lightroom visual tools in practice. Here is Tiger ZOO in SDR, how the Lightroom displays SDR and visualize HDR and off course HDR image in attachment 🙂 null

20240319-113107.avif

OK I think I know now where you have problem - you seem not to have the right tools to develop in HDR yet you have a good read of theory and so you think it's where you want to give advice.

The problem is though that without HDR display - you still did not say what brand and type you have available - all these reads about HDR are just reads. As you mentioned that you didn't like resulting .avif from your grades - it is because you grade your raw files blind. You can't go by the visualizations tools in Lightroom as their intended purpose is from other direction - to show where your HDR image may have problems on SDR screen (or in JPEG).

We both will probably agree on that the photography is not about the mathematical formulas, stops and corners but it is an art of light and double that for underwater images. So when grading image for HDR you just need to see what you are doing. 

See these images 

will spring to life if processed for HDR (you could have attach its raw files btw)  and the water surface will look quite different from what you think it might.

Once you will have the right tools available you will see that the world of HDR is a bit different from what you thought you knew. And then with the level of your expressionism you will be able to offer excellent analysis I am sure. Good luck.