Pushing the Dynamic Range Envelope

It shouldn't be too much of an issue for the middle exposure shots if you used the raw files.

For a scene like that you can make the building just about any colour you like with any lightness you want in post fairly easily as well for those that don't want to do HDR bracketing for whatever reason.

This is why I stopped trying to expand the DR to fit a certain view, but instead looked for views that fitted the DR I have to work with. I just found the process to be too technical in that you switch from looking for the random abstract element to trying to control and fit things into a logical order. It fails to convince that it's the product of the human hand and so fails somehow to communicate a human understanding. Even when you get technical with film you stil had to look for the shot that fitted the light, and your post often included the movement of a human hand in dodging and burning. I find it makes a difference.

That's fine and your choice to make but it's not too difficult to make images using various HDR techniques displaying a dynamic range larger than what the camera could handle in a single shot if done properly.

Yes, it's not the best but still usable because you can adjust it to suit.

As I said originally, it's just a quick and basic edit to show you don't really need HDR processing for scenes like this one. Editing an already processed jpeg is always limiting.

I also said if the raw file was available it is highly likely a much better final image from that shot could be made.

When you try to pull too much detail our of the shadows, you always get a pretty artificial unrealistic result with strange colours and weird colour and tone transitions. HDR done without exaggerating resolves these problems.

Yes, that can happen with jpegs but is much less likely with raw data due to the extra information in it.

You could set a camera up to take a single exposure of those two scenes and still make a nice looking image from the raw data.

ETTR'ing the shadows also resolves the problem you refer to.

The photo no longer fits any of my memories, it's moved too far away from them.

That's fine. We can just just disagree.

If there is additive fixed pattern noise of any significance in a camera, then simply stacking many equal exposures with the same ISO will not give you the shadows you are looking for, and you will need to stagger ISOs and/or exposures for clean shadows, or take black frames and use a converter that can subtract them.

My post is about taking three exposures at the same ISO and bracketing the exposure by two stops. I usually work at ISO as close to base as I can.

It is a pretty simple exercise, that my Capture One software manages to match pretty well the three hand held frames. I set my camera to time delay, which triggers the HDR sequence, with one shutter actuation.

This method cuts down on a lot of post processing.

Stacking many equal exposures at the same iso can help reduce visible noise significantly in some cases.

That is what the Noise Stacking script in Photoshop Elements and I assume in Ps does.

Noise stacking works using the principle that light arrives onto the sensor randomly and so the location of the noise in an image is also random.

The noise stacking script in effect tries to take the noiseless pixels from each image in the stack into a noiseless image.

In Photoshop Elements the amount of post processing is pretty much the same when blending exposures.

In PSE you can blend 2 or more exposures (the most I have blended at one time is 4) for a given HDR scene.

When hand holding I use the long time traditional technique you describe - take a best guess bracketed exposures and blend them.

When using a tripod I can lock in base ISO and use ETTR for the exposure that will be used for the shadows.

It is very quick and simple to dial back the image lightness of the shadows image in post before putting it into the stack of images to blend into a final image.

Pushing the dynamic range envelope and E.T.T.R.

At this point I'm not going to get into a necesarily lengthy discussion as to which image is the "best" or most correct. I'll only say the discussion needs to look at how the eye and brain work when looking at an actual scene, the difference between this and the way a camera captures the scene and the difference between the way the eye/brain looks at an actual scene and they way they look at a photograph.
E.T.T.R. Jim Kasson is the guru of this technique and id anyone wants more info, search him out.
The principles of ETTR remain valid. It is worth knowing about. How useful the technique is today is another matter. Cameras and sensors have moved on. ETTR is probably more relevant to users of older model dslrs. The extended dynamic range of newer sensors has decreased the general usefulness of ETTR. Mirrorless cameras have somewhat changed things as well because you have a live histogram to work with in the viewfinder before taking the shot. If you really want to work with the ETTR approach you need an understanding of the difference between histogram readings for RAW and jpeg. Camera histograms are only giving jpeg readings.
Here's a recent article on ETTR, the gains it can give and whether or not it is worthwhile.
photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

and here are a couple of discussions including one from Jim K's site
www.kasson.com/bleeding_edge/?s=ettr
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4700397?page=2#forum-post-66889036

As the subject here is about pushing the dynamic range in general, it should be pointed out that there are other approaches as well. Sony and Nikon (and maybe others) have an optional mode that was originally used under licence from a British company (Irix, I think it was). In Sony it is called Dynamic Range Optimizer. It can extend DRO with one exposure but has plusses and minuses. Some early reviews claimed it simply mapped the image and boosted the shadows. It does more than this as it adjusts the exposure for the highlights as well. If you have it on your camera, for a lot of shooting it covers the bases.

Sony and Nikon cameras have Dynamic Range Optimizer (Nikon uses another name) built in which can be another and faster way into similar results.
.

ETTR is most useful in low light scenes or for maximising the SNR in deep shadows of HDR scenes.

But as I mentioned earlier, modern software has to some extent made both ETTR and HDR processing less necessary if not unnecessary.

Both HDR processing and ETTR can be used for scenes whose dynamic range is larger than the camera can handle in a single shot.

That is nonsense because if you actually read through Jim's and the photographylife's articles/posts you linked to you will see that ETTR is all about maximising the SNR in the raw data.

Consequently ETTR is most beneficial in low light, low dynamic range scenes regardless of the age of the digital camera.

The extended dynamic range of newer sensors has nothing at all to do with the usefulness of ETTR.

The lower the contrast/DR in the scene and the lower the scene luminance is, the more beneficial will be the ETTR technique in minimising visible noise by maximising the SNR.

In HDR scenes you can use ETTR to treat the deep shadows separately to the rest of the scene and ETTR them to maximise the SNR in the deep shadows before blending them into the final image.

A good set of links. ETTR, is all about preserving shadow detail. In the pictures I posted I was interested in not loosing or blowing out highlight detail, so I need to underexpose, rather than over expose.

My HDR sets are all about extending dynamic range. My Nikon Z7 will automatically give me 5 frame HDR sets if I want. If the DR of my Z7 is about 12 stops, I can extend the DR to 20 stops in theory. Thre frame sets usually get the job done.

ETTR involves a lot of histogram examination, and it seems it can get quite complicated. My HDR method means I can be lazier out in the field, just shifting the mid frame exposure up or down according to past experience.

I know this goes against the grain, but I am more interested in the composition than getting involved with a lot of technicalities.