What do you guys think of Photomatix / HDR?

[hegemon]

I downloaded the demo, and I guess it's alright, but it puts watermarks all over your images. :rolleyes:

Not about to spend $100+ on something like this, but curious what you guys think:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html

http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/over94.jpg (http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html) http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/mean94.jpg (http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html) http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/under94.jpg (http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html) http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/tm282.jpg (http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html) HDR image (created from the 3 left photos) + Tone Mapping

[MAH]

I downloaded the demo, and I guess it's alright, but it puts watermarks all over your images. :rolleyes:

Only on the demo version, not the full version

[René Damkot]

I think it can be nice, if used subtle... (so, not like in the example)

[Tsmith]

I downloaded the demo, and I guess it's alright, but it puts watermarks all over your images. :rolleyes:

Not about to spend $100+ on something like this, but curious what you guys think:



Its a matter of choice I suppose _ as for me I like it.


Only on the demo version, not the full version

lol ... :lol:

[foxbat]

It's too false looking. Can someone comment on why Photomatix wipes out all the dark areas in lots of these images that people are posting here? It's like the DR has actually been reduced and compressed into the light end of the range.

[Tsmith]

foxbat _ its probably has to do with the tone mapping process once the HDRi has been created. There is an option in the tone mapping for adjusting the black areas.

[Duder]

It's too false looking. Can someone comment on why Photomatix wipes out all the dark areas in lots of these images that people are posting here? It's like the DR has actually been reduced and compressed into the light end of the range.

the falseness isn't the fault of Photomatix, it's the user's inability to utilize the software properly......unless that's the look they're after.

I find it slightly surprising that the examples Photomatix use on their website, to advertise their software, look pretty crap to me. but it does have the potential to produce very satisfying results once you familiarise yourself with it.

[tim]

I think Photomatix is great, even though i've only used the demo. The top pics look a little fake but I like 'em anyway because it's so rare you see something like that!

[Picture North Carolina]

I have photomatix and have used it several times. I personally have not had much luck with it. Everything I have created has either come out with the classic grainy / tone mapped look. However, I must say that I agree with duder in his comment in that I have also seen photomatix create shots with true extended dynamic range that look nice, like a single exposure capture. Knowing the application is capable of creating good stuff, I can only guess I need to change settings. perhaps others will reply to this thread posting some extended dynamic range images created from multiple exposures using photomatix to help you make the purchase decision.

Edit:
In this thread here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198036) (message #17) you can see that with proper settings, extended dynamic range photos can be created that look really nice.

[Unreal_Nature]

The thread title seems a little absurd to me. Photomatix is a tool and HDR is a method.

It's like asking what I think of a hammer and chisel. Obviously, not much unless they are being used for something. In which case it depends entirely on who is using them. If it's a five year old, or a chimpanzee, or Hannibal Lecter, I don't like them at all. If it's Michaelangelo, that guy really knows how to chip some rock.

As for the claim that HDR has extended dynamic range, it reminds me of the movie, This is Spinal Tap:

"...The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Exactly.
Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Put it up to eleven.
Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
[pause] These go to eleven."

-Julie

[red_fan]

It has its uses - but to me alot of the images look more like paintings than photographs. In the right hands to can produce some stunning images.

Over here in the UK some of the photography magazines have included a free older version (1.2 I think) on their CDs recently.

[Picture North Carolina]

The thread title seems a little absurd to me. Photomatix is a tool and HDR is a method.



- Start Photoshop CS2
- click help
- click photoshop help
- click index tab
- click letter H
- click HDR images
- click about
- read definition About High Dynamic Range Images

(note keyword "images" not "method")

Edit:

I didn't get to finish this post - a customer called me (the nerve!). But continuing, perhaps this quote will help you understand. It is from the book High Dynamic Range Imaging: Acquisition, Display, and Image-Based Lighting found (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0125852630/102-7720132-9653721?redirect=true) on Amazon. The book was written by the foremost researchers in high dynamic range imaging. Here is a quote from the book's back cover:

High dynamic range imaging produces images with a much greater range of light and color than conventional imaging.

And of course, "... images with a much greater range of light" is another way of saying images with an extended dynamic range.

Does that help you understand high dynamic range images a little better, Julie?

[Tsmith]

Originally Posted by Unreal_Nature
The thread title seems a little absurd to me. Photomatix is a tool and HDR is a method.


That is used to combine and process multiple photos with the results being HDR images as well as other methods also ... :rolleyes:

[Unreal_Nature]

*sigh*

My analogy didn't work at all. CannedHeat, you are focused on what HDR is. I am commenting on its results - regardless of what it is or how you define it or what has been written about it. It is my contention that regardless of what it is, what it could be, what people would like it to be... whatever... that it can only be judged by its results. Its value is dependent on the skill of the user.

I don't like the HDR pictures that I have seen; the results. Does that mean that, in response to this thread, I would say "I think Photomatix/HDR sucks". No, at least not yet, not finally. It means that I haven't seen anybody use these tools, processes, techniques, whatever term you prefer, to make pictures that I like, but there might still be an HDR Michaelangelo out there that will make me change my mind.

-Julie

[Picture North Carolina]

*sigh*

My analogy didn't work at all. CannedHeat, you are focused on what HDR is.

-Julie

No, julie, I am focused on what you stated. Your direct quote:

As for the claim that HDR has extended dynamic range...

That is exactly what an hdr image is, julie, as defined by the very people who developed the science. It is not a "claim" it is a fact: it is an image with an extended dynamic range. Now if you do not personally like the appearance of certain images, that is your personal preference and you should state so. But in doing so if you claim that an HDR image is a "claim" and does not have an extended dynamic range, your statemet is wrong. It does.

[Picture North Carolina]

Let me add something, Julie, that hopefully will allow moving on. The fact that you do not like what you see is not only fine, it is constructive. You provide a valuable critique to a photographer's creation and they will (hopefully) grow and improve because of it.

However, when doing so if you include statments that HDR images do not have an extended dynamic range ("claim") you qualify your critique by making a meritless argument. It would be like you going into the critique forum, critiquing a person's photograph by saying "I don't like that picture, and because I do not like it, it is not a photograph."

And of couse, it is - the same as an HDR image has an extended dynamic range. Period.

Neither do I like some of the results I have seen. My gosh, look at that deplorably ugly picture that is posted on Photomatix's site. Heck, I don't like some of the stuff I have done myself. But when I combine 5 different exposures together and do not like the results, it does not negate the fact that those results do contain an extended dynamic range.

Perhaps just commenting on the results of merging without trying to argue that because you do not like it is does not contain an extended dynamic range would further validate your critique. You stated that in your opinion HDR images contained an extended dynamic range was a "claim." It's not a claim, it's a fact. Let's move beyond that and critique the pictures themselves.

Please visit the link I provided above about the other thread and view that picture. It is an image of extended dynamic range that was created from three differently exposed images. The picture looks natural. Do you like it? It provides evidence that there is nothing intrinsically wrong or bad about extending the dynamic range of digital captures, but rather that some people are either not combining them correctly, or have chosen to create the images with special effects appearances.

But it does establish the fact that really nice photographs that might not be otherwise possible because of the limited dynamic range of a camera can be achieved by combining multiple exposures and creating an image that has captured the entire range of light.

[Unreal_Nature]

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. At least now I understand where you are coming from.

Here is why I call HDR a "claim":

I am talking about output and my assumed output is my inkjet printer. It is/was probably a mistake on my part to make any assumptions. However, given that assumption, my conclusion is that I start with a given available dynamic range achievable on the paper/printer combination that I use, and that dynamic range does not expand, no matter what I do in Photoshop or Photomatix. I can squeeze some tones and expand others, I can deliberately blow out shadows or highlights --- or not. I can push dark tones up into the midtones, or push bright tones back into the midtones, but I am, in no case adding dynamic range. I am simply rearranging it. My printer is not going to give me any more tonal range, no matter what I do.

However, I can see that you are thinking not of output, but of bringing in the maximum number of tones with which to then rearrange. In other words, you are speaking of HDR in input, while I am talking about output - where I do not believe you get any HDR. I will agree that you can bring in more tones, but you then have to squash them into the original non-HDR range of tones in order to get them out on paper.


-Julie

[Tsmith]

I find it kinda enlightening how people get all offensive over the whole Photomatix/HDR process. Never since getting into digital photography have I've seen a subject cause so much anguish ... :confused:

Good gosh people its just another form imagery available for us to use, like it or not.

[Picture North Carolina]

Ahhh, now we're talking apples to apples. But you forgot about something - your monitor. That, too, is an output device, and that, too, is considered a low dynamic range device (most LCD/CRTs). It cannot display the full dynamic range of a 32-bit image.

Nonetheless, that intermediate higher dynamic range image (can we call it an "interneg"? :)) serves a purpose. When you combine the image with a blownout highlight sky with the one with a properly exposed sky, it corrects the problem. When the combined image is tone mapped down, the sky is not tonemapped back up to the same blown out status, but instead, to a properly exposed sky.

The resulting remapped, lower dynamic range image (that now makes your monitor and printer very happy) is theoretically a better image dependent, of course, on whether it was properly captured, merged, and tonemapped. You might be interested in knowing there are now HDR monitors with a range ratio (going from memory here, could be wrong) of 60,000:1 where normal LCDs are 2000:1.

And there is nothing that can be done about the weakest links - except tonemapping images into acceptable working ranges. Perhaps in the future epson will develop a printer that utilizes 359 different color cartridges, but I for one will probably not buy it.

It is a generally accepted fact in the R&D departments of camera manufacturers that the current levels of resolution are acceptable, but that where improvement is presently needed is in the range of light captured. And an interesting thought is that when that is achieved, cameras in the future will have no flash - it won't be needed.

I, for one, will continue to work at improving my images by utilizing HDR where applicable. I do a lot of landscape shooting and if there is anything that drives me nuts it is blown out skies. Even recognizing the limitations of printers, if I can fix that sky by ramping up then toning down while maintaining a natural-looking image, I will be happy.

[Picture North Carolina]

I find it kinda enlightening how people get all offensive over the whole Photomatix/HDR process. Never since getting into digital photography have I've seen a subject cause so much anguish ... :confused:

Take a look at some of the "Raw is better than jpg, NO! jpg is better than Raw" threads and you will see true anguish!

[Tsmith]

Take a look at some of the "Raw is better than jpg, NO! jpg is better than Raw" threads and you will see true anguish!

Well you got me on that one as I was so soon to forget ... :lol:

[Unreal_Nature]

Good deal. Check, check, agree, agree, agree... this is no good. There must be something we can disagree about....

Ah. The aesthetics are next on the menu. I have two problems with merged exposures.

First, where the two parts are entirely separate such as a sky and a landscape, or windows and an interior, I agree with you, the results can be very satisfactory.

However, where the merge is "full body" and involves intermingled/entangled parts of the picture such as on-object shadows and highlights (chiaroscuro) the midtones are getting tromped on. Tonal separation is getting wrecked. Those added/merged tones have to go somewhere. The result is a decrease, often severe, of tonal separation in the midtones. You gain detail in the highlights and shadows at the expense of the adjoining midtones. Those shadow tones that are moved up are now the same tone as the midtones that were already there. Ditto for highlights that were moved down.

My other complaint is that HDR adds non-targeted information to a picture --- all over the picture. It's like an information dump. Everything is shown in full detail, everything has perfect pastel colors. There is no differentiation of importance; no indication of what matters and what does not.

A good (art) picture should include only that which contributes to the viewer's understanding and thus seeing what it is that the photographer wants me to see. Less is better. A good picture will accentuate what matters and either not include in the first place, downplay, reduce, or otherwise exclude that which is not directly relevant to the intent of the picture. There should be no bright color or precise detail or anything that calls attention to itself --- that is not necessary to the success of the meaning of the picture. And they should not be pretty just for the sake of being pretty. If you want to do pretty, it still should be about something. Pure pretty is like eating granulated sugar from a spoon.

To my eye, the HDR pictures that I have seen are stuffed with unnecessary color and detail. They are insistently pretty - commercial/advertisement pretty - without any reason. They don't look real to me, and they don't feel relevant to the real world, and thus to my real life.

-Julie

[Unreal_Nature]

Bluedog_XT,

It took me so long to type up my reply (above) that you posted before I came up for air. Like CannedHeat, I think HDR joins a long list of things that digital photogrpahers argue about on and on and on... you are welcome to join in.

-Julie

[Tsmith]

Bluedog_XT,

It took me so long to type up my reply (above) that you posted before I came up for air. Like CannedHeat, I think HDR joins a long list of things that digital photogrpahers argue about on and on and on... you are welcome to join in.

-Julie

Sorry Julie _ I'm a Fan of Photomatix/HDR/Tone Mapping and no amount of what someone else thinks is gonna sway my opinion ... ;)

Tell me you don't have one of those old 800x600 monitors cause the font size you used is hurting my eyes ... :confused:

[Picture North Carolina]

Bluedog - ditto on the font size. My eyes watered. Use firefox then pres <ctrl> <+> - it sizes up.

Julie, I am so sorry, I really hate to disappoint you, and owe you an apology, but nope - you did not do it. You did NOT create something to argue about!:)

As to what you said about tone getting lost, hey, that's the nature of the beast. There is no way to map a trillion tones to a billion tones without tossing something out and combining others. Ain't it the exact arguement about jpeg compression? (not tones specifically, but in theory)

And that is why, if you read past posts, I have tried to tell people that when trying to merge different exposures to up that shadow, or down that sky that the automatic functions of ANY HDR tool (CS2, Photomatix) is not always the best path to take.

What you said about "all over the picture" is exactly why the old method of using layer masks might work better. In doing so, at least you have a mask you can work on. It may be laborious, but I guess that's a real old argument: the time you are willing to spend is directly related to the love you have for your art.

However, we both agree (man, is that hard to type ;)) that we are both somewhat dissatisfied with the results. However, I will say that for my part it may be due to something else.

I take a lot of landscapes which may have lots of trees. Wind, (even the slightest little breeze) moves leaves. between the various exposures, there may be even the smallest movement of leaves, grass,etc. it may not seem like much, but when you have 10 trees in a picture with 10,000 leaves on each tree, what you end up with is a frame full of 100,000 leaves that may be only a pixel or two out of register, but multipled across the frame what it causes when combined is a very grainy effect. and manually bluring the layer masks may not help enough. and to be honest, I have not found a solution to this. don't take me wrong, I am not a purist - I enjoy abstracts as much as traditional pictures. but when I want a nice picture of a lake surrounded by trees to look like a photograph, not a grainy sketch, I often cannot get it by blending.

[Tsmith]

The more I mess with Photomatix the more I like.

http://static.flickr.com/58/205342737_a6ab457226.jpg?v=0

[Unreal_Nature]

CannedHeat, I agree with your entire last post. This is terrible.

Wiggling leaves - you bring back terrible, traumatic memories of working with an 8 x 10 view camera. Waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting. It's insane how much leaves and grass *shiver* all the time, even when there does not seem to be even a breath of wind. Then when they finally stop, you realize that all the beautiful clouds have left the sky and all of the shadows have moved and you have more than one tick crawling around in your socks...

Reference the font size - no, my monitor is not old. It's a 21"er set to 1600 x 1200. The size problem is the result of me wrestling with the forum formatting, trying to get it to quit jumping me over to jumbo Verdana when what I want is Ariel. I didn't do it to cause you discomfort. Though, now that you've told me that it does, I find that somehow ... satisfying.

Thank you for a very interesting discussion.

-Julie

[larsla]

I'm new here, so I haven't read everything you have written in the past around the subject of HDR's.
I would be very interested to know your (especially CannedHeat) workflow when working with HDRs and then converted to Low dynamic range images (on web or prints).

I'm especially interested how much bracketing that's normal. +-1 stop? I know it depends on the subject and light conditions, but what's the average?

Actually I think I understand the argumentation about HDRs vs tone mapped images. My goal when trying Photomatix is to create good looking prints without blown out hightlights and with details in the shadows. This means I have to compress the dynamic range in the image.
However, a print only has about 6?? stops of dynamic range and for me I believe I would be fine with mapping the approximately 9(?) stops of DR from a single RAW file to an image. That's how I intend to use the Photomatix software.

Thanks for reading.

BR
Lars

[Duder]

Good deal. Check, check, agree, agree, agree... this is no good. There must be something we can disagree about....

Ah. The aesthetics are next on the menu. I have two problems with merged exposures.

First, where the two parts are entirely separate such as a sky and a landscape, or windows and an interior, I agree with you, the results can be very satisfactory.

However, where the merge is "full body" and involves intermingled/entangled parts of the picture such as on-object shadows and highlights (chiaroscuro) the midtones are getting tromped on. Tonal separation is getting wrecked. Those added/merged tones have to go somewhere. The result is a decrease, often severe, of tonal separation in the midtones. You gain detail in the highlights and shadows at the expense of the adjoining midtones. Those shadow tones that are moved up are now the same tone as the midtones that were already there. Ditto for highlights that were moved down.

My other complaint is that HDR adds non-targeted information to a picture --- all over the picture. It's like an information dump. Everything is shown in full detail, everything has perfect pastel colors. There is no differentiation of importance; no indication of what matters and what does not.

A good (art) picture should include only that which contributes to the viewer's understanding and thus seeing what it is that the photographer wants me to see. Less is better. A good picture will accentuate what matters and either not include in the first place, downplay, reduce, or otherwise exclude that which is not directly relevant to the intent of the picture. There should be no bright color or precise detail or anything that calls attention to itself --- that is not necessary to the success of the meaning of the picture. And they should not be pretty just for the sake of being pretty. If you want to do pretty, it still should be about something. Pure pretty is like eating granulated sugar from a spoon.

To my eye, the HDR pictures that I have seen are stuffed with unnecessary color and detail. They are insistently pretty - commercial/advertisement pretty - without any reason. They don't look real to me, and they don't feel relevant to the real world, and thus to my real life.

-Julie

I think you're missing the essense of what HDR is primarily for. A digital camera sensor is limited in the dynamic range it can record, and therefore can't always expose the scene that's being photographed realistically. Bracketed exposures being merged into an HDR, and then compressed back down, recovers the lost dynamic range of the image to correct the overall balance of the exposure. simple as that. If you're seeing HDR's that lack contrast it's simply because the people producing them haven't processed the image to it's fullest potential. (or that's the way they want it to look)

[StewartR]

I don't like the HDR pictures that I have seen; the results. Does that mean that, in response to this thread, I would say "I think Photomatix/HDR sucks". No, at least not yet, not finally. It means that I haven't seen anybody use these tools, processes, techniques, whatever term you prefer, to make pictures that I like, but there might still be an HDR Michaelangelo out there that will make me change my mind.Don't tell me you've seen Duder's work and haven't liked it?? Surely he is the Michaelangelo of HDR.

[JustinL]

Here's an image using the "average" method from the demo of photomatix:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/sloppy_seconds/0007.jpg

Duder knows HDR well. Search his name on here and you'll find some damn good work.

El Capitan:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=179001

3D Grand Canyon HDR
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164024

Three Brothers, Yosemite
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=183497

[UncleDoug]

They don't look real to me, and they don't feel relevant to the real world, and thus to my real life.

Julie,

In theory everything you say makes sense. DR of input vs. output and all.
Also you bring good points up regarding mid-tones, and contrast differential.
Also you did a good job of describing your aesthetic of art.

BUT......
Have you ever really shoved your head into the black-box of HDR?
Meaning really try to take it to the "next level".
I can and will until the end of time argue that the HDR PRINTS I produce come closer to representing what your eye sees; tonally and chromatically than any single shot you or anyone could take and print at this state of technology, Stacked ND grads, what ever.
Yes this is a bold statement and I'll be tied to the pillory for it but in my eyes it is true.

Here is my methodology for testing this in a situation where HDR could improve the scene where you would traditionally want to use a ND grad.

I shoot Nikon D200, 9-shot auto bracket with interval timer on tripod.
That means the 9 shot bracket is taken in about 2-7 seconds, completely hands off to eliminate vibrations.
Pre-HDR process RAW's for color temperature(this is where you make or break the image, in my opinion).
Process the set through Photomatix.
Now take one of the 9 shots and try to get it close to the HDR.
Print both.
Take the two prints to the site of the shoot in similar lighting conditions and compare the two prints to what you are looking at.
There will be no comparison. The HDR will come closer to representing what your eye sees.

I've tried this with film as well, both 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5 to poor results due to the movement/registration issue.
So now it is all digi.

What my business partner and some of the gallery owners we work with think is that traditional, non-HDR images are what "we" are used to seeing.
When you see a well produced HDR of course one would say "that looks a bit weird". You are not used to seeing images with this much interpreted tonal range. Every day you will look at images in magazines, books, TV, billboards etc.... that are one-shot non-HDR images and are indoctrinated to believe this is what a photograph should look like.

I think it was "Galen Rowel's Vision" that has comparisons of an image taken with and without a
ND grad. Even in this example shows that the image with the ND grad(which is in essence an analog way of producing an HDR) would come closer to what your eye sees.

[UncleDoug]

HDR meets the mainstream media!

NY Times article on HDR (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/technology/03basics.html?ex=1155268800&en=8533534661f6d724&ei=5070&emc=eta1).

[Tsmith]

HDR meets the mainstream media!

NY Times article on HDR (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/technology/03basics.html?ex=1155268800&en=8533534661f6d724&ei=5070&emc=eta1).

Thanks UD for the article _ after seeing how Photomatix seems to be gaining in popularity I sure hope it doesn't meet the fate of RawShooter.

[Dragos Jianu]

Thought it was great at first. Then realised it's nothing more than PS's shadow/highlights for dummies. Learn how to use S/H in the advanced mode and you will get the exact same results minus the artefacts.

[MHP]

whew, its getting hot in here

[Duder]

Thought it was great at first. Then realised it's nothing more than PS's shadow/highlights for dummies. Learn how to use S/H in the advanced mode and you will get the exact same results minus the artefacts.

to a degree I agree with you, but the S/H tool can't recover blown highlights or burnt shadows. HDR can give you high quality detail over the entire dynamic range.

[AV Mode]

Hdr tone mapping, it's not just another tool it's a powerfull one it's called Photomatix but it's not all "automatix".
I haven't seen one picture I processed that I can use as is, the software creates haloing effect, this can be minimized though:

" First by lowering the Strength setting. If you do not wish to set a low Strength, then you have the alternative of either setting Smoothing to High, or lowering the White Clip setting (while increasing the Luminosity setting if necessary). taken off web"

There is a learning curve here, but I must say I like it and it's well worth the price. The first thing I find important is the choice of subject for this process then the way you take the picture (bracketed shots settings).


Cheers :)

[Tsmith]

Thought it was great at first. Then realised it's nothing more than PS's shadow/highlights for dummies. Learn how to use S/H in the advanced mode and you will get the exact same results minus the artefacts.

Well the OP did ask for users input ... learn to use this application and you won't have artifacts + you'll have way more dynamic range to work with than what S&H will offer.

[frate]

I'm fascinated by the newer tonemapping applicaton, Artizen HDR. http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Artizen.htm I'm going to d/l a demo and give it a try.

[Duder]

http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Gallery.htm

the examples on their gallery page don't generate much confidence. they look bloody awful to me. terrible haloing and very unrealistic. makes me think they haven't got a clue how to use their own software.

[Tee Why]

To me most of the shots I've seen using HDR seem to have an artificial look that I don't care for.

[sando]

http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Gallery.htm

the examples on their gallery page don't generate much confidence. they look bloody awful to me. terrible haloing and very unrealistic. makes me think they haven't got a clue how to use their own software.I agree, why would you advertise your product with these images!? Are they blind? :lol:

[Tee Why]

I agree, why would you advertise your product with these images!? Are they blind? :lol:

Or perhaps more computer savy than photographic savy.
:)

[frate]

makes me think they haven't got a clue how to use their own software.

They don't seem to be the most artistically inclined, but it won't stop me from playing with a new tool...whenever I get the time. Still interesting. ;)

[EOS mE]

well.. i'm using the photomatix hdr.. it's pretty cool to use and it's been fun... until.... recently i've been getting tone mapping errors during saving after all the adjustments i made. any ideas why it does that?

here is a photo i did using photomatix. it's created from 1 photo using +/- 2 exposure.

i think it looks pretty natural.. i think.. ;)

[Faolan]

These are not HDRI images, HDRI images are those that are used for 3D backgrounds. The process was created by Devebec:

http://www.debevec.org/

Check out the Fiat Lux video, that was one of the first videos that was created with HDRI processing. It also has important information on how to go about getting LPs.

Essentially you use a light probe to create the background image you need, then transpose it.

The reason the above images are not HDRI is that's it's still a compressed 8/16-bit image. If anyone has used 3D applications with HDRI support you will know that they will use the HDRI background to produce light for the scene hence why it's important to preserve the ratios, s/h and the full dynamic range dynamically. It's how a lot of movies are made today.

Technically these images should be called Tone Mapped images and not HDRI images.

[EOS mE]

oh... then how come photomatix calls it HDR? it's kinda odd. yeah this photo was done in tone mapping.

[kona77]

Here is an example of a photo that I layered, in a rushed manner. And the second was a result of photomatix.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=101449&d=1155325840http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=102590&stc=1&d=1155736252

[Picture North Carolina]

oh... then how come photomatix calls it HDR? it's kinda odd. yeah this photo was done in tone mapping.

Why I am again getting involved in a debate I thought was resolved, I don't know. Perhaps if somebody will grab my collar and slap me around a bit, I'll come back to my senses.

EOS Me,

Perhaps your confused about the literal meaning of High Dynamic Range because you did no actually read the info produced by Photomatix themselves.

Here's from the help file:

The Exposure Blending process is the easiest to understand. This process combines your differently exposed photos, merging them into one image that shows details in both highlights and shadows.

The HDR Tone Mapping process involves two steps: The first step is to create an HDR image from your differently exposed photos.

The second step is to tone map the HDR image you created in order to reveal its details in both highlights and shadows.

I've bolded the relevant definition. Notice Photomatix themselves define their process as being from different photos with different exposures. And even when tone mapping, Photomatix assumes you are working with photos created in the combine operation that are different photos with different exposures.

According to photomatix themselves, it is not from a single raw file.

If you wish, I can provide links to the people who in their laboratories developed the HDR process in the first place.

Hope that helps.

[jfrancho]

kona77, what exactly did Photomatix do for this image? I don't see where it was necessary. You could have easily added saturation and local contrast inpost. Granted the halos may have taken a little more work, but they really detract from the image. Here's a tip, if it looks like a "Photomatix image" then you have the tone mapping set way too aggressively. Here is a Photomatix HDRI that more faithfully reproduces what my eyes saw better than what any single exposure could.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/87546589-L.jpg

[kona77]

This is still very new to me. I took the time to do the pic both ways to let others decide which one they liked. It was just a simple comparison. I like using some of these programs but do not want to rely upon them. I like what you did, I just need to spend more time on the computer and behind the camera when I have some free time. Maybe between midnight and 4:00 AM:)

Nice picture by the way.

[jfrancho]

Thanks. Maybe between midnight and 4:00 AMThat's when I do my best work. For the record, the first picture you posted is a very cool shot. No HDR processing/tone-mapping necessary.

[Tsmith]

LOL @ CH _ its actually Low Dynamic Range (LDR) EOS mE but one can make them work in Photomatix using the same HRDI procedure. As pointed out just don't go overboard on the Tone Mapping and you can achieve some very nice results.

You did a nice job on this image as pointed out in the Landscape Forum section too ... ;)

[EOS mE]

Why I am again getting involved in a debate I thought was resolved, I don't know. Perhaps if somebody will grab my collar and slap me around a bit, I'll come back to my senses.

EOS Me,

Perhaps your confused about the literal meaning of High Dynamic Range because you did no actually read the info produced by Photomatix themselves.

Here's from the help file:

The Exposure Blending process is the easiest to understand. This process combines your differently exposed photos, merging them into one image that shows details in both highlights and shadows.

The HDR Tone Mapping process involves two steps: The first step is to create an HDR image from your differently exposed photos.

The second step is to tone map the HDR image you created in order to reveal its details in both highlights and shadows.

I've bolded the relevant definition. Notice Photomatix themselves define their process as being from different photos with different exposures. And even when tone mapping, Photomatix assumes you are working with photos created in the combine operation that are different photos with different exposures.

According to photomatix themselves, it is not from a single raw file.

If you wish, I can provide links to the people who in their laboratories developed the HDR process in the first place.

Hope that helps.

ah.. thanks cannedheat. yes i didn't read that part.. :lol: kinda hard to when you're trying to post while working with you boss nearby.. haha

[EOS mE]

LOL @ CH _ its actually Low Dynamic Range (LDR) EOS mE but one can make them work in Photomatix using the same HRDI procedure. As pointed out just don't go overboard on the Tone Mapping and you can achieve some very nice results.

You did a nice job on this image as pointed out in the Landscape Forum section too ... ;)

thanks bulldog... whether it's LDR or HDR.. i still love it~ definitely agreed not to go overboard.. otherwise some photos seems tooo fake. :lol:

[sando]

*snore*

Why doesnt someone just sticky the definitive HDRi explanation at the top of this page?
This should include the definition for a tone-mapped image (hereafter, IMHO, known as a 'Flickr special') and also whatever you would call a 'HDR' made from 1 Raw.

And then ban the members who insist on posting their 'HDR' made from 1 Raw?

Would save the arguments and the same old people explaining the same old things.

:)

[DayHawk]

And then ban the members who insist on posting their 'HDR' made from 1 Raw?


lol yeah and lets kill freedom of speech while were at it :rolleyes:

- Nick

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

I'm not a huge fan of overly done photomatix images, but I like what it can do if used in a more subtle way.
This is one of my favourites. 5 images combined using photomatix. Looks pretty much as I saw with my eyes. The sunset was of course the main problem for the camera.

http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/thumbs/20060813%20POTN%20Bridge_thumb.jpg

[Picture North Carolina]

*snore*

Why doesnt someone just sticky the definitive HDRi explanation at the top of this page?
This should include the definition for a tone-mapped image (hereafter, IMHO, known as a 'Flickr special') and also whatever you would call a 'HDR' made from 1 Raw.

And then ban the members who insist on posting their 'HDR' made from 1 Raw?

Would save the arguments and the same old people explaining the same old things.

:)

Yes, but then you'd also have to ban the threads on:

- jpg vs. raw
- nikon vs. canon
- sigma vs. canon vs. tamron
- hamburgers vs. hot dogs
- right brain vs. left brain

Which means there would be 3 users left on potn! :)

[Picture North Carolina]

I'm not a huge fan of overly done photomatix images, but I like what it can do if used in a more subtle way.
This is one of my favourites. 5 images combined using photomatix. Looks pretty much as I saw with my eyes. The sunset was of course the main problem for the camera.



Well.... sigh. I just don't know how you guys do it. I just cannot get an image to come out of photomatix or CS2 with a natural appearance on it. They're either too "tone mapped" or just plain grainy looking.

Question: whether from a single raw or multiple exposures, do you post process the input files before they go into photomatix, or are they basically unprocessed?

[Tsmith]

Question: whether from a single raw or multiple exposures, do you post process the input files before they go into photomatix, or are they basically unprocessed?

CH _ I learned not to do any processing with the RAW file(s) other than setting the exposure - 2 stops, 0 and + 2 stops for a single file. Watch for highlights being blown out too as those aren't much good. In the tone mapping process back off the Strength to get a more natural look.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

Yep, no pre-processing on mine either, and dropped the strength quite a bit (from 80 to about 50 from memory).

The images were -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 stops.

[Tareq]

I love HDR now very much

http://static.flickr.com/86/221938055_86b326cc08.jpg?v=0

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=221938056&size=o

[sando]

Yes, but then you'd also have to ban the threads on:

- jpg vs. raw
- nikon vs. canon
- sigma vs. canon vs. tamron
- hamburgers vs. hot dogs
- right brain vs. left brain

Which means there would be 3 users left on potn! :)True, and my post was in jest really. But someone surely should sticky and explanation for the sake of the same old agument going round and round? :)

[jfrancho]

A sticky with a link to http://www.google.com would eliminate the necessity for such simple queries like, "What's HDR?" I'm amazed at how many (myself included) forget this simple step, though there many here that will be glad help out and provide the basics of this very popular tool. Another lesser known helper is http://www.acronymfinder.com/. Then again, most ignore the sticky threads.

[sando]

At least then you can just say "There's a sticky at the top" :)

[alexwise]

Nice shot Mat! Not too over done like many photomatix shots but spot on!

[ssim]

Talk about hair splitting by many of you but that is up to you. I certainly wasn't misled by the subject line as input by the OP. When I think of HDR I do think of Photomatix. Experienced photoshop users may think of the highlight/shadow recovery and other may think of photoshop's merge to HDR option.

I had never had much luck using the CS2 tools for doing this so I thought that I would give Photomatix a try. I must admit to liking the initial results in that at least I get an image to look at that is close to what I think I should be receiving. I think it can be overdone but so can alot of the things that you can do in Photoshop.

For those that say this is a bad thing to use as it is not true HDR, you may be right but not everyone is going to be at your levels of expertise in Photoshop. It still can produce some very interesting if not pleasing results. Just like a number of other add-ins to the photoshop process like DxO to mention just one.

[litenup]

Resource for Photomatix http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

15% discount from http://www.outbackphoto.com/index_news.html

Bye

[cspringer]

You can get the same results in PS but it takes longer...however, it doesn't add the noise and artifacts that Photomatix tonemapping often does. White objects such as clouds can get very muddy.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/mcennis3/Compare.jpg

[Tsmith]

You can get the same results in PS but it takes longer...however, it doesn't add the noise and artifacts that Photomatix tonemapping often does. White objects such as clouds can get very muddy.

Are you speaking about the earlier versions of Photomatix? Don't have an issue with the latest release causing any problems that you say.

Often times what users do is process a single RAW file and the exposure gets out of the dynamic range on the file and introduces noise and posterization.

[cspringer]

Are you speaking about the earlier versions of Photomatix? Don't have an issue with the latest release causing any problems that you say.

Often times what users do is process a single RAW file and the exposure gets out of the dynamic range on the file and introduces noise and posterization.

Notice the clouds in Tareq's example. This is pretty typical of what happens to whites with Photomatix. Of course, masking can fix it. The artifacts that are sometimes introduced can make the image useless. I haven't used it in RAW but on .psd files.

It will be a great improvement if the latest version has fixed these problems...thanks for the heads up.