One picture, two very different HDR results

[argash]

First off I'd like C&C on both versions if possible.

Heres the setup. For my second attempt at HDR I decided to use the Texas Capitol Building as my subject AND I thought I'd use both Photomatix and Photoshop and compare the results. I have to say I'm personally extremely pleased with the way both versions turned out. That said I think alot of people will pan the Photomatix version (you'll see why in a moment), so let me show you both versions and then I'll explain why I like the Photomatix version just as much as the Photoshop version even though technically speaking it's not as good.

Photoshop Version (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=390948596&size=l)

Photomatix Version (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=390913265&size=l)

Ok so now you've compared the two and most of you probably think the Photomatix version is terrible, all of you except those that live in Texas that is. You see burnt orange is the unofficial color of the state as it is the team color of the Longhorns (2005 BCS champs for you football fans :) ), and while it was completely on accident and for the life of me I can't figure out why Photomatix gave it that beautiful (to me at least) burnt orange glow!

So anyway thats why I like both equally. Again please C&C both versions.

[Guineh]

I think Photoshop did a better job compressing the dynamic range of the scene in this case. What did the original series of pictures look like?

I like the look of the Photomatix one, though. The orange is indicative of sodium light, I think, and I think that adds a bit to the feel of the image.

Hmm, not much of a C&C, I know.

[Robert_Lay]

I do not feel that the comparison is a fair test of the two tools.

I think that in all fairness, two operators, each highly skilled with his choice of tools, should take the same RAW images, provided by a 3rd party and work on them in their preferred processing tool.

In the case at hand, I will try to evaluate the HDR aspects without regard to such things as the color cast.

A simple examination of the histogram for each of the two posted images shows a startling difference. The mid range tones on the Photomatix image are heavily biased downward (darker). The mean value for the Photomatix histogram is only 36.6 while it is 69 for the Photoshop version. Those numbers make it clear that the mid-range tones are too dark in the Photomatix version. The shape of the histogram bears that out and just looking at the two posted images bears that out.

The Photoshop version was clearly the winner, both from the standpoint of a pleasing range of tonality in the image but also in the statistical data of the images.

[CannedHeat]

Yes, I would agree the PS version is best. That's probably the application that will work best for you. /Dan

[argash]

@Bob Thanks for the great critique. Could you point me to a tutorial or something that would teach me how to control that?

[makphoto]

I like the PS one, but I see your point to the Second one - because I am originally from the United States of Texas. Born in Brackenridge Hospital, grew up in Houston for 18 yrs. Now live in the cold north east w/ 3 ft of snow. (not loving it)

UT forever baby!

[Robert_Lay]

@Bob Thanks for the great critique. Could you point me to a tutorial or something that would teach me how to control that?

There are probably many tutorials out there on various HDR tools and techniques. Naturally, I suggest my own tutorial - Hi!

Step-by-step Tutorial on "Merge to HDR"
Available as a Web page at:
http://www.zaffora.com/W9DMK/UsingHDR.htm
or as a downloadable PDF:
http://www.zaffora.com/W9DMK/UsingHDR.pdf