What is the best HDR software?

[Phil Light]

I've been experimenting a little with this lately. I don't care for the HDR tools in Photoshop CS2. I've heard CS3 isn't much better. I downloaded a free version of Photomatix and it looks pretty promising but I thought before I buy it I'd like to know what people here recommend.

What do you like and why?

[T.D.]

I've been experimenting a little with this lately. I don't care for the HDR tools in Photoshop CS2. I've heard CS3 isn't much better. I downloaded a free version of Photomatix and it looks pretty promising but I thought before I buy it I'd like to know what people here recommend.

What do you like and why?

I use Photomatix and like it a lot. I use it regularly.

[just pictures]

Try FDR Tools,you can download a trial and buy it if you like it . FDR Tools.com I use it more than Photomatix and it's a little cheaper.

[klinz]

i have been having a lot of fun with mediachances Dynamic Photo HDR . they have a demo and the full prog is only 39.00 bucks.

[Tsmith]

Photomatix does it for me.

Click this for an in depth Photomatix how to (http://hdrphotos.net/content/view/11/25/)

[tzalman]

i have been having a lot of fun with mediachances Dynamic Photo HDR . they have a demo and the full prog is only 39.00 bucks.
I also like Dynamic Photo, mostly because its alignment tools, Auto or Manual, are very good and can usually free me from the tripod.

[Canon User]

Picturenaut is freeware and is quite good,
Probably a good starting point.
download it at http://www.hdrlabs.com/picturenaut/index.html

Mediachance is pretty good and has a few presets to get you there quickly..
You can also 'nudge' your images into place by hand if you need to.

photomatix looks like the industry standard

Photoshop CS2 and 3 can do it for you but its a very 'manual' experience
Check out this excellent article
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

Latest version corel paintshop pro will now do it. Its good but the results are 'calm' rather than eyecatching.

Most of all - A good tripod.

[Phil Light]

Thanks everyone. I've got lots of research to do now. I'm looking forward to experimenting.

[MattMoore]

Photomatix does it for me.

Same here.

But don't become a "one-trick pony" with it's tone-mapping feature (like me). :p

[_GUI_]

It depends on what you are really looking for. Usually people say they want to achieve HDR when they really want deep Tone maping to obtain that typical unrealistic and "spectacular" appearance on their images. If you are looking for this "HDR look" chose any tool that performs Tone mapping. Results are almost guaranteed to look unnatural and weird. You even don't need multiexposure for this since it can be applied to a single shot.

---------------------------

But if you want real high dynamic range scenes correctly tone mapped in a natural way, as your eyes would see them, just do several exposures, blend them some way but WITHOUT altering their properties (exposure, contrast, tone) and then apply tone mapping by hand selecting and processing by yourself the different luminance zones of the scene, in the same way as your brain and optical system would do.

No software can properly recognize what the zones of the image are without making terrible mistakes that lead to unpleasant and unnatural local contrast adjustments. So a proper tone mapping must be done by hand (it's not that difficult).

---------------------------

To blend the multiexposure shots I use my own blending routine (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm), but the procedure can be achieved easily in Photoshop with no additional software and without using PS HDR; it just consists in taking the shadows from the more exposed shots and the highllights from the least exposed shot.

Someone showed me this way to proceed to achieve that in PS:

Starting from 2 shots, one correctly exposed without blowing the highlights, and the second +4E apart with important areas blown.
Results with Photoshop / Camera RAW.
The secret is to deactive all options in Camera RAW.

1. Convert the standard exposed RAW file in Camera RAW deactivating all options, only using the white balance as shot & open in photoshop. Rename layer "Standard".
2. Convert the +4 exposed RAW file in Camera RAW deactivating all options, only using the white balance as shot AND choosing Exposure: -4 & open in photoshop. Rename layer "+4".
3. Copy this layer (+4) in above the layer of standard file
4. Adjust the blending option of layer +4 as follow: underlying layer: 0, 20-25.

All this is done with a progressive blending.
"underlying layer: 0, 20-25" means:
- For Pixels with luminance 0-20 in the underlying layer, replace with corresponding pixel from this layer.
- For Pixels with luminance 21-25 in the underlying layer, do a linear blend with corresponding pixels from this layer. It's like doing a gradient on the blending.

I chose the values quickly to see if it worked, better values would probably be 0,16-18.

---------------------------

To serve as an example of realistic tone mapping, this shot was not taken by me but needed to be blent with another shot of higher exposure. Also there was an important white balance issue because of the much colder light coming from the street when compared to the lamp.
It's not a good picture from a composition point of view, but serves well as a real high dynamic range scene (out there was much more light than inside right) that was manually tone mapped to get a natural feeling:

Original shot (the least exposed version):
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8174/subip9.jpg

Final HDR and tone mapped image:
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/413/resultado90lr7.jpg

[expatdude]

Nice. Excuse my ignorance, but how can you get +4 stops using a 40d? My exposure compensation only goes to 2. Do I have to do it manually with a mental calculation of the exposure time?

[amironsi]

i have PSP X2 and it has this HDR photo merge feature... i use it all the time and it works fine for me

[S.E.V.]

I tried CS3 but ended up going with Photomatrix, straight forward and you really can't go wrong. Follow the in program tutorials.

[troypiggo]

Nice. Excuse my ignorance, but how can you get +4 stops using a 40d? My exposure compensation only goes to 2. Do I have to do it manually with a mental calculation of the exposure time?

I'd say it's manual, but adjusting the shutter speed 4 stops. No need for mental calculation, just roll the dial 4 clicks :)

[tzalman]

I'd say it's manual, but adjusting the shutter speed 4 stops. No need for mental calculation, just roll the dial 4 clicks :)
12 clicks actually, each click is 1/3 of a stop.

[PixelMagic]

Take a look at the Photomatix tutorial here: http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tut0_win/part1.html

In this case you'd drop the normal (middle) exposure so the difference between the remaining two exposures will be 4 stops.



Nice. Excuse my ignorance, but how can you get +4 stops using a 40d? My exposure compensation only goes to 2. Do I have to do it manually with a mental calculation of the exposure time?

[troypiggo]

12 clicks actually, each click is 1/3 of a stop.

D'oh! Don't post tired, don't post tired, don't post tired... :)

[expatdude]

Take a look at the Photomatix tutorial here: http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tut0_win/part1.html

In this case you'd drop the normal (middle) exposure so the difference between the remaining two exposures will be 4 stops.

From what I understand this will not work. The first exposure is supposed to be normally exposed and the second is supposed to be 4 stops above. Your method would give one normally exposed shot, and one shot each of two stops below and two above. Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can see, the only way to get the normal + 4 stops above is manually with 12 clicks or a calculation. Too bad, because it will slow things down and make handholding a lot less likely option. I wish Canon would expand the exposure compensation options.

Edit: Just to clarify, my post was in response to _GUI_'s method in the post above my first post in this thread in which he outlines a method using no HDR specific tools, just Photoshop, layers and blending.

[_GUI_]

Correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I can see, the only way to get the normal + 4 stops above is manually with 12 clicks or a calculation. Too bad, because it will slow things down and make handholding a lot less likely option. I wish Canon would expand the exposure compensation options.

No. You can use M mode and set aperture/shutter value so that the -2EV bracketed shot will correspond to the desired 0EV (i.e. maximum exposure without blowing info). This way the +2EV bracketed exposure will be our desired +4EV.
If you do that using mirror lockup and a remote shutter, the alignment between the image will be very accurate.

Moreover, in the new cameras such as the 40D, I have been told the Liveview mode allows to block the mirror up, so it will not move during the whole bracketing operation. That should yield even better alignment results.

I wish Canon would expand the bracketing range anyway for even higher DR scenes (0EV, +3EV, +6EV for instance). But for 0EV, +4EV we don't need to touch the camera.

[dalia]

I try with photoshop but its to confusing.I use PHOTOMATIX, AND I LOVE IT!

[canonloader]

I wish Canon would expand the bracketing range anyway for even higher DR scenes (0EV, +3EV, +6EV for instance).
The 1D series goes to +/- 3. Also, the old 1D Classic, with it's CCD sensor makes some really excellent images for HDR Photomatix, which is what I ended up buying after trying all the others.

[Darvon]

GUI, I read your site and explanations... me thinks you're a pretty smart cookie. What is your background, 'cuz you obviously like math?

[_GUI_]

GUI, I read your site and explanations... me thinks you're a pretty smart cookie. What is your background, 'cuz you obviously like math?

I am a (retired :D:D:D) telecom engineer.

BR

[robdridan]

GUI- great results with your own method of hdr. Can you explain in laymen's terms exactly how you set the blending options please

[_GUI_]

GUI- great results with your own method of hdr. Can you explain in laymen's terms exactly how you set the blending options please

There is not much to set, I most of the times let the blending threshold to 90% and apply some 4 or 5 px or progressive blending radius (usually I don't like to use the anti-ghosting, if there are moving elements in the scene I manually paint on the fusion map to force those areas to be taken from a single shot, avoiding ghosting keeping noise reduction optimum for the rest of the image).
I always use the Median method for exposure calculation (press the 'A' from Average that will turn into a 'M' of Median).

BR

[russellsnr2]

Hi, Photomatix.

but before you buy have a look at what results with it and Photoshop and how here

http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/

[dcmiles]

CS4 for me, but I seem to like doing things the hard way.

[Phil Light]

I belive using three images is typical, but will more frames always give you a better result?

[canonloader]

In the new Photomatix version, 5 or 7, or even 9 seems to give smoother renders.

[_GUI_]

I belive using three images is typical, but will more frames always give you a better result?

Yes and no. In theory, if blending programs like Photomatix or the Photoshop's HDR were optimum, with 3 shots properly spaced we should have enough to properly capture 99% of high dynamic range scenes. In fact with just 2 shots 4 stops apart, a modest Canon 350D can capture with a very high quality scenes of up to 12 f-stops of real DR (read ZERO NOISE HDR VIRTUAL RAW (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/virtualraw/index_en.htm)).

The problem is that those programs normally fail to blend images if the difference in exposure is too high, that is why to yield good results they need more shots than really needed.
And more shots has the drawback of more effort and time to get them, more storage space, more processing time, and above all a loss of sharpness if they are not milimetrically aligned (which is common).

Find here a HDR scene captured used just 2 shots, 4 1/3 stops apart. Not Photomatix nor PS HDR managed to blend the RAW files properly, while a simple program I wrote (Zero Noise) did, and it even allowed manual anti-ghosting to avoid the artifacts of the moving character. In Photomatix and Photoshop HDR ghosting appeared:

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/zeronoise/zn.jpg

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/zeronoise/ps.jpg

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/zeronoise/pm.jpg


It was a HDR of about 12 f-stops of real DR, where highlights and noiseless shadows could not be obtained in a single shot:

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/zeronoise/comp.jpg


BR

[ssracer]

I'm cheap, so I use Gimp. Just downloaded an HDR plug-in for it. haven't had much time to play with it yet though so I can't say much for it right now, other than it is free

[SpeedkingXSi]

try this program...it's free

http://www.hdrlabs.com/picturenaut/index.html

[dtw757]

Photomatix is a great program....with great customer support. FDR tools is good also and Topaz adjust works well for doing single picture HDRs. I actually own all 3 and bounce between the 3 depending on what I'm doing.

[Jakew810]

I use Photomatix PRO and it's great, I recommend it!

[ceriltheblade]

GUI - I sat and spent an hour on your site (google translation from Spanish) and I am very very very impressed. Your HDRs look so natural (I also like the unnatural look of HDRs - esp those with the almost purple sky....) and you make it SOUND easy - though I have yet to figure it all out. It seems that I will have to invest more time in understanding and playing with the program. I have a s3IS and with a hack we can get out a RAW file of 8-10bits (i forgot which). Do you think it would work along the same principle?

[canonloader]

Do you think it would work along the same principle?
Try it. I use my old 1D occasionally, and it's RAW files are are not cr2, but tif. Photomatix won't import those, so I mailed Photomatix support. They said to just rename the .tif to .cr2, which I did, and they then imported fine. Might be worth a try.

[_GUI_]

I have a s3IS and with a hack we can get out a RAW file of 8-10bits (i forgot which). Do you think it would work along the same principle?

If that RAW format is supported by DCRAW or you can convert to DNG, it should work the same.

And looking at Dave Coffin's list of supported formats:
Canon PowerShot S3 IS (CHDK hack)

It is supported. Let me know of your tests (email please).

BR

[bjordan]

try this program...it's free

http://www.hdrlabs.com/picturenaut/index.html

Thanks, I did! Shooting jpg with a P&S... it's not great, and I didn't notice a car ruined a shot, but I'm very pleased for a first try! It's far better than I could've got with a single exposure. PP was slight curves, sharpen, fix a few hot pixels, and of course I couldn't resist a little over-saturation :D

[_GUI_]

This morning I processed a HDR scene (14 f-stops of real DR) from several shots (I used 7 shots but 4 would have sufficed):

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9255/zn132458adobergbg22orghrm6.gif

The scene was really dark before tone mapping, see the effect of +3EV exposure corrections:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4661/progwz0.jpg


After manual tone mapping with 3 curves (bright, contrast and extra shadow lifting), all the dynamic range becomes visible with a natural looking:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/2876/segundojt8.jpg

[rustyjaw]

I have used Photomatix for about 2 years and FDR Tools for about 6 months now. I have processed over 200 HDRs in Photomatix and probably nearly 100 in FDR Tools. After getting to know the ins and outs of both programs I think Photomatix (PM) probably holds a slight edge IMO, but it depends on the shot, and on what style of HDR you prefer. In some cases FDR Tools produces better results IMO.

It's hard to compare HDR apps because many parameters in each program are different, for example, PM has two sliders "microcontrast" and "micro-smoothing" that, as far as I can tell, are effectively combined into a single "compression" slider in FDR. Overall, PM has more fine-tuning options, although FDR has a curves adjustment in the tonemapper which is handy. So a feature-for-feature comparison is nearly impossible since the features vary a lot. What I am left with is an overall impression of how each program lets me achieve the look I want.

One clear area in which PM holds a huge edge is in the UI department. It's a much more user-friendly program with more useful options. That said, FDR has a wonderful "projects" feature which retains the settings used to process a given set of exposures allowing you to go back at a later time to re-edit an image without starting over, as you would need to do in PM (unless you saved your settings as a preset).

However, in terms of image quality, each program has its strengths and weaknesses. Although usually the differences are minor, I haven't yet figured out a way to tell before hand if a given shot is better suited to one program or the other. I often end up processing the same set of exposures in both apps to see which I prefer.

If I was pressed to say what the strengths of each program were I'd say for PM it's the preservation of the overall character of light in a scene, shadows retain their cores and umbras more often, whereas in FDR often they get flattened out more.

FDR's main strength is it's ability to resolve detail and texture, sometimes to extreme levels.

Here are 2 examples from each program (please note that each of these shots was further processed after tonemapping. The goal in my processing was to achieve the the result I liked best, these were not processed with the aim of comparing the two HDR programs, YMMV):

Of these two, I prefer the FDR version:

http://www.rustyjaw.com/pics/PM_ramp-up.jpg
PM

http://www.rustyjaw.com/pics/FDR_ramp-up.jpg
FDR

I preferred the texture and detail I got from FDR. Look at the ceiling, walls and floor. The texture leaps out of the shot which I found very pleasing. Although one could argue that the PM is more "realistic."

Of the following two, I prefer the PM version:

http://www.rustyjaw.com/pics/PM-long-view.jpg
PM

http://www.rustyjaw.com/pics/FDR_long-view.jpg
FDR

In these two, for me, it's all about the shadows. The PM version retains the character of real shadows (look at the upper left), whereas the FDR one flattens everything out. Simply raising the contrast won't help to regain the shadow character in this case.

I give PM the edge because more often than not it's the quality of the light, highlights and shadows that matter to me most. Texture detail usually isn't as important, with some exceptions.

[stan the man]

I use Essential HDR Community,for me i find it the easiest to use.It seems to work for me,and if you use the free version they don't put the water mark right across your picture it is discretely in the bottom left hand corner.