Enfuse

Anyone using Enfuse out there to blend exposures?

I shoot real estate photography and have been using HDR to combine exposures but looking to streamline my process as it looks like I may be getting very busy soon. I really am only blending exposures--not doing true HDR--so I'm wondering if this might be faster for me.

Thanks.

I use LR/Enfuse from Photographers Toolbox. I find that it gives a very natural result, it doesn't have the most user friendly interface but it integrates with Lightroom as a plugin.

I use Nik HDR Efex Pro 2 for my HDR work, or blending.

You can really manipulate easily, fantastic UI and can now buy the complete NIK collections for only $149, down from $99.

You can always demo them all out first and see which you prefer as well.

I have used/purchased Enfuse, Photomatix and HDR Efex and definitely prefer HDR Efex IMHO.

Sadly, not convinced LR/Enfuse will be updated to the most recent version of Enfuse.

I have used the product for years but wanted to take advantage of more features in the newest release. I emailed Timothy 2-3 times and received no reply. Think he is too busy on other projects.

SNS/HDR is excellent and due a major update really soon. MAchinery/HDR and Oloneo both produce excellent results. HDR Efex 2 can be good but also has the occasional real barf when whole areas of a blend are screwed up.

bunyarra wrote in post #15766412
Sadly, not convinced LR/Enfuse will be updated to the most recent version of Enfuse.

I have used the product for years but wanted to take advantage of more features in the newest release. I emailed Timothy 2-3 times and received no reply. Think he is too busy on other projects.

SNS/HDR is excellent and due a major update really soon. MAchinery/HDR and Oloneo both produce excellent results. HDR Efex 2 can be good but also has the occasional real barf when whole areas of a blend are screwed up.

.
I use SNS-HDR as well but I feel the same way about that product, since I haven't seen an update in quite a while....

Just curious - have you ever considered buying lights instead of software? If you go with a brand like Yongnuo, you can get 3 manual flashes and 4 transceivers (three for the flashes, one for the camera) for around $200. Add about $200 more and you can turn that into an ETTL setup that can be controlled from the camera.

Mark-B wrote in post #15766625
Just curious - have you ever considered buying lights instead of software? If you go with a brand like Yongnuo, you can get 3 manual flashes and 4 transceivers (three for the flashes, one for the camera) for around $200. Add about $200 more and you can turn that into an ETTL setup that can be controlled from the camera.

Hmm, there is a POTN member who has done some excellent real estate work making use of external lights, but he still routinely does a lot of blending/HDR work, it's very effective for a good range of that type of thing.

Mark-B wrote in post #15766625
Just curious - have you ever considered buying lights instead of software? If you go with a brand like Yongnuo, you can get 3 manual flashes and 4 transceivers (three for the flashes, one for the camera) for around $200. Add about $200 more and you can turn that into an ETTL setup that can be controlled from the camera.

I used to use them but, unless the client is paying good $$, then blending can give you 80% of the result in 30% of the time.

For complex scenes, a few manual flashes placed strategically will be useful - especially if you have very bright windows where all HDR apps fail TBH.

GadgetRick wrote in post #15764572
Anyone using Enfuse out there to blend exposures?

I shoot real estate photography and have been using HDR to combine exposures but looking to streamline my process as it looks like I may be getting very busy soon. I really am only blending exposures--not doing true HDR--so I'm wondering if this might be faster for me.

Thanks.

I use it extensively for landscape work. I first use DPP to produce TIFs, then possibly adjust in CS5, and then on to Enfuse for blending.

Maxdave

I have other HDR software but I prefer the simplicity of what CS6 does for what I do. I don't need the controls the way my workflow is set up.

I do use Nik's software for my non-real estate HDR.

SNS, to my knowledge, isn't available on the Mac.

I don't want to use external lights. I don't want to take the extra time to set them up. I get in and get out. Not that I have a problem with lighting in general. Just doesn't fit my workflow or what I do.

Just always looking for ways to shorten my workflow to save time.

Thanks!

Lightroom 4.3 and newer have the ability to generate a floating point 32 bit file via Photoshop that when saved back into Lightroom as a TIFF file permits using the develop module to adjust the file as an HDR image.

Apparently, Eric Chan, the principle engineer at Adobe for the the develop module etc. used high dynamic range files as the basis for testing the develop module and then limited its abilities to the 10 stops of dynamic range most often found in cameras.

He has now added the HDR ability via the floating point file. He suggests that its not even necessary to do a lot of close brackets. One stop is sufficient granularity and I've even tried it successfully at 1.3 and 1.6.

^^
Would like more info on that.

http://thelightroomlab​.com …-photoshop-lightroom-4-1/
Also search for '32-bit hdr lightroom' and I'm sure you'll find more!

Thanks tombu

dmward wrote in post #15780545
Lightroom 4.3 and newer have the ability to generate a floating point 32 bit file via Photoshop that when saved back into Lightroom as a TIFF file permits using the develop module to adjust the file as an HDR image.

Apparently, Eric Chan, the principle engineer at Adobe for the the develop module etc. used high dynamic range files as the basis for testing the develop module and then limited its abilities to the 10 stops of dynamic range most often found in cameras.

He has now added the HDR ability via the floating point file. He suggests that its not even necessary to do a lot of close brackets. One stop is sufficient granularity and I've even tried it successfully at 1.3 and 1.6.

Interesting... I'm going to have to check this out.