I've rediscovered Photomatix

Because the Borg (google) has effectively shot HDRefex through the head, I've rediscovered Photomatix.

For years I did not use it. I used HDRefex because I thought it was better. But it's not - if Photomatix is used correctly.

Here's the brief Photomatix workflow which can produce some very nice results:

First and foremost, do not treat Photomatix as the end result - to producie the final product. Use it as a tool in the workflow:

- In a raw editor, convert your raw files to 16-bit TIFs. Some tweaking is ok, but not too much radical tweaking on exposure items so that Photomatix is not thrown off its game. If you are tonemapping a single file, use the raw editor to produce TIF output sets such as -1, 0, +1 or -2, 0, +2

- Input the 16-bit TIFFs into Photomatix, creating a 16-bit TIFF out. Do not do noise reduction or CA corrections there. They can be done later. Saturation, WB, tint, all ok, but again, not too radical. But definite anti-ghosting. The goal here is to produce a good output file to work with, not produce a final product.

- Call the 16-bit Photomatix tif into a raw editor such as ACR. Produce a good final product there. ACR is good for color, contrast, and so forth, but I still do not do noise there. I prefer to use Topaz denoise for that. Produce a 16-bit TIF. Denoise elsewhere if necessary.

- You now have a final product. If you wish to add an artistic flare to that, you can call the TIF into any of many Topaz or ON1 products, or any other of many operations in PS.

I'm still mad at the Borg for trashing the Nik products, but I understand... they have more important things to do like assimilate the planet.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18055779
Because the Borg (google) has effectively shot HDRefex through the head, I've rediscovered Photomatix.

For years I did not use it. I used HDRefex because I thought it was better. But it's not - if Photomatix is used correctly.

Here's the brief Photomatix workflow which can produce some very nice results:

First and foremost, do not treat Photomatix as the end result - to producie the final product. Use it as a tool in the workflow:

- In a raw editor, convert your raw files to 16-bit TIFs. Some tweaking is ok, but not too much radical tweaking on exposure items so that Photomatix is not thrown off its game. If you are tonemapping a single file, use the raw editor to produce TIF output sets such as -1, 0, +1 or -2, 0, +2

- Input the 16-bit TIFFs into Photomatix, creating a 16-bit TIFF out. Do not do noise reduction or CA corrections there. They can be done later. Saturation, WB, tint, all ok, but again, not too radical. But definite anti-ghosting. The goal here is to produce a good output file to work with, not produce a final product.

- Call the 16-bit Photomatix tif into a raw editor such as ACR. Produce a good final product there. ACR is good for color, contrast, and so forth, but I still do not do noise there. I prefer to use Topaz denoise for that. Produce a 16-bit TIF. Denoise elsewhere if necessary.

- You now have a final product. If you wish to add an artistic flare to that, you can call the TIF into any of many Topaz or ON1 products, or any other of many operations in PS.

I'm still mad at the Borg for trashing the Nik products, but I understand... they have more important things to do like assimilate the planet.

Very interesting. Some questions on your workflow:

1. Do you feel better results are gained by exporting TIF from the raw converter first vs exporting from LR directly into Photomatix?

2. Did you mean to say that you export a 32 bit file from Photomatix and tomemap in ACR? Or are you doing your tonemapping in Photomatix rather than in ACR? If you are doing the tonemapping in Photomatix, I would appreciate hearing which method you prefer.

3. I have mostly been using the hdr merge in LR; seems to give very photo-natural results. That not working for you, or perhaps you don't have access to the latest LR and PS due to aversion to the cloud (I don't judge on that...everyone has to make choices they can live with ).

I don't use lightroom. However, development of the raw there might be better. I use PScs5 which has the processs 2010 engine. I assume all current LRs have the 2012 or newer. Some say it's better (but others don't, another thread altogether).

Yes, tonemapping is done in PM. ACR to develop the raw, into PM for tonemapping, then back to ACR for fine tuning because it does a better job at common stuff like saturation, contrast and so forth. Not to mention CA and vignetting. I prefer tonemapping in PM because I periodically want the tonemapped look (but no clown puke). I just try to produce a good file in PM, but the brunt of the work is done elsewhere. And as said, cleanup - such as noise - elsewhere. I feel Topaz does it better than others.

The most important thing in the workflow is using photomatix as part of the workflow. Like many others, I used to use PM, HDRefex, Oloneo, etc. as a final result. It's not. Using the tonemapper as a part of the workflow produces much better effects. Different people can develop different workflows. The important thing is to not use the tonemapper as a final image producer.

Probably not for those who process lots of files because the workflow is substantially longer: acr, photomatix, acr, PS, topaz. But the results are better. More of a fine arts workflow. Hope that helps.

Alright, thanks for the clarification on your workflow. I thought perhaps you had come to discover a not-so-obvious workflow with Photomatix. I don't think you even have the option of exporting a 32 bit HDR into PS CS6 for

I too have never regarded Photomatix, or any other HDR app, as a final image producer. My only want from the HDR app is a clean image with completely preserved highlight and shadow details. Final editing is always done in PS.

For those that are using PS CC there is an alternative to use Photomatix only as a HDR merge app and do the tone-mapping solely through ACR. Photomatix has more ghost reduction controls than the HDR merge in LR/ACR (CC). This is a somewhat poor execution of tonemapping/processing​, but it at least conveys the alternate tonemapping workflow:

Photomatix does a lot of things, and most of them very well. I agree that, in general, the use of the tone mapping controls in almost all HDR-specifc applications as the method for producing a "final" image is what likely leads to the dreaded overcooked look of "HDR" images.

Photomatix is especially good at implementing merge and output, especially in batch operations like those required for pano stitching, or shoots where many image sequences were shot for single frame output. Photomatix also permits tone mapping with an explicit option to specify that the image is a 360 degree pano, so that the image border is blended seamlessly where the pano wraps around on itself. These details are important, specially for these specialized workflows.

FYI - you can export 32bit files from Photomatix (HDR, EXR, TIFF) - you have to enable their output. Many folks skip past the 32bit HDR visualization step in the Photomatix workflow and go straight from merge to tone mapping. In the 32bit visualization step, you can save the 32bit file.

Photomatix also has a very flexible auto and manual de-ghosting utility, although my results have varied with different scenes and moving element requirements. I sometimes have mixed results with the choice of the source image for de-ghosting and the resulting EV shift required to blend it.

I have not messed with Photomatix in a while, but I get the sense that it is fully mature and no longer evolving (which is fine, it is a capable application already).

The relatively new workflow of using raw in LR to merge to 32bit DNG is potentially a versatile workflow for photographers, but the 32bit DNG format is not very widely used or compatible with applications outside of the Adobe realm, so you are sort of stuck with LR/ACR for tone mapping, and there are no tone mapper options in this workflow.

However, it is really nice to have such a wide array of choices to suit almost every workflow and every requirement for scene data and the output one would want to generate. It's nice to have choices!

Enjoy your newly (re)discovered workflow!

kirk

Thank you for your replies.

I guess I should not say "new workflow" but rather "newly consistent workflow." I knew long ago the proper way to do things, but I guess I just got lazy. I was using HDRefex straight from Bridge, allowing it not only to produce the final result but to develop the RAW and every action in between.

But with the recent announcement the Borg are abandoning HDRefex (which will eventually lead to its demise), I jumped back to Photomatix as a defensive posture.

In my research, I discovered that a large percentage of people are using HDR / tonemapping apps to create final results. I thought that unfortunate, seeing that better result are achievable with different workflows. Thus this post.

I liken working with HDR sequences and producing the initial output to shooting and working with log video footage. It looks ugly at first, but there is a lot of room to make it what you want because there are a ton of data and it is all really good data.

kirk

While I've switched to Machinery HDR I also utilize Merge to Photoshop HDR, change it to 32bit and do no tone mapping in it and then save it back to LR. From there I apply the edits I want. You get excellent quality and full control working on the 32bit in LR.

This is the process I was referring to:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=aijdY7ZP1uU

I'm gonna' take a look at 32-bit processing. Thanks for the idea.

As a note, when you process the image in PS using HDR, the dialog will show it very bright. Just hit OK. Then save it and go to LR. It will look different in LR and will edit nicely.

So what did Google do to HDR Efex?

Very interesting! If you care to share, I'd like to see some examples (before/after would be awesome).

Bearmann wrote in post #18161292
So what did Google do to HDR Efex?

They abandoned it - the entire Nik Suite. HDR Efex still works now, but because Google will no longer support it, and most importantly, maintain and upgrade it, it is only a matter of time until the app (1) is no longer relevant, and (2) no longer works.

The biggest loss in my opinion was not HDR Efex, but Silver Efex. For years it was a benchmark in black & white processing - the best app available. It, too, will eventually dwindle on the vine and die.

Perhaps somebody is in negotiation with Google to take over the suite. Don't know. But as of this writing the Borg continue to do what they have always done - leave things in shambles in their wake.

It's curious that they would purchase it only to let it languish, unless they were trying to take out the competition to promote their own product. I'm not aware of a competive product that Google would want to promote over the Nik suite.