What is the best HDR software?

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?

Phil Light wrote in post #4499165
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.

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.

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.

Photomatix does it for me.

Click this for an in depth Photomatix how to

klinz wrote in post #4500961
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.

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

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.cambridgein​colour.com …ls/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.

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

Tsmith wrote in post #4501046
Photomatix does it for me.

Same here.

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

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, 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 response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

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

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

expatdude wrote in post #4524410
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

troypiggo wrote in post #4526414
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.