HDR software compared

I started by capturing 3 images (under exposed by 2 stops, normal exposure and over exposed by 2 stops). I used a tripod so that all three images would align well and easily merge in an HDR tool.

The images below are simply INTERPRETATIONS of those three images. Both HDR Efex Pro and Photomatix Pro offer a wide variety of interpretations and these are but two from each. So don't take these as the "final word" on what either tool can accomplish. I merely show them to help you see the images I used when evaluating the capabilities of both tools.

Read more about HDR, these processes and the software on my blog.

Hdr Efex Pro

IMAGE LINK: http://www.dterryphoto​graphy.com …SW7#1113722406_​E3TXy-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.dterryphoto​graphy.com …SW7#1113722041_​XPpP2-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.dterryphoto​graphy.com …SW7#1113721971_​HHT8y-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://www.dterryphoto​graphy.com …SW7#1113722767_​9gYiG-A-LB

I'd be interested in seeing a properly exposed original for comparison sake if you could.

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #11800995
I'd be interested in seeing a properly exposed original for comparison sake if you could.

Heading out now. Let me do that for you later tonight.

I use to start by capturing 3 images but in CS5 you can use HDR toning for any image and get the same effect.

Original image

TONE2NICE wrote in post #11801162
I use to start by capturing 3 images but in CS5 you can use HDR toning for any image and get the same effect.

keyword being effect... I really don't think you can get the quality or range with out 3 shots

TONE2NICE wrote in post #11801162
I use to start by capturing 3 images but in CS5 you can use HDR toning for any image and get the same effect.

Sure, you can mimic the "effect". But the original reason for shooting HDR is/was to capture more dynamic range (HDR = "high dynamic range") than a single image can capture. True HDR lets you see details in the highlights and shadows that simply would not be possible with a single capture.

dwterry wrote in post #11801356
Sure, you can mimic the "effect". But the original reason for shooting HDR is/was to capture more dynamic range (HDR = "high dynamic range") than a single image can capture. True HDR lets you see details in the highlights and shadows that simply would not be possible with a single capture.

How about if you was playing with the levels in PS for one image making three images the effect to me looks almost the same. IDK it's just me always trying to find ways to make things easy.

TONE2NICE wrote in post #11801451
How about if you was playing with the levels in PS for one image making three images the effect to me looks almost the same. IDK it's just me always trying to find ways to make things easy.

It may look similar, but if the data is not in the original image, you can't pull it out of thin air. People do this with RAW images too.. They'll generate multiple JPG's at a variety of exposure levels from an individual raw file. It still doesn't get you the missing data, and that's the point they're making. You're going to get data in a -2EV image that isn't going to exist at +-0EV, regardless of format.

For my money, most of the time pseudo-HDR looks just as good, but getting to the very core of HDR, you do need more than one exposure.

Guess that's back to the drawing board with me. Sometimes it sucks trying to take three images and having a model stand there just to hope all three images will link up together.

You're obviously not tweaking the settings in PhotoMatix and leaving it as default.

TONE2NICE wrote in post #11802574
Guess that's back to the drawing board with me. Sometimes it sucks trying to take three images and having a model stand there just to hope all three images will link up together.

Yeah, you actually have to set out to do Exposure bracketing for HDR -- otherwise yes you can take a stab at "Pseudo HDR" if you're shooting Raw -- you'll get better results than you would with just a jpeg for sure.

Swift wrote in post #11803092
You're obviously not tweaking the settings in PhotoMatix and leaving it as default.

None of these were defaults ... but they were all from presets. Both Nik HDR Efex Pro and Photomatix Pro have built-in presets and I picked a couple of similar ones and posted them.

This isn't meant to be the "last word" on HDR. Only a quick comparison of the two programs.

SnapLocally.com wrote in post #11800995
I'd be interested in seeing a properly exposed original for comparison sake if you could.

I loaded this image into Lightroom and clicked "Reset". No tweaking whatsoever.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.dterryphoto​graphy.com …ZDF#1181922694_​UtMuo-A-LB

the Hdr Efex Pro looks have more details compare to the Photometix one.

Am I correct on this?Photometix looks like more into softfocus based on your image.

tefu wrote in post #11806194
the Hdr Efex Pro looks have more details compare to the Photometix one.

Am I correct on this?Photometix looks like more into softfocus based on your image.

That was my conclusion as well. I've been a Photomatix Pro user for a very long time. And despite the cost of Nik HDR Efex Pro - I decided to buy it.