Photomatix pro V 2.5 Released - DPChallenge Forums

07/22/2007 05:23:38 PM · #1

I just got mail from Photomatix, they have a free ugrade to V 2.5 available for registered users. It's seriously improved. Read the following page for details:

Photomatix Pro V 2.5

R.

Strikeslip

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/22/2007 05:28:48 PM · #2

Coolio. I'm not on the mailing list, though I bought it. Downloading and will try it out.

Thanks for the heads-up, Bear!

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

07/22/2007 05:41:08 PM · #3

Yeah, got it last night. Bear, have you tried it? I haven't had time. Is it much better really?

Strikeslip

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/22/2007 05:53:15 PM · #4

I just took a look. More sliders under tabs, which I like. Still, the main item on my wishlist is a "Preview" which fits my screen. The 1024 preview is tiny on my laptop's 1920x1200 screen. :-P

IMO, it's worth the download & install.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

07/22/2007 05:54:22 PM · #5

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Shoot portrait instead of landscape - makes it "look bigger" :)

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

07/22/2007 06:11:50 PM · #6

I always begin to shudder when I hear the word Photomatix. In my opinion a completely overrated filter and waste of money. I had it for a while about two years ago but deleted it soon after I got it. If you ask me use the money to buy a few crates of beer, you'll get more benefit from them than buying Photomatix. Sorry, that's just what I think about this whole tone-mapping gimmickery.

07/22/2007 06:58:09 PM · #7

Originally posted by ursula:

Yeah, got it last night. Bear, have you tried it? I haven't had time. Is it much better really?

Yes, way better. Let's you individually control smoothness and saturation in shadows and highlights separately, and a bunch of other goodies besides.

R.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

07/22/2007 07:00:06 PM · #8

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Sheesh Gary, tell us what you really think... I'll admit a lot of so-called "tone mapping" is overdone gimmickry, but that isn't what the program is designed for. And it's the best I've seen at doing really high-end MDR merging in pursuit of natural rendition of extremely luminous scenes...

R.

terje

Apple iPhone

07/22/2007 07:09:56 PM · #9

Originally posted by kiwiness:

I rarely agree with you Gary - but you nailed this one. I'm in the same boat here. HDR has no appeal to me, and having spent quite a few days playing with this, I agree with you.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

07/22/2007 07:16:15 PM · #10

Originally posted by terje:

Originally posted by kiwiness:
I always begin to shudder when I hear the word Photomatix. In my opinion a completely overrated filter and waste of money. I had it for a while about two years ago but deleted it soon after I got it. If you ask me use the money to buy a few crates of beer, you'll get more benefit from them than buying Photomatix. Sorry, that's just what I think about this whole tone-mapping gimmickery.

I rarely agree with you Gary - but you nailed this one. I'm in the same boat here. HDR has no appeal to me, and having spent quite a few days playing with this, I agree with you.

Well, I'm a latecommer to the HDR thing, didn't have Photomatix two years ago, but I sort of figure that as fast as things change in this day and age, maybe what you guys tried out 2 years ago isn't exactly the same as what it is today. Just a thought.

I do not care for the "HDR look", but I also think that is is quite a useful filter at times, in particular if you use it judiciously. I'd be surprised if you guys could pick out consistently which images are photomatixed and which aren't. :)

Message edited by author 2007-07-22 19:23:33.

07/22/2007 07:28:07 PM · #11

Gary, is this image "gimmickry" in your opinion?

Here's the unmanipulated original:

07/22/2007 07:29:11 PM · #12

Originally posted by ursula:

I do not care for the "HDR look", but I also think that is is quite a useful filter at times, if you use it judiciously. I'd be surprised if you guys could pick out consistently which images are tone-mapped and which aren't. :)

Especially since CS2 and CS3 Shadow/Highlight adjustment is Photoshop's version of tone mapping; and just like Photomatix tone mapping, it can be (and often is) abused. But I can't imagine any serious Photoshop user not availing himself of S/H to help balance the darks and brights in difficult scenes.

If it was ONLY a matter of tone mapping I wouldn't be using Photomatix now that I have CS2, but when I acquired it I was still in PS7 and THAT didn't have the S/H adjustment. But in my personal landscape work I do a lot of HDR merging to control extremely broad tonal ranges, via multiple exposures of the same scene, and Photomatix is quite a bit better at this than is Photoshop's "merge to HDR" tool, IMO.

R.

Strikeslip

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/22/2007 08:25:56 PM · #13

Originally posted by kiwiness:

... use the money to buy a few crates of beer, you'll get more benefit from them than buying Photomatix...

I'll take the beer AND Photomatix. I find they go together very well. ;-)

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

07/22/2007 08:48:37 PM · #14

Originally posted by kiwiness:

So, are you saying you DO like tone mapping or you DON'T like tone mapping??

Tell us how you really feel! ;-)

I've used it a few times with good results. Just another tool in the digital arsenal.

digitalpins

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/22/2007 09:26:27 PM · #15

thanks for the info on the new version bear I have it for my Mac now...

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

07/23/2007 03:28:14 AM · #16

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by kiwiness:
I always begin to shudder when I hear the word Photomatix. In my opinion a completely overrated filter and waste of money. I had it for a while about two years ago but deleted it soon after I got it. If you ask me use the money to buy a few crates of beer, you'll get more benefit from them than buying Photomatix. Sorry, that's just what I think about this whole tone-mapping gimmickery.

So, are you saying you DO like tone mapping or you DON'T like tone mapping??

Tell us how you really feel! ;-)

I've used it a few times with good results. Just another tool in the digital arsenal.

I am saying I don't like tone mapping. When I first got the filter it was "wow" this can do cool stuff and I used it on almost everything I did. Back then it was quite new and one could impress people with the effects, but after a little while it lost its flair. Nowadays you see it used very often and usually it is used far too extremely, virtually destroying the original image at the same time.

I think that the best way to use the Photomatix filter is in such a way that the viewer of the image has no idea that it has been used. In very small quantities the tone mapping filter can be used effectively, but 90% of the time users just push those sliders to the limits and ruin their images.

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/23/2007 03:55:11 AM · #17

can you show some examples Gary? I have no clue what this does.

kiwiness

Canon Canon 1d x Mark II

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

07/23/2007 06:04:21 AM · #18

Originally posted by biteme:

can you show some examples Gary? I have no clue what this does.

Sure... here is an example of an image completely ruined by tone mapping:

Tonemapped

bassbone

Nikon Z8

07/23/2007 06:42:32 AM · #19

I agree with you Robert, the new PhMatix2.5 is much better. I tried it on a few shots from Hawai'i and the new effects provide a lot more control so that images don't look like they are HDR...

emlbaker

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/23/2007 07:16:07 AM · #20

Depending on the content of the shot, IMO the visible effects of the tone mapping can add to the overall awe of the shot. Of course this is not the case with all shots, but I have seen some amazing HDR's mapped with some very contrasting tones and have thought them spectacular.

These are generally shots that have a foreground main subject with a brilliant sky as the backdrop. These come out great when mapped well.

Here is one example of what I consider a great HDR mapped. Awesome image well processed IMO

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

07/23/2007 09:01:12 AM · #21

emlbaker=
//www.pixelpix.com.au/images/antileach.gif
kiwiness=
You don't have permission to access /soft/images/digital-foto-part3/photomatix.jpg on this server

emlbaker

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/23/2007 09:16:40 AM · #22

Originally posted by pcody:

emlbaker=
//www.pixelpix.com.au/images/antileach.gif
kiwiness=
You don't have permission to access /soft/images/digital-foto-part3/photomatix.jpg on this server

Sorry try this one. The image I refer to is the Member Choice Award Winner at the bottom of the page.....

The Klondike - Queenscliff

Didn't realise that only members could view the images from member galleries.

Message edited by author 2007-07-23 09:17:32.

AJSullivan

07/23/2007 09:17:10 AM · #23

Originally posted by pcody:

emlbaker=
//www.pixelpix.com.au/images/antileach.gif
kiwiness=
You don't have permission to access /soft/images/digital-foto-part3/photomatix.jpg on this server

Cody - for Kiwi's image, just copy and paste the url, it works that way. Probably the same with the Emlbaker link.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

07/23/2007 12:45:07 PM · #24

Originally posted by kiwiness:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by kiwiness:
I always begin to shudder when I hear the word Photomatix. In my opinion a completely overrated filter and waste of money. I had it for a while about two years ago but deleted it soon after I got it. If you ask me use the money to buy a few crates of beer, you'll get more benefit from them than buying Photomatix. Sorry, that's just what I think about this whole tone-mapping gimmickery.

So, are you saying you DO like tone mapping or you DON'T like tone mapping??

Tell us how you really feel! ;-)

I've used it a few times with good results. Just another tool in the digital arsenal.

I am saying I don't like tone mapping. When I first got the filter it was "wow" this can do cool stuff and I used it on almost everything I did. Back then it was quite new and one could impress people with the effects, but after a little while it lost its flair. Nowadays you see it used very often and usually it is used far too extremely, virtually destroying the original image at the same time.

I think that the best way to use the Photomatix filter is in such a way that the viewer of the image has no idea that it has been used. In very small quantities the tone mapping filter can be used effectively, but 90% of the time users just push those sliders to the limits and ruin their images.

Gary,

I couldn't agree more.

Here are a couple where the tone mapping worked out well

and

especially when you consider the original straight from the camera

Here's one that didn't work out so well.

Even though I intentionally went overboard on the tone mapping.

As with noise reduction or any other filter, less is more in most cases.