Cut to the Chase on HDR software!

07/24/2009 11:11:05 PM · #1

What is the general consensus recommendation by accomplished HDR users from this group for a particular HDR software choice for a PS CS4 and Lightroom II user?

I take landscape photographs under harsh desert lighting conditions and bringing out shadow and highlight detail is a significant problem. Speed and ease of use of the software are critical considerations. I intend to use HDR for it's intended purpose, NOT for use as a special effects filter. My expectation is that after use that no one would suspect that my final result was ever processed with HDR software.

Anyone who believes their choice might be best for my situation please list the reasons why.

Thanks very much

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

07/25/2009 01:26:43 AM · #2

I'm not an experienced user as I just started using Photomatix Pro 3. I bought it because it seems to give you that control to keep it "real". I do not use all the adjustments in it based on advice I have received elsewhere (it is best to then use PS for further refining) but there two main adjustment features that are very simple to use and you can definitely tone it down to get rid of that HDR look. I have been experimenting with taking one RAW photo and then processing it into 3 - 2 stop separations and saving as TIFFs in Lightroom and then running them through Photmatix. You can see the ones I just did at the link although I think they are still a bit strong. I believe most people who use HDR will still be able to tell they are HDR even if I toned them down more as the process gives you so much more detail in both shadow and highlight even without the grunge.

HDR Photos

Note that the first shot was very dull and washed out due to light conditions but I was still able to salvage it to some extent.

Message edited by author 2009-07-25 01:30:51.

gys

Canon EOS-7D

07/25/2009 02:38:16 AM · #3

Perhaps you should look at enfuse. It's not true HDR software, but may just be better suited to your needs. The software basically looks at multiple exposures of the same scene and uses an algorithm to choose the "best" pixel at every location. You end up with an image that consists of properly exposed highlight and shadow regions.

It is impossible to create the overprocessed HDR look with enfuse.

In it's basic form, it is a command line utility, but there are some GUI's also, like:
//software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/

I've only used it on the command line in linux, so I can't vouch for any GUI.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/25/2009 10:22:05 AM · #4

Photomatix tonemap+Silver Efex

No tonemap, or Silver Efex, but used B&W conversion from Nik Capture, which is a watered down version of Silver Efex.

My first tonemap. This was a single NEF tonemapped via Photomatix. Ignore the sky because this one that I uploaded was one that I was screwing around with selections in the sky.

Original image.

rkligman

Nikon D750

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for Nikon

07/25/2009 11:02:31 AM · #5

Photomatix for sure. You can take your image anywhere from super gritty (which you don't want) to very realistic in a variety of modes. I float in all directions and PM handles the task really well. OH, and if you shoot RAW, you can actually pull out detail from the Shadows that you never thought were possible in a single shot.

Here is my HDR gallery: //www.flickr.com/photos/rkligman/sets/72157604878820873/

Here's one like you were saying. A landscape that has light and dark but just looks like a normal image.
//farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3548218135_593aaa7080_o.jpg

Single RAW file shot into a bright sky. I got detail in the guns that were amazing:
//farm3.static.flickr.com/2619/3739236582_136220f983_o.jpg

07/25/2009 02:09:28 PM · #6

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Excellent images... very nice. The quality of your images is very high given your level of experience with Photomatix. I could not help but notice how much nicer the HDR ones you did look compared to other pictures at your site. Is Photomatix the difference or does new camera equipment and/or better technical skills contribute to the higher quality?

What you did with your images is similar to how I'd like mine to turn out. I noticed one shot had some muddiness in the clouds. Did you do "hand" tweaking after the HDR that might explain that, or was it the HDR that did it? Here is the picture:
Mountain with muddy clouds

07/25/2009 02:16:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by gys:

Perhaps you should look at enfuse. It's not true HDR software,...

I'm a little uncertain what you mean by not being "true" HDR. I've never heard of this product before but am skeptical about any command line application with a GUI front end. I've used Hugin for panoramas and it has GUI components to make it easier, but that still makes it harder to use.

Besides overcoming the "HDR look", what qualities does this product have that makes it stand out such that I would want to use it?

07/25/2009 02:31:03 PM · #8

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I like photomatix too. Even just tonemapping a single image you can get significant detail from super shadowy areas. I'm not terribly good at mult. exp. yet, but I'm learning and like the potential. If you're interested in doing any b&w landscapes, I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend Nik Silver Efex.

My first tonemap. This was a single NEF tonemapped via Photomatix. Ignore the sky because this one that I uploaded was one that I was screwing around with selections in the sky.

Original image.

Thanks for providing the before/after images. Photomatix did a very, very credible job recovering detail from a not particularly good original and it does not look "HDR".

I am into B&W and Nik Silver Efex sounds good but costs as much as Photomatix. I'm balking at Photomatix's $119 price tag as it is. :)

Anyone care to comment on Topaz Adjust?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/25/2009 02:43:54 PM · #9

Originally posted by rkligman:

I like your two examples. Your gallery for the most part, though, looks like HDR is being used as a special effects filter to me. I'm not interested in doing that.

My interest is in making fine art landscape prints more so than pure artworks per se. And I'd like HDR to be a quick, minor part of the workflow and not require a lot of extra tweaking. I would also be processing multiple images rather than a single image input since I'd have to prepare secondary images for that. Lightroom already does a pretty good job with tone adjusting single images.

Message edited by author 2009-07-25 14:44:48.

Stiger

Canon EOS-60D

07/25/2009 03:10:38 PM · #10

Originally posted by Artifacts:

I'm balking at Photomatix's $119 price tag as it is. :)

I didn't have a spare $100 for Photomatix either. So I went with Artizen HDR. I think it's 40 bucks and does a good job with HDR. Not quite as many little tweaks as Photomatix, but I like it (and the price).

There's a trial at the official site. www.supportingcomputers.net (which is down as I type this)

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

07/25/2009 03:50:39 PM · #11

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Thanks. I'm enjoying bringing out the quality that I see when I go up in the mountains in my photos. It is the Photomatix software that is making the difference as I was never able to get that quality of detail and depth in my shots before. Most of the shots on my site of late were with my D300 so it is not the gear although there were quite a few in my Mountaineering Class series that I used a P&S.

The muddiness or harshness in the clouds is definitely a result of pushing HDR a bit too far. You can keep it in control most of the time but I have already learned that it is something you have to watch. Hope that helps.

Edit: BTW - you can normally pick up Photmatix fro 15-25% off. Most seminars, association and the like have discount codes. I'll take a look around to see if I can find one for you.

Message edited by author 2009-07-25 16:02:09.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/25/2009 03:56:24 PM · #12

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

The muddiness or harshness in the clouds is definately a result of pushing HDR a bit to far. You can keep it in control most of the time but I have already learned that it is something you have to watch. Hope that helps.

A lot of the time, what I do is take a copy of the original that is correctly exposed for the light part of the clouds and layer it over the HDR/tone mapped layer, then set the layer mode to lighten. That tends to get rid of the muddiness. I'll erase everything but the area I'm interested in, of course.

R.

07/25/2009 04:03:12 PM · #13

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:
The muddiness or harshness in the clouds is definately a result of pushing HDR a bit to far. You can keep it in control most of the time but I have already learned that it is something you have to watch. Hope that helps.

A lot of the time, what I do is take a copy of the original that is correctly exposed for the light part of the clouds and layer it over the HDR/tone mapped layer, then set the layer mode to lighten. That tends to get rid of the muddiness. I'll erase everything but the area I'm interested in, of course.

R.

Hey thanks Bear! Good idea.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

07/26/2009 09:16:22 AM · #14

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That technique I plan to use myself, except I'll mask rather than erase.

Folks at Fred Miranda (The ones that don't think HDR repugnant, that is. LOL!!) recommend keeping all your input images as separate layers as well as your HDR in it's own layer and blending them through masking as needed.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/26/2009 01:30:47 PM · #15

Originally posted by Artifacts:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:
The muddiness or harshness in the clouds is definately a result of pushing HDR a bit to far. You can keep it in control most of the time but I have already learned that it is something you have to watch. Hope that helps.

A lot of the time, what I do is take a copy of the original that is correctly exposed for the light part of the clouds and layer it over the HDR/tone mapped layer, then set the layer mode to lighten. That tends to get rid of the muddiness. I'll erase everything but the area I'm interested in, of course.

R.

That technique I plan to use myself, except I'll mask rather than erase.

Folks at Fred Miranda (The ones that don't think HDR repugnant, that is. LOL!!) recommend keeping all your input images as separate layers as well as your HDR in it's own layer and blending them through masking as needed.

Masking is what I mean, of course... I'm just old-school enough to still think of it as "reversible erasing", LOL.

R.