| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2009 06:09:59 PM · #1 |
| I'm curious which method you folks prefer and have had better results with... tweaking bracketed exposures in Photomatix or combining shots/layers in Photoshop and "erasing" key elements. I remember Joey Lawrence discussing in his first DVD that he preferred the later but that was several years ago. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 06:17:30 PM · #2 |
photomatix! hands down. super easy and really effective. and it's not that expensive :)
of course, you'll still need to open up your image in photoshop and put on the finishing touches |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 06:40:55 PM · #3 |
Manual blending, if done properly, can produce natural looking images. I really dislike the cartoonish feel software like photomatix produces. To me both techniques have their places, but they really aren't comparable.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 18:44:34. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 06:45:38 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by prperold:
Manual blending, if done properly, can produce natural looking images. I really dislike the cartoonish feel software like photomatix produces. To me both techniques have their places, but they really aren't comparable. |
It all depends how you use photomatix, it can produce natural results easily enough |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 06:46:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by prperold:
Manual blending, if done properly, can produce natural looking images. I really dislike the cartoonish feel software like photomatix produces. To me both techniques have their places, but they really aren't the comparable. |
This is a MADDENING statement. We hear it all the time, from lots of people, and it's actually meaningless. The *reason* that cartoonish effect shows up is because people push the software with the specific *goal* of getting that effect. Used as designed, for the intended purpose, Photomatix and other HDR programs can, and do, produce very natural effects. It's all about moderation.
I've done plenty of "extreme" processing with Photomatix, of course, because I wanted to, but that was my choice, the software didn't force it on me at gunpoint or anything. Anyway, it's not the "HDR" part that's making the cartoons, it's the exaggerated application of the tone mapping that does it. And you can get the same extreme tone-mapped result without doing HDR at all, just by tone mapping a single original.
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 06:58:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by prperold:
Manual blending, if done properly, can produce natural looking images. I really dislike the cartoonish feel software like photomatix produces. To me both techniques have their places, but they really aren't the comparable. |
This is a MADDENING statement. We hear it all the time, from lots of people, and it's actually meaningless. The *reason* that cartoonish effect shows up is because people push the software with the specific *goal* of getting that effect. Used as designed, for the intended purpose, Photomatix and other HDR programs can, and do, produce very natural effects. It's all about moderation.
I've done plenty of "extreme" processing with Photomatix, of course, because I wanted to, but that was my choice, the software didn't force it on me at gunpoint or anything. Anyway, it's not the "HDR" part that's making the cartoons, it's the exaggerated application of the tone mapping that does it. And you can get the same extreme tone-mapped result without doing HDR at all, just by tone mapping a single original.
R. |
Yes, obviously if used very lightly, the effect isn't as evident. I'm just saying that 99% of the time it's obvious, and I don't like the way it looks. It's just my opinion. If one looks at photos by someone like Marc Adamus for example, it is hard to find evidence of manipulation, even though he definitely manually blends exposures. I personally struggle with exactly how far to push dynamic range. Not just how far, but also to push areas evenly. The uneven lighting I see so often just doesn't do it for me. I really did not intend to "madden" anyone, I just stated my opinion on the matter, and my preference. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:23:36 PM · #7 |
I find Photomatix (the most recent version, anyway) works best on three bracketed RAW files. The tonemapping it applies to the HDR image is a matter of taste, you can create a very natural-looking image, if you choose. Me, I tend to like the nice saturated, dramatic images you can see at this guy's blog/tutorial.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 07:35:10 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by prperold:
Yes, obviously if used very lightly, the effect isn't as evident. I'm just saying that 99% of the time it's obvious... |
I don't mean to be getting on your case, you just happen to be the one speaking up from this position right now. But *how* can you say that with a straight face? How do you get that figure? If it's NOT obvious, then you won't even be aware it was used. What you're saying is, "I don't like images that are tone mapped into cartoons, I prefer a more natural look." And I'm 100% behind that, I completely understand that this is your preference.
But for me, statements like yours are in the category of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's TONS of high-quality, natural-looking HDR work out there, that you wouldn't even know was HDR if you weren't told, and Photomatix is the software of choice for a lot of it.
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 08:51:17 PM · #9 |
Whoa! Didn't mean to start any turf wars, haha!
Great tips guys thank you - playing with Photomatix trial now! |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 08:58:40 PM · #10 |
I use photomatix... depending on the image, sometimes I push it, and sometimes I don't...
here are some images I made using photomatix in which I really pushed the "cartoonish" feel...
Some like it, some don't... I like to have some available ay my local gallery because it gives the customers a choice... I tend to sell more of the ones with the cartoonish feel to them...
here are some exaples of photomatix "cartoonish" tonemapping at work:
.
.
.
.
.
.
BUT If you don't like that cartoonish feel, do it anyways and convert them to black and white (and even adding a tint helps too...)
.
.
.
.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 21:10:31. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:03:54 PM · #11 |
| Personally I prefer manual blending, but it's all personal taste. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:10:13 PM · #12 |
Here are some more from a trip I took in the summer to Quebec, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island...
Just some more samples of photomatix/tone-mapping at work...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:12:44 PM · #13 |
hdr thread?? all done with photomatix :)
   |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:26:14 PM · #14 |
These are all great examples of what prperold does NOT like about HDR, actually :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:30:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
These are all great examples of what prperold does NOT like about HDR, actually :-)
R. |
.
just for comparison, I have my dislikes for the cartoonish feel too, but as seen in my first post, the cartoonish look can look kinda cool when converted to black and white... |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:31:01 PM · #16 |
This one's a little less extreme:
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:33:28 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This one's a little less extreme:
R. |
.
This is a great example! Nice work! |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:33:37 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's TONS of high-quality, natural-looking HDR work out there, that you wouldn't even know was HDR if you weren't told, and Photomatix is the software of choice for a lot of it.
|
Absolutely right. Some of the examples posted in this thread appear to obviously use HDR processing, but there are many images we see every day where it is used subtly enough that you can't tell. This is especially true when a tone mapped image is blended with a +1EV, 0EV or-1EV capture, as I did in this example.
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:45:33 PM · #19 |
A HDR is just the ability to capture all the info, Tonemap is what you turn the image into. I use Photomatix and
sometimes go over the top, but usually just try to get all the info without blowing out the highlights. Like
I said...it is up to you what you do with all the data.
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 21:46:23. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:08:03 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by prperold:
Yes, obviously if used very lightly, the effect isn't as evident. I'm just saying that 99% of the time it's obvious... |
I don't mean to be getting on your case, you just happen to be the one speaking up from this position right now. But *how* can you say that with a straight face? How do you get that figure? If it's NOT obvious, then you won't even be aware it was used. What you're saying is, "I don't like images that are tone mapped into cartoons, I prefer a more natural look." And I'm 100% behind that, I completely understand that this is your preference.
But for me, statements like yours are in the category of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's TONS of high-quality, natural-looking HDR work out there, that you wouldn't even know was HDR if you weren't told, and Photomatix is the software of choice for a lot of it.
R. |
what bear said.
if used properly it is very difficult to say if photomatix was used.
i use photomatix now very regularly and i like it very much. It balances exposure much better than shadwo highlight tool and thus it is my first step in workflow.
here are two examples , photomatix was used, see if someone can be 99% sure about what was used:
this one was under harsh sun light (from photo it is not avident)
//farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/3957070053_e431a97282_o.jpg
This one is from Nara japan, very badly exposed photo, but photomatix did wonders with it.
//farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3621151441_e91a13fc20_o.jpg
Message edited by author 2009-11-09 22:09:12. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 10:15:45 PM · #21 |
| I think Topaz is overused just as much as Photomatix, looks just as bad. |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:05:33 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
11/09/2009 11:13:12 PM · #23 |
.
Thanks Rob! Awesome Artice! I bookmarked it and will definitely refer to it next time I open up photomatix =) |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 01:13:13 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This one's a little less extreme:
R. |
Ok ok, point taken on the fact that I won't be aware of when it is done subtly and really well. Your shot is a great example. But when looking through his thread, this is the only shot that isn't easy to spot :) I took a look through the HDR challenge of a while back, and there are manually blended shots that look like they were generated with software as well, like this one  , while this manually blended shot is more my type of thing  . The winner of the challenge,  , is an example of where hdr software is used quite well, however, the trees to the left and the foreground rock does give it away and in my opinion takes away from a beautiful natural scene. So I suppose it does come down to the user. I definitely concede that used correctly it has its merits, but whether it's 99% or less of the time, the aggressively tone mapped shots show up in abundance all over the internet. Many times I have seen hdr (heavily pushed) shots that look really cool, like this  , but it falls in a totally different category to the more natural type of photography. What I dislike about it the most, is that I have seen so many brilliant shots messed up by aggressive use of hdr software. Now I suppose "messed up" is subjective. I also suppose these people probably would have "messed" the shot "up" with manual blending as well, since they like the over-processed look.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 01:32:26 AM · #25 |
| Ok I just downloaded the trial photomatix yesterday and dont really know what alot about tone mapping but do you guys take like 3 different shot at different exposures or do you just change the one photo with different expourses in PS? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 12:49:03 PM EDT.
