Why (auto) HDR inherently sucks

[Nikolai]

Well, the answer is simple: it's "auto", hence it's ultimately stupid....:dunno

Let's have it: what is an HDR from a purely mathematical standpoint? A meager attempt to take a collection of 32-bit floating point numbers representing each pixel and put them into a similarly sized collection of 16-bit (or even 8-bit) integers.

Ever tried to pour 32 ounces of liquid into 8 ounces glass? Well, if you did, you'd know: 75% of your liquid is gonna spill. Now, the important questions is - which part?
If we were talking a real uniform liquid, or, in photographics terms, 50% gray image, we wouldn't care. But the whole point of taking an HDR image is to have most of the pixels different. Hence, we're up to a certain Sophie's choice. We have to sacrifice 3 out of each 4 pixels. And what tool do we have for it? Well, the best case scenario - one "local adaptation" curve. Which, mind you, doesn't care about channels, or where the particular pixel is located - on the face of a beautiful girl or on the undercarriage of the dirty car. All it cares is about the luminosity (combined RGB) value. No wonder every auto-HDR-ed image has this typical "HDR look", similar to one you get if you get too far with "shadows/highlights" slider (this analogy is actually very accurate). Random pixels all over the image suddenly change their luminosity value, resulting into those lame and totally unnatural grayish shadows, what I call a "corpse look".:dunno Of course, it can be great for special effects (especially in advent of Halloween;-), but hey, so is the "rubber stamp", and the whole set of "artistic filters".

Way out? Forget the HDR tool. Use old good layers and masks. It's not really that hard. You, as the photographer, know precisely what should be dark and what should be bright. The tool doesn't know, and what's worse, it doesn't care. You know, and you care - hence more power to you! :thumb

HTH

[jogle]

there's nothing stopping them using a 32bit raw format and setting the black and white points so that there is more info in the seemingly blown out whites and details in the seemingly crushed blacks. They could even use the openEXR format which is in heavy use in film post production for doing just that. Your images are stored in 0 - 1 values. 0 being black and 1 being white. By using a true 32bit float, you can have values over 1 and values under 0.

[Nikolai]

there's nothing stopping them using a 32bit raw format and setting the black and white points so that there is more info in the seemingly blown out whites and details in the seemingly crushed blacks. They could even use the openEXR format which is in heavy use in film post production for doing just that. Your images are stored in 0 - 1 values. 0 being black and 1 being white. By using a true 32bit float, you can have values over 1 and values under 0.
True.. But... As of now there is no mainstream hardware (cameras) or software that would provide a possibility of true 32-bit workflow. RAW data are 14-bit at best and even in PS most of the tools woul not work in 32-bit mode, thus rendering it fairly uselss. I'm not even talking about print side of the story...:dunno

[Rhuarc]

I actually have a few HDR images that I need to put together soon, any good advice or tutorials on the best way to do this using masks? I mean what type of feathering and brushes do you use?

Thanks!

[Nikolai]

I actually have a few HDR images that I need to put together soon, any good advice or tutorials on the best way to do this using masks? I mean what type of feathering and brushes do you use?

Thanks!
Simply load them in layers, add masks, start with general gradients, then use large soft brushes . It's really faster/easier to do than to explain.

[Rhuarc]

Simply load them in layers, add masks, start with general gradients, then use large soft brushes . It's really faster/easier to do than to explain.

LoL, ok, will do! :D I hope you are right!

[kdog]

No wonder every auto-HDR-ed image has this typical "HDR look", similar to one you get if you get too far with "shadows/highlights" slider (this analogy is actually very accurate). Random pixels all over the image suddenly change their luminosity value, resulting into those lame and totally unnatural grayish shadows, what I call a "corpse look".:dunno
Hi Nikolai,

Does this one have the "corpse-look" you described?
http://www.jacara.com/cpg144/albums/dgrin_moab/IMG_1271_2_3.jpg

Cause if it does, then I guess I like the corpse look. Tools like Photomatix are becoming extremely popular, even with some very excellent photographers. So you're saying they're all producing bad images? :scratch I mean you did say "every".

And honestly, I think you've greatly oversimplified what these tools do. There are 15 sliders and other adjusters in the Photomatix Tone Mapping/Details Enhancer tool alone, the combination of which provides an infinite amount of adjustability. And that doesn't even include similar sets of controls in the tone compressor, or exposure-blending tools. Fortunately, like any other tool, you develop your own style and ways of using it so that you don't have to tweak every control every time. Eventually, your techniques evolve and hopefully improve. I'm in the embryonic stages with what you call "auto-hdr", and so far I'm digging it. Can I do the same thing with layer masks and brushes? Possibly, but certainly not as quickly and with the repeatability that a tool like Photomatix gives you.

I mean, how would you make your clouds look like this using layer masks and brushes? You'd be at it for a very long time, but it only took seconds to do in Photomatix.
http://www.jacara.com/cpg144/albums/dgrin_moab/IMG_1013_4_5.jpg
Of course, one might argue why would you want to make your clouds look like that, and that's a different argument. However, it's what I wanted in this shot, and I think it's a fair representation of the actual scene. I think there's a LOT that these tools give you that really cannot be accomplished any other way. You mentioned the holloween-look. So what's wrong with that if it's what you want? :dunno

These auto-HDR tools are like anything else -- just another tool in your collection which you can draw upon, depending on what you want to accomplish.

Just my 2 centavos. :1drink
Cheers,
-joel

[Rhuarc]

Here is a question, do the Photomatix plugins for CS3/CS4 give the smae tools as the stand alone program? I would like to do everything from one program if able.

[kdog]

Here is a question, do the Photomatix plugins for CS3/CS4 give the smae tools as the stand alone program? I would like to do everything from one program if able.
From their website:


Differences standalone Photomatix Pro versus Plug-In

Photomatix Pro is a standalone application. It includes HDR Tone Mapping and Exposure Blending among other features. Images produced with Photomatix Pro can be further processed in any image editing application. The Tone Mapping Plug-In is a plug-in. It offers only one Tone Mapping method and works within Photoshop CS2, CS3 or CS4.

Advantages of Tone Mapping with the plug-in
- You don't have to leave Photoshop

Advantages of Tone Mapping with Photomatix Pro
- Integration with easy-to-use Batch Processing
- Ability to tone map larger HDR image files (the plug-in is limited to sizes between 30 and 40 MegaPixels).
- No need to change the bit-depth of the 32-bit HDR image after tone mapping.
- No need to adjust the exposure when Tone Mapping is applied directly after creating HDR image (with the plug-in, tone mapped image may show black artifacts when an incorrect 32-bit preview option is assigned by Photoshop).

[jasonstone]

It's really faster/easier to do than to explain.

I'd have to politely disagree on that point...

Everything is black magic until someone takes the time to step you through it for the first time - then you say to yourself - "oh yes! of course! it's obvious now..." However, until then it's about as clear as mud

Maybe a tutorial somewhere would give people, myself included, a better idea of what you mean. I have an inkling (a really small one) of what you're hinting at, but I don't see how I could do a HDR effect processing just using layers in PS.

Or maybe a comparison of Photomatix HDR vs PS Layer processing - that'd be really interesting to see!

Cheers, Jase

[Dee]

No wonder every auto-HDR-ed image has this typical "HDR look", similar to one you get if you get too far with "shadows/highlights" slider (this analogy is actually very accurate).

I love HDR, "IF" done properly, the idea is to make it look "natural." I often think of "going too far" with shadow/highlight as not going far enough. Some people tend to go with the default which leaves a decided halo on the contrasty edges. I find pulling the sliders all the way to the right works much better than leaving them to the left.

I haven't used an HDR program, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. I usually use shadow/highlight, masking, curves, sometimes levels, and a lot of hue/saturation to get my point across, and then more masking. This is working in .jpg, not raw.

Kdog, your photos look fine, except for the clouds, a little too much "blue" in the gray, and too much of that particular shade of blue in the sky. I'm not sure if you are emphasizing the scenery with the red rocks, or are emphasizing the clouds, just my opinion, but I think less blue in the clouds and the sky would still give the emphasis you are wanting. But, that's just my opinion :rofl

I do love the yellow trees! That looks totally natural to me and believable.

[Nikolai]

Joel:
you're totally missed my point, my dear F-stop :-)
I specifically mentioned I was not taling using HDR tool as a special effect one.
What I was talking about its inherent inability to make correct adjustments based on the image content (i.e. pixel value AND position) rather than on the pixel luminosity values only.

And you're obviously mistaken saying it takes a long time doing through layers, masks and brushes. It doesn't. In fact, it's MUCH FASTER than going through HDR mode, and at the same time you are in complete control.


Jase:
did you actually try to follow those simple steps I suggested to Rhuarc? Because if not, no collection of internet tutorials will help. :dunno At some point you have to stop reading and start doing. :wink

[Nikolai]

I haven't used an HDR program, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. I usually use shadow/highlight, masking, curves, sometimes levels, and a lot of hue/saturation to get my point across, and then more masking. This is working in .jpg, not raw.

Hi Dee, :-)
I wasn't talking about high dynamic range imagery in general.
I was referring specifically to an HDR tool :deal . I should've being even more specific and say that I'm referring to Photoshop HDR tool. :wink

[jasonstone]

Jase:
did you actually try to follow those simple steps I suggested to Rhuarc? Because if not, no collection of internet tutorials will help. :dunno At some point you have to stop reading and start doing. :wink

I'm doing alright - but I don't know exactly how to do what you're suggesting... like i said black magic until you've seen it once or done it

Do I have darkest exposure on the bottom? regular exposure in middle? over expose on top?

Do I use blending layers??? to try and get some detail out of each layer?

If I want the dark layer (assuming on the bottom) to show through do I need to make a layer selection on both top two layers?

I'm not a photoshop layer expert and maybe that's why I don't know exactly how to approach what you're suggestion.

I'm more than willing to give it a try once I know though!

Try anything once! :D

Cheers, Jase

[pathfinder]

Jason, blending two images - one lights and one darks ( they can be two versions from a single RAW file ) is straightforward, and the tutorial is here - http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1856992

Basically you use a mask to reveal one of the images by painting with the brush using black or white ink on the mask layer - black reveals and white conceals.

[Nikolai]

I'm doing alright - but I don't know exactly how to do what you're suggesting... like i said black magic until you've seen it once or done it

Do I have darkest exposure on the bottom? regular exposure in middle? over expose on top?

Do I use blending layers??? to try and get some detail out of each layer?

If I want the dark layer (assuming on the bottom) to show through do I need to make a layer selection on both top two layers?

I'm not a photoshop layer expert and maybe that's why I don't know exactly how to approach what you're suggestion.

I'm more than willing to give it a try once I know though!

Try anything once! :D

Cheers, Jase

Jase,
the funny fact is - it really doesn't matter. :deal :wink

Start with just two exposures - one darker, one brighter.
Load them as two layers, doesn't matter in which order.
Add a layer mask to the upper one
Select linear gradient tool
Switch to default colors (black and white, doesn't matter which is which)
Draw an approximately vertical line across the whole image, say from top to bottom
If the effect is opposite to what you expect, draw it again, now in opposite direction (from bottom to top).
That's all.:winkOnce you get a grasp of it, you will decided which way is more comfortable/logical for you to arrange the files, etc.

[Nikolai]

Jason, blending two images - one lights and one darks ( they can be two versions from a single RAW file ) is straightforward, and the tutorial is here - http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1856992

Basically you use a mask to reveal one of the images by painting with the brush using black or white ink on the mask layer - black reveals and white conceals.
Thanks, Jim! :thumb Keep forgetting about those.:wink :rofl

[kdog]

Joel:
you're totally missed my point, my dear F-stop :-)
I specifically mentioned I was not taling using HDR tool as a special effect one.
What I was talking about its inherent inability to make correct adjustments based on the image content (i.e. pixel value AND position) rather than on the pixel luminosity values only.

And you're obviously mistaken saying it takes a long time doing through layers, masks and brushes. It doesn't. In fact, it's MUCH FASTER than going through HDR mode, and at the same time you are in complete control.
"F-stop to Aperture, come in please." :giggle

Actually, I was talking about blending exposures, not special effects. The example I gave was the clouds. Storm clouds often have a fairly wide dynamic range that cannot be completely captured by the camera. So manually blending them from multiple exposures would be quite tedious, no? You might have parts of each individual cloud from each of three images. The HDR treatment of clouds is a big part of its appeal for me.

[Nikolai]

"F-stop to Aperture, come in please." :giggle

Actually, I was talking about blending exposures, not special effects. The example I gave was the clouds. Storm clouds often have a fairly wide dynamic range that cannot be completely captured by the camera. So manually blending them from multiple exposures would be quite tedious, no? You might have parts of each individual cloud from each of three images. The HDR treatment of clouds is a big part of its appeal for me.
"DUDE!" :-)
OK, hear me out. I'm not denying the need of blending multiple (usually bracketed) exposures together. All I'm saying that at the current state of technology, while most of the tools are incapable of processing HDR files (like those 32-bit ones) the automatic conversion of 32-bit image to 16- or 8-bit one that doesn't take the spatial properties into consideration inherently sucks. You can have similarly bright pixel both in sky area and in canyon area. Automatic process doesn't care WHERE it is, only HOW BRIGHT it is. Hence it would try to adjust ALL pixels with the same level of BRIGHTNESS. Which is wrong, imho, since simialrly bright pixels in different image areas MUST be treated differently.
That's why I suggest doing it manually with layers and masks.
Otherwise you get that infamous "corpse look". :dunno :wink

[Nikolai]

OK, folks, allow me to demonstrate.

1: Here are three bracketed exposures from Castle Rock, Sedona, AZ

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/405699273_PApmt-XL.jpg

2: If you use Photoshop|Merge to HDR approach you'll about to wait for two lengthy conversion processes and then fiddle with one rather unintuitive curve. On my 3 year old machine (which is still OK, since it was pretty good when it was young) it takes about 5 minutes and ends up in somthing like this:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/405699181_p6srF-XL.jpg

3: Now, if I simply load the files as layers, add masks and do the whole gradient/briush thingie, it takes less than two minutes and the result is as follows:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/405699328_25yaZ-XL.jpg

Which, from my perspective, is much closer to what I saw with my own eyes that lovely morning and what IMHO, is what all this HDR talk is about: compensate for camera/software imperfection and bring back the original impression.
No "corpse effect", fast and very effective. :deal
Yes, you can probably get away with extra $99 and 15 sliders, but let me ask you: why?:scratch

[jdryan3]

You kids stop it right this instant!
F-Stop! Stop teasing your brother - you KNOW he is sensitive to this. You just enjoy picking at that scab.:poke

And Aperature, we know how much you hate technology and think CS4 is a delusion. See? Your PO'd at just that joke. RELAX! Auto-gray scale still sucks but a lot of people do it and are happy. Or use it as a jumping off point for greater things. You know F-Stop loves to needle you, and yet you let him get under your skin every time.:beatwax

Sheesh! The newbies would never know you guys are actually friends..:sweet


:bad :bad :bad

[Nikolai]

Sheesh! The newbies would never know you guys are actually friends..:sweet

:bad :bad :bad

:lol3
Always good when Uncle Shutter comes, even if nobody cried uncle yet :wink

BTW that probably was the only frameset fom CR where you were NOT in the frame, DUDE! :wink

[kdog]

BTW that probably was the only frameset fom CR where you were NOT in the frame, DUDE! :wink

:rolleyes
http://www.jacara.com/cpg144/albums/dgrin_moab/IMG_0766_7_8.jpg

:D

[jdryan3]

Not really more seriously, but Marc Muench did a session on exposure blending using quick selections and refining the edge. Pathfinder has a post here (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=839977&postcount=3) that covers the basics. I have to check my notes, but Marc tweaked the settings a little differently, especially on expanding the mask by 200 pixels. (I couldn't find a post by Marc on this, so maybe has his settings.)

And you can easily go crazy with different ways (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=109658) to get to the same place. Especially with Photoshop. The point being it doesn't matter as long as you get the results you want with a workflow you are comfortable with.

[Nikolai]

Not really more seriously, but Marc Muench did a session on exposure blending using quick selections and refining the edge.
Marc was addressing slightly different issue with high contrast edges. I'm talking about fairly simple case.
And, btw, F-stop, your last shot of the Nothern Window is an exact example of the "corpse effect" coming from a luminance-only based automatic HDR approach :deal :wink

[devbobo]

Hi Dee, :-)
I wasn't talking about high dynamic range imagery in general.
I was referring specifically to an HDR tool :deal . I should've being even more specific and say that I'm referring to Photoshop HDR tool. :wink

Nik,

That's because the Photoshop HDR tool is totally shite....using any other method is going to be better.

[jogle]

snip....

3: Now, if I simply load the files as layers, add masks and do the whole gradient/briush thingie, it takes less than two minutes and the result is as follows:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/405699328_25yaZ-XL.jpg

Which, from my perspective, is much closer to what I saw with my own eyes that lovely morning and what IMHO, is what all this HDR talk is about: compensate for camera/software imperfection and bring back the original impression.
No "corpse effect", fast and very effective. :deal
Yes, you can probably get away with extra $99 and 15 sliders, but let me ask you: why?:scratch

I'm sorry but this looks like the fake one to me. why is the reflection of the sky in the water brighter then the sky it's self?

The first thing that bugs me in any kind of HDR image is if there is something in the frame that is brighter then what it's being lit by.

[pathfinder]

Is PS4's auto HDR any better than CS3's?

I have Marc's numbers, and will make them available. I like them sometimes, but for sharp margins, sometimes I prefer others:dunno

[Nikolai]

Is PS4's auto HDR any better than CS3's?Nope :dunno
And I don't think any automatic method is gonna be better....

[devbobo]

Nope :dunno
And I don't think any automatic method is gonna be better....
nik,

actually I beg to differ on that point. I took the image above (only had a small rez version) and chopped up the 3 images...and ran it through 'Exposure Blending' in Photomatix. The first 3 have the default settings and the final one i tweaked a bit.

Personally, I think the 4th version is far more realistic than your PS version...but of course I wasn't there

http://devbobo.smugmug.com/photos/405761381_RD4P8-X3.jpg

[devbobo]

I wasn't happy with the colour/lightness of the rocks in the previous version, so here's a different version...

http://devbobo.smugmug.com/photos/405768520_dQZDF-L.png

[jdryan3]

I have Marc's numbers, and will make them available. I like them sometimes, but for sharp margins, sometimes I prefer others:dunno

On a related note, do you remember when Dave Porter was doing his focus alignment piece, he mentioned to do an Edit->Auto-Align Layers. In that tool there are 4 options: Auto, Perspective, Cylindrical, and Reposition Only. I think :scratch he chose Auto, but I could be wrong.

Nik, do you remember? And yes I know CS4 has a tool built in for focus blending :D

[Nikolai]

On a related note, do you remember when Dave Porter was doing his focus alignment piece, he mentioned to do an Edit->Auto-Align Layers. In that tool there are 4 options: Auto, Perspective, Cylindrical, and Reposition Only. I think :scratch he chose Auto, but I could be wrong.

Nik, do you remember? And yes I know CS4 has a tool built in for focus blending :D
David, he was using Auto.
And don't forget, in CS4 you have Focus Stacking auto-blend mode:-)

[jasonstone]

Jason, blending two images - one lights and one darks ( they can be two versions from a single RAW file ) is straightforward, and the tutorial is here - http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1856992

Basically you use a mask to reveal one of the images by painting with the brush using black or white ink on the mask layer - black reveals and white conceals.


Ah ha! Part of the puzzle solved! :wink

See here I was thinking HDR - therefore 3 exposures and i was wondering how I would blend 3 layers with layer masks and somehow not have to do layer mask on _two_ top layers to get the bottom one to show through.

Will give it a try sometime soon

Cheers, Jase

[LiquidAir]

Ah ha! Part of the puzzle solved! :wink

See here I was thinking HDR - therefore 3 exposures and i was wondering how I would blend 3 layers with layer masks and somehow not have to do layer mask on _two_ top layers to get the bottom one to show through.

Will give it a try sometime soon

Cheers, Jase

With 3 layers I generally put the middle exposure in back with the dark and the light on top with transparent masks. Then I can paint darker in one mask and paint lighter in the other.

When I want an effect akin to what you would get in Photomatrix, I duplicate the middle exposure, convert it to B&W, apply a moderately large radius surface blur and then apply it to the two masks (inverting for the dark layer). Then I use curves in the two masks to get the image roughly where I want it and touch it up with the paint brush. When my life settles down a bit, I'll write a tutorial on this.

As for local adaption in Photoshop, all it does is apply a curve to fit the source dynamic range into the target (32bit -> 16bit or 32bit -> 8bit) and then use USM to bring back some of the smaller scale contrast. With some images USM works quite well for local contrast enhancement and for those the Photoshop HDR works quite well. Here is an example:
http://gallery.liquidairphoto.com/photos/202007177_YkPrK-L-1.jpg
With this image I used the USM built into Local Adaption to take the image from 32 bits to 16 and then ran a few more passes with different radii to bring back detail at different scales. The reason it works here is that there are high contrast details throughout the image which suppress the sharpening halos. For a different image the same procedure would have made hash out of it.

[kdog]

And, btw, F-stop, your last shot of the Nothern Window is an exact example of the "corpse effect" coming from a luminance-only based automatic HDR approach :deal :wink
I agree with that. There are some shots where manually combining exposures would work better. On the other hand, I notice you didn't comment on my other two shots I posted above, so I'm assuming you found no "corpse effect" with them. Point being, in most cases I find Photomatix does the right thing.

Cheers,
-joel

[Nikolai]

I agree with that. There are some shots where manually combining exposures would work better. On the other hand, I notice you didn't comment on my other two shots I posted above, so I'm assuming you found no "corpse effect" with them. Point being, in most cases I find Photomatix does the right thing.

Cheers,
-joel
Joel,
yes those two didn't display the effect, at least blatantly :-)
However, my primary point was: - you never know if it woudl, and you may not have a say in it. :dunno

Layer-based approach OTOH:
1) puts you in a complete control
2) guarantees no "corpse effect" whatsoever

[LiquidAir]

I agree with that. There are some shots where manually combining exposures would work better. On the other hand, I notice you didn't comment on my other two shots I posted above, so I'm assuming you found no "corpse effect" with them. Point being, in most cases I find Photomatix does the right thing.


Being very picky on those shots, here are things I'd try to fix were they mine:

Aspens:
1. It may just be the scaling, but to me the yellow and green leaves in the look like they have lost detail by being pushed to the edge of the color gamut. I'd try pulling back the saturation just a tad to see if I could bring back some of the detail.

2. The mountains look flat and a bit pasted in, particularly set against the super contrasty sky. Generally contrast decreases with distance due to haze, but here the contrast enhancement seems to have bypassed the mountains leaving them looking a bit out of place. In particular I think the fact that the darkest part of the clouds is darker than the trees leads to the incongruity.

Clouds:
Again here, I think you've pushed the contrast of the sky a little too hard and left the ground looking a litttle flat by comparison. I'd try to balance the darks of the clouds against the shadows on the ground to create a more cohesive sense of depth in the image.

[jdryan3]

Well, I may be the corpse effect here after I ask this question (sorry Nik).

kdog, I walked thru the online tutorial at the Photomatix website. It mentioned using jpegs, but at the end I saw it could use RAW, which is good. But part of the problem I have now is an easy workflow moving in and out of PS from LR with different version of PSDs from the same RAW images.

Then I saw the best part on their homepage: Photomatix Pro plug-in for Lightroom as of 10/24/08 :clap :ivar

Does anyone use this? While I still use PS (I just got CS4) I have become a real LR convert and this would be a boon to me since a lot of what I do in PS is multi-exposure or localized edits. I like what I see of Photomatix's results and their toolset (this is where Nik makes me a corpse:thwak ), and would like to use it for that and tone mapping more than HDR. And all for $99.

David/Devbobo - yeah it looked like that. I was there.

[kdog]

Being very picky on those shots, here are things I'd try to fix were they mine: [...]
Thanks for the feedback, LiquidAir. Points are well taken. I did notice the blurriness in the aspens. It may be partially due to motion blue because it was extremely windy. HDRs can exacerbate motion as well. Plus, it seems like anything one does in post like contrast, saturation, curves, etc, causes loss of detail. So it's kind of hard to tell without starting over from scratch and carefully monitoring detail (I've done that before).

The clouds in the second shot.... well... the whole point of these HDR tools that Nik is ranting about is to make life easy by not requiring masking. So one tries to achieve balance by using global controls. I probably could have backed-off on one of the settings to make the clouds less contrasty though.

Thanks again for your thoughts.
-joel

[kdog]

Well, I may be the corpse effect here after I ask this question (sorry Nik).

kdog, I walked thru the online tutorial at the Photomatix website. It mentioned using jpegs, bu that the end I saw it could use RAW, which is good. But part of the problem I have now is an easy worflow moving in and out of PS from with different version of PSDs.

The I saw the best part on their homepage: Photomatix Pro plug-in for Lightroom as of 10/24/08 :clap :ivar
JD, the LR plugin sounds great. I may even try it myself, of course first I'll need to get LR. :rolleyes That being said, my workflow for Photomatix couldn't be simpler.

I start by opening Photomatix and pressing the Generate HDR button. That pops up a dialog with an area for file names. I multiple-select the RAW file sequence I want in Bridge, and drag the mutliply-selected files into the box and press OK. This generates an HDR, which you then Tone Map. Save out the results as a TIFF, which you can then open in CS3/4.

I know that Photomatix actually recommends importing JPGs over RAW because their converters aren't the best. In fact, they state that you can achieve the same results by just shooting in JPG and saving the conversion step. Makes sense I guess, although I most likely won't do that. So far I'm happy with the job it does on my RAW files. Maybe if I switch to LR and the plugin, I'll try HDR'ing after conversion and see how that goes.

[Nikolai]

F-Stop, Shutter,
I guess I understand the convenience of something like PM for a layerless (i.e. LR-based) workflow. I also may agree that it does a relatively good job in simple cases.
I, OTOH, use layers alot, so introducing a whole different tool just for "simple cases" doesn't sound like a good idea, especially if I know the I can address ANY case my regular way under a couple of minutes.

[kdog]

F-Stop, Shutter,
I guess I understand the convenience of something like PM for a layerless (i.e. LR-based) workflow. I also may agree that it does a relatively good job in simple cases.
I, OTOH, use layers alot, so introducing a whole different tool just for "simple cases" doesn't sound like a good idea, especially if I know the I can address ANY case my regular way under a couple of minutes.
If I was as adept at layers as you are, Nikolai, I probably would stick with it as well. :thumb I also wish I lived closer to you so that I could camp out in your living room and refuse to leave until you showed me. :D

[devbobo]

The I saw the best part on their homepage: Photomatix Pro plug-in for Lightroom as of 10/24/08 :clap :ivar

Does anyone use this? While I still use PS (I just got CS4) I have become a real LR convert and this would be a boon to me since a lot of what I do in PS is multi-exposure or localized edits. I like what I see of Photomatix's results and their toolset (this is where Nik makes me a corpse:thwak ), and would like to use it for that and tone mapping more than HDR. And all for $99.

David/Devbobo - yeah it looked like that. I was there.

JD,

I just downloaded the plugin after reading this post. The plugin isn't a plugin in the same context as the photoshop one. It's just a bridge between the standalone app and lightroom, so it automates the process of opening the file in photomatix for you. The good thing it does (if you shoot raw) is to export the images from lightroom as tiffs, so any local modifications done within lightroom on the raw files come across.

Cheers,

David

[devbobo]

I start by opening Photomatix and pressing the Generate HDR button. That pops up a dialog with an area for file names. I multiple-select the RAW file sequence I want in Bridge, and drag the mutliply-selected files into the box and press OK. This generates an HDR, which you then Tone Map. Save out the results as a TIFF, which you can then open in CS3/4.

Joel,

Have you played with the 'Exposure Blending' with Photomatix much ? Prior to this trip, I pretty much always used 'Generate HDR'...but during the course of my roadtrip, I started playing around with 'Exposure Blending' more and I feel for most cases it produces images that look far more realistic and true to what my eyes actually saw.

Cheers,

David

[pathfinder]

Where did you find the PhotoMatix Pro plug in for Lightroom - I can't seem to find it on the download page. http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html#pmp

Is it the same plug in for CS2,CS3,CS4 or something else?

As always, google is your friend

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download/lrplugin.html

You beat me to it, Dev!

[devbobo]

Where did you find the PhotoMatix Pro plug in for Lightroom - I can't seem to find it on the download page. http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html#pmp

Is it the same plug in for CS2,CS3,CS4 or something else?

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download/lrplugin.html

As i said above, it appears to be only a bridge between the standalone app and Lightroom, well that's how it works for me, but i don't have the PS plugin.

[kdog]

Joel,

Have you played with the 'Exposure Blending' with Photomatix much ? Prior to this trip, I pretty much always used 'Generate HDR'...but during the course of my roadtrip, I started playing around with 'Exposure Blending' more and I feel for most cases it produces images that look far more realistic and true to what my eyes actually saw.

Cheers,

David
Yes I have, David. I found that in some cases it did produce very good results. I was pretty excited about it originally. Intuitively that's all you really want to do -- blend exposures. But then I discovered that in other cases it doesn't work well, and then the HDR mode works better. In fact for me, HDR mode seemed to work out better more often, especially when I got more experienced at using it. It's got way more knobs to tweak than exposure-blend mode, as I'm sure you know. Maybe I need to go back and revisit it based on your report.

There's also the Tone Mapping/Tone Compressor mode. I don't think I've ever gotten good results out of that one.

Cheers,
-joel

[devbobo]

Yes I have, David. I found that in some cases it did produce very good results. I was pretty excited about it originally. Intuitively that's all you really want to do -- blend exposures. But then I discovered that in other cases it doesn't work well, and then the HDR mode works better. In fact for me, HDR mode seemed to work out better more often, especially when I got more experienced at using it. It's got way more knobs to tweak than exposure-blend mode, as I'm sure you know. Maybe I need to go back and revisit it based on your report.

There's also the Tone Mapping/Tone Compressor mode. I don't think I've ever gotten good results out of that one.

Cheers,
-joel

yeah, I have never gotten good results using the Tone Compresser, but I have never taken the time to understand what it's meant to do.

one test I have meant to do, but haven't yet, is to go back and reproduce some of my HDRs that I did using 'Generate HDR' and see if I get a better result using 'Exposure Blending'.