Photomatix

If you don't go crazy with the image settings then Photomatix can be used to create natural looking HDR images.
 
just looking at a no nonsense type software that can change the look of a picture with minimum input from the user.
Just wanted to see if it is worth the purchase.
 
Ksanti said:
Cameras have wide enough dynamic range nowadays that you don't need HDR as long as you can expose properly,
Click to expand...
I disagree with that.
Indoor photography is a real challenge, balancing the shadows in the room with window highlights is impossible without using software to recover the shadow and highlight detail.
 
As wide a range as they may have, I'm pretty sure you still get more range from a HDR image? I could be wrong... But it seems unlikely! It's just another tool to use and it's up to you how you use it.

As for the OP - between Lightroom and Photoshop I haven't really felt the need to try anything else so far :) Not the cheapest combo but definitely worth a try.
 
Thanks Phal.

Currently i use CS3 and elements 11 does me well.

Might give Photomatix a go on trial and see what kind of results i can pull from it.
 
Phal said:
As wide a range as they may have, I'm pretty sure you still get more range from a HDR image? I could be wrong... But it seems unlikely! It's just another tool to use and it's up to you how you use it.

As for the OP - between Lightroom and Photoshop I haven't really felt the need to try anything else so far :) Not the cheapest combo but definitely worth a try.
Click to expand...

Depends how many frames you take. It also depends on the usable range of your camera. With a 5D you may have to take 5 frames, with something like a D800E you may need only take 1 or 2.
Anymore than 1 frame and it becomes impractical for anything that moves; unless the subject is blurry water or something.

But yes two or more frames of differing exposures is always going to provide more DR than 1 frame from the same camera.
 
Yeah moving targets are pretty much a nono :) same for a lot of stitching or focus stacking etc.

HDR certainly has it's place for me, especially if you don't make it look daft.
 
I use Photoshop to layer multiple exposures that have been imported as a stack. I like to use the layers to pull some hidden colours out a bit more, especially in shadows, whilst also darkening bright sources to avoid clipping.
 
Phal said:
As wide a range as they may have, I'm pretty sure you still get more range from a HDR image? I could be wrong... But it seems unlikely! It's just another tool to use and it's up to you how you use it.

As for the OP - between Lightroom and Photoshop I haven't really felt the need to try anything else so far :) Not the cheapest combo but definitely worth a try.
Click to expand...

Any modern sensor will be able to capture about 12 stops of range without any real issues. As far as I know, most prints won't hold that sort of range and nor will any screens. Unless you're exposing horribly there shouldn't be any need for HDR unless you are actually manipulating the light across the frame to bring back detail that the print wouldn't naturally support.
 
Ksanti said:
Any modern sensor will be able to capture about 12 stops of range without any real issues. As far as I know, most prints won't hold that sort of range and nor will any screens. Unless you're exposing horribly there shouldn't be any need for HDR unless you are actually manipulating the light across the frame to bring back detail that the print wouldn't naturally support.
Click to expand...

But that is the point of HDR, to bring back detail that would otherwise be lost either by under/overexposure or limitations of the viewing medium.

Digital sensor still have a long way to go before they can match the DR of the best B&W films which could be processed to achieve over 18-19Stops DR, and the human eye through our ability to scan scenes and actively adjust exposures perceives well over 20-22stops. Natural scenes can show far higher DR than that.

ND-grads are still critical to achieving balanced exposures when outdoors. Until wee see sensors pushing 20 stops DR than HDR techniques will still be around.


What is not needed is technicolor super-saturated OTT HDRs but something which provides a natural expsore with shadow and highlight details that at least the human experience.
 
It depends. If outside, it depends on the time of day. If the sun is fairly close to the horizon, I don't need ND grads at all. In fact, not using them allows more flexibility when processing. If indoors it depends on the room, but I presume specialised HDR is more useful than the standard Lightroom adjustments.
 
Outdoors it depends a lot on your subject, position of sun, time of day. Shoot at sunrise or sunset you will find certain parts of the scene brilliantly illuminated by the glowing sun, but the shadows will be dark as night (because technically it is night time until the sun hits those areas). This is exaggerated when photographing high mountains where the mountain tops can collect the fist rays of sun but the valley foreground wont be illuminated for another 20-30 minutes - think of the classic Teton mountain photos.

You can never get a single exposure to hold both shadow and highlight details. ND grads or multiple, exposures are the only way. Grads often work OK in such scenes but are horrible when you have stronger foreground interest that would cover the hot background. Under such scenarios multiple exposures are the only solution given current technology (or deciding to throw the shadows into a silhouette).
 
RW1_6323.jpg


V2-1.jpg
 
The DR in that scene is relatively low (sun looks to be below horizon) and you still haven't pulled up much shadow detail.

Try photographing a snow-capped mountain at first light with deep shadows in the foreground, you can easily end up in the 20-25stop DR
 
I prefer to use "Dynamic-photo HDR" as you can chose to use one image or more. Great progy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom