Best realistic HDR software? Or is the camera's HDR mode the best?

nkistrup

Senior Member
Messages
2,581
Solutions
3
Reaction score
217
Location
US
1 of 2 problems:
  1. Need good HDR training material, or
  2. Find a better HDR software package than Photomatix
Have used the Canon G12 HDR mode in conjunction w. my tripod, have achieved superior realistic results, compared to using AEB in conjunction w. the monopod & Photomatix and Lightroom.

Given that I want realistic results, not artsy, which of the following statements is true?
  1. Best possible realistic HDR results is only achievable with the camera's HDR mode.
  2. I still don't know what I'm doing with Photomatix & need to learn how to use it CORRECTLY!
  3. Software package X is superior to both Photomatix & the G12's HDR mode.
If #3, what software is a good choice? Difficult to believe that the G12's in-camera processing is the best there is.
 
I don't pretend to know all that much about HDR but I did spend quite a bit of time comparing HDR software that was available. All in all I have probably downloaded and tried close to a dozen packages including that functionality available in CS5 and PSP X4. During the examination process I had settled on Photomatix as the best of them until I ran into SNS-HDR.

This is really good software from a small (perhaps one man) shop in Poland, but it is excellent. In my view the best low cost package available. I take my HDR shots hand-held and the software does a wonderful job of image alignment. There are only a few presets but they are realistic and not "artistic". The software provides the ability to mask part of the image to control changes and the developer is very responsive to requests for changes. And if that was not enough the software provides a choice of 3 purchase options - one free (simple drag and drop), one Home version (with a nice GUI) and one Pro that includes batch functionality.

I probably sound like a shill but I am just a normal user who thinks the software is very good. You can find it at

http://www.sns-hdr.com

although you will have to set the language pulldown at the top right of the screen.

BTW - There is, of course, a free trail version available.
 
I prefer either Photomatix or Nik's HDR Efex pro. The Nik software has the added flexibility of their U-Point technology with reduces or eliminates the amount of extra work that is required in photoshop.

I've tried to get good results out of HDR pro in CS5 and i still find it to be lacking.

My first try is always to pull up detail from the shadows of the raw and reduce noise with Topaz DeNoise, sometimes that's just a bit too much and i have to go the HDR software or manually blend in parts from another image in CS5.
 
  1. Best possible realistic HDR results is only achievable with the camera's HDR mode.
Not sure this is as configurable and adjustable as typical software tools, but it's certainly true IMO that (where feasible - camera and subject movement allowing) any technique that makes differing physical exposures rather than working from a single exposure, will successfully tackle a broader range of difficult subject lighting conditions. It really depends what you mean by "realistic" though - a super-broad dynamic range capture however subtly done, is always in one sense more like what we see, and in another sense less like what we see, than a straight photo is.
  1. I still don't know what I'm doing with Photomatix & need to learn how to use it CORRECTLY!
There are a number of different processing options in Photomatix - I would suggest that (if you haven't already) you also try the Exposure Fusion (or whatever Photomatix calls it) method. The more usual HDR combination + local contrast tonemapping method is certainly noted for its striking results - but not, particularly, for its naturalness. To achieve an image where no DR processing is evident: this is relatively easy with fusion, and relatively hard with HDR tonemapping.
  1. Software package X is superior to both Photomatix & the G12's HDR mode.
I think usability, workflow and convenience factors will dominate here - which are highly individual. With many cameras, the built-in HDR mode restricts the shooting modes and formats that you can use (for example, Raw). Also some HDR software sits comfortably with the other processing that you are envisaging, and some sits more awkwardly. I use LR/enfuse from inside Lightroom, and find it sufficient and effective - since this particular integration works well for me, and I will have bracketed Raw at the scene (my camera does HDR into JPG which is not my preference for other reasons). So "superior" always includes the implicit questions: "superior for doing what?" and, "superior in whose circumstances?"

RP
 
I recommend both Photomatix and HDR FXPro. The latter gives a more subdued rendering most times, but at other times Photomatix simply looks better. Download the trial and see if it works for you. Any of the three shots that comprise this pic are completely unusable on their own :^)



 
The G12 HDR mode takes 3 shots in rapid succession, at different exposures, then combines them into a single JPEG. Camera MUST be on a tripod, or something else that prevents movement between the 3 shots. (i.e. It does not perform alignment.) I am assuming that EV compensation is current, current - 2, and current + 2.

Manually, set the camera to take 3 RAW pictures, 0, -2, & +2 EV compensation from what I have on the EV dial. Self timer is set to 2 sec and the G12 is placed on a monopod for stability. (Recently learned that I need to stick w. EV compensation of +- 2, vs. smaller ranges.
There are a number of different processing options in Photomatix - I would suggest that (if you haven't already) you also try the Exposure Fusion (or whatever Photomatix calls it) method
Tried that. Result is less sharp than the picture taken at the base EV value, and the most heavily shaded area is still coming up dark.
So "superior" always includes the implicit questions: "superior for doing what?" and, "superior in whose circumstances?"
IDEALLY, I should be using HDR when the camera takes picture & had one area at the correct exposure, another underexposed (something in the shadow of a tree, rock, or building), and something overexposed (e.g. a white sky).

My first HDR pictures had a vivid blue sky, most of the picture properly exposed, and shaded areas where I could see the details of the objects in the shade. (I was sold on the idea, but wanted to do better without the tripod AND create RAW images.
 
I strongly believe that #3 is the correct answer in your case, especially if you are looking for realistic results. When you ask the question: "Which is the best s/w" to many people you will likely get about 5 or 10 different answers. I spent about a year evaluating just about every piece of HDR s/w out there. I recommend you try PhotoEngine or the just released HDREngine from Oloneo.com. PhotoEngine is a full featured product and HDREngine is a less featured version similar to the way Photoshop Elements is a lesser featured version of Photoshop. Free 30 day fully functional trial versions of both are available. I recommend you try the Photoengine first.
Regards, Murray
 
Thanks Mike,

Downloaded & installed the lite version, but I cannot figure how to use it. Does it accept .CR2 files?
 
I use Photomatix and PSPx4. I have put 100's of photos through both. I chase both artistic and realistic results.

Now my tip for using Photomatix is to be very conservative with the use of the sliders. Most folks tend to be too heavy handed and always slide to the right. You can get very realistic results by using the left side of the slides as well when possible. Not all adjustments have a left adjustment.

I tried many of the HDR programs and kept coming back to Photomatix due to its flexibility.

Now the big thing to remember with Photomatix is that it doesn't produce a finished product. (If it does I'm missing something somewhere!) Everything out of Photomatix will still need some fine tuning. I use PSPx4 and typicaly hit levels, followed by curves and then USM. Also some photos simply don't work. Why? I have no idea why but occassionaly you'll get a photo that fails for whatever reason. Then you have to try other options.

Regards
 
Hi Murray,

Will try the HDREngine, but did you see the review of it? It got knocked for being bad w. alignment ... that's critical to me. But this is coming from one reviewer .

http://josepheckertphotography.blogspot.com/2011/12/oloneo-photoengine-10-review.html# ! 2011/12/oloneo-photoengine-10-review.html

You can see from my other post, that I'm starting to experiment with other demo versions.
Auto alignment and Ghost removal have been identified and acknowledged by Oloneo as weaknesses of the program. This has been known from day one and they expect to fix those issues with the next release. That being stated, I am a firm believer that if you are serious about HDR, then you really need to use a tripod becuase even the s/w with the very best alignment and ghost removal has limitations when it comes to handheld shots. For the rare instance when I can't use a tripod and Oloneo has problems aligning, I use Photomatix to merge the source images, export a 32 bit .hdr file and then tonemap it in PhotoEngine.

For me the PE strengths far, far outweigh the weakness. The program is the best for accurate color. It uses different algorithms which protect weak highlights better than any program I have found. It uses different spatial frequencies to adjust local and global contrast allowing you to produce superb realistic results. The user interface is very intuitive especially the way they separate the High Dynamic range controls from the low dynamic range controls. Other controls and curves allow you to make adjustments that mean you will need to do no, or very minimal post work in Photoshop. The speed of the program surpasses any of the competition. If you have a PC that runs a 64 bit OS, it goes like lightning.
Regards, Murray
 
I'm no pro but Photomatix can produce realistic results. HDR Photography by Carr and Correll is a good text (Wiley).

JAH
 
A tripod is not an option for most of my shots (nectaring insects and other wildlife). As an alternative to the traditional HDR approach (or the in-camera setting of your G12), perhaps you may want to consider using a single RAW file and generating 3 pseudo exposures from that. Then you can blend them together with Exposure Fusion (a tab in Photomatix HDR). This eliminates the image alignment problem. Although you won’t get quite the dynamic range of traditional HDR bracketed shots, you can eliminate many of the “normal” blown out highlights and still be able to get much detail out of the shadows. Back in mid-Nov (2011) I solicited feedback regarding my desire to get more range from a single raw image file. I was quite pleased with the in-depth knowledge from those who contributed. With this wealth of knowledge, I was able to get the right tools for the job and develop my new workflow.

This is a link (in threaded view) of the “Success” post. It summarizes my workflow and tools that I use. Perhaps there is something in here for you?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=39883920

Since that post, the only tool that I’ve added (so far) is Viveza-2 by NIK Software. Having those awesome NIK control points in CS5 allows me to quickly tweak the light in specific areas. Otherwise, if I wanted to use the NIK control points for this, I was having to flatten the image and then use the control points in CNX2. Other than this CS5 plug-in, I haven’t changed anything in this process. I have more experimentation to do regarding the use of different pseudo exposure settings. Other than that, the workflow is the same as that “Success” post. I am very pleased with the results and use this workflow for processing all harsh light RAW keepers that are selected for edit .

fwiw… I was motivated to do this single raw shot pseudo exposure blending exploration because I was frustrated with the fact CNX2 and ACR would lose their willingness to recover highlight detail as the exposure slider was moved to the right. I could only reduce the blown out highlights within a given exposure slider value. Even though the detail in the highlights was in the RAW (NEF) file, these 2 RAW converters were not giving me that option and at the same time allow me to increase the overall exposure.

One other factor… When shooting in harsh lighting , I generally underexpose by 1/3 stop when using a CP and 2/3 stop without a CP.

Happy New Year and good luck in your quest for realistic HDR .

Wayne
 
fwiw… I was motivated to do this single raw shot pseudo exposure blending exploration because I was frustrated with the fact CNX2 and ACR would lose their willingness to recover highlight detail as the exposure slider was moved to the right. I could only reduce the blown out highlights within a given exposure slider value. Even though the detail in the highlights was in the RAW (NEF) file, these 2 RAW converters were not giving me that option and at the same time allow me to increase the overall exposure.
I have experienced the same, and (speaking only for ACR/LR here, I don't use Capture One) the best answer is to avoid fighting the Recovery slider with the Exposure slider. There are occasions where one may wish to do this for specific local-contrast-tweaking reasons, but in that case the Tone Curve is more precisely controllable and more benign IMO.

Stepping back for a moment: when photographing a very large range of subject brightness, one protects the highlights by means of a general underexposure (in absolute terms, as compared with the shutter/aperture one would have used if those same highlights had not been inside the frame). So the picture is in need of general lightening, except for the highlights (which we do not want to lighten).

Given the above, we are IMO better advised to use Recovery with the Brightness slider, instead of with Exposure.

Moving Exposure upward does lighten large parts of the picture, but it does so by shifting the whole upper part of the histogram including the whitepoint to the right - and therefore moving the brightest pixels, toward clipping.

That's exactly what we want to do when we have an empty histogram at the right side (when we have not exposed "to the right"). But in other cases where there is valuable nearly-clipped data in the file, it's not what we want - and Recovery can only resist that tendency to a very limited degree. Also you very quickly start to lose hue accuracy and to introduce strange artefacts when using Recovery at very high values. So I sometimes even reduce Exposure a little, even in an otherwise underexposed capture, so as to leave Recovery less to do.

Brightness tends to leave the whitepoint alone (assuming this has been placed at or near the right end of the histogram), and mainly lifts midtones - exactly what we require for the case in question (a fully-used histogram). Then we can tweak with Tone Curve afterward.

In summary, my own approach is: starting from the as-shot Exposure, look at the whitepoint (generally but not quite always, so as to fill the width of the histogram). Then see what detail is to be further gained in the highlights with Recovery; see what Brightness can do for the upper midtones and midtones (without worrying yet about the shadows), see what Fill Light can do for the shadow areas, see (gently) what Blacks can do to control contrast between the darks. Then tweak the Tone Curve (I like "points" mode for this) - to suit the subtler aspects of the picture.

regards, RP
 
Here are a couple of HDR effects created from a single photo:



This one was created using Dynamic Photo HDR



This one from Photomatix Pro



This one from Fhotoroom HDR

I think all three are capable HDR programs, personally I think Photomatix is somewhat too limited. Photomatix does create good HDR, but I prefer either Dynamic Photo HDR or Fhotoroom because of the options. Nik EFEX HDR is also pretty good.
JD
 
Yes, it accepts CR2 files from my 7D.

There is one very simple and another almost simple way to use the free version. These instructions assume you are using Windows.

Installing the free version should have placed an SNS-HDR lite icon on your desktop. Open a browser, select the one (or more) images you want to process, drag them to the desktop icon and a command window should open to process the images. The final version, using the defaults (more on that later), will be placed in your source folder.

If you want the "almost simple" instructions I have them in a text file and can send them to you as a private document through dpreview if you wish. They are a little long and involved (not the process, the instructions) and I don't want to clutter up the thread. The Notepad document is about a page and a half long.

Let me know if you want them.
 
Wayne, single image processing was not the original poster's question. Single image processing is not HDR because you can not extend the dynamic range beyond what has been captured in a data from a single RAW capture. Moreover, making pseudo exposure bias from a single raw is a waste of time and no more effective than processing a single image. Visit other HDR forums and see from industry experts and you will find that conclusion has 100% consensus.
Regards, MM
 
...you could use Microsoft ICE. It won't fix ghosting, but I have found nothing better for pure alignment issues.

The procedure is quite easy: just drop all the exposures in MS ICE and let it do it's thing. Save the output as layered Photoshop file. Open in Photoshop and you have each exposure perfectly aligned as a separate layer.

--
Peter
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top