HDR C&C

Been practicing the last couple days with HDR processing and tonemapping. I am trying to get better at getting the benefits from HDR while keeping the pic in reality.

How do these look? Do they scream HDR?
Not the best pics more interested in processing CC

They don't look as over-saturated as some I have seen. I am not much into HDR, just a comment, not to criticize. If you like them, that is all that is necessary.

Charlie

--

Agfamatic, Heiland Pentax, Pentax Spotmatics, Nikon F2 Photomic, Nikon FM, Nikon FM2, Nikon N90S, 990,5000,d100,d200,d300,nikon 50mm 1/1.8,nikon 16-85 VR, tamron 28-300, SB800

I like the #3 and #5 - perfectly done and not overprocessed at all.... The 1 and 2 are a little dark for me, I think a bit of dodging ater the HDr to give some light to the steps would make it even bettter IMHO... But as is even the 1 and 2 do not have the distinct overdone HDR or tonemap feel to them.. Good try buddy ! And about the other ebay post - i know you did not try to debate my words, we are COOL mate, no problems at all ! BE WELL !
--
Grazie, Thank you, - Sal

1. 4 looks rather soft and low in contrast. I know you're going for a natural look but at this rate you can obtain similar results by a straight 50% opacity blending of high and low exposures... they also have the characteristic Photomatix "glowy" look and some artifacts around edges (not halos but uneven noise pattern)...

Out of all the HDR packages out there I prefer the look of SNS-HDR--maybe that's because my own processing yields similar looking results to my eyes

Here's #4 redone using my processing, it may look better if I had the original exposures:

1, 4 and 5 are handheld which can explain the softness.

I will look into that software and some others. I have only ever used photomatix

myshkin said:

1, 4 and 5 are handheld which can explain the softness.

I will look into that software and some others. I have only ever used photomatix

Click to expand...

+1 for SNS-HDR

The second I saw these images, they screamed Photomatix. The softness is highly characteristic of the rather poor job it does on alignment.

Of course, if you really like the Photomatix tone mapping, you can pre-align the exposures with Photoshop or align_image_stack. That will help.

However, SNS-HDR is far better in my opinion.

I don't think it's a problem with alignment, but rather with the way their tone mapping algorithm itself deals with high-contrast transitions. #5 looks fine to me even though it's handheld; #2 and #3 look soft to me even though they're shot on tripod. They have that "glowing" look to them, sort of an anti-halo if you will. (note how the sky around the black roof fixture in #3 is darkened--as opposed to brightened in a traditional HDR halo.) It's not soft at a per-pixel level anyway, looks more like they need 10+ radius USM.

I'm wondering if these were from jpg files and not raw files. I have found photomatix to do better with raw files or raw files exported to 32 bit tif.

I like #3 and #5. For #2, #4 try to up the constrast and brightness just a tad in PS then apply a curve to it.

Sometimes with photomatix the conversion to a tif file creates a fairly constrained histogram (that is the HDR is compressed too much into the LDR file).

You might also try CS5 photoshop. It does a nice job with HDR merging and tone mapping, especially if you don't want to avoid the HDR look.

I love the HDR look for some images but get why some people don't.

--
Eric P

Joe0Bloggs said:

I don't think it's a problem with alignment, but rather with the way their tone mapping algorithm itself deals with high-contrast transitions.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The alignment issue is often subtle but it is an alignment issue. I say that because, some images are noticeably sharper if you reprocess them in Photomatix after pre-aligning the exposures with a good alignment program such as CS4 or align_image_stack.

Here's an example of that:

http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/2008/11/why-i-use-photoshop-to-create-hdr-files/

Although it's one simple evaluation, it's totally consistent with my own findings and I've seen quite a few other folks report very similar results.

I grabbed sns and did some of the ones I have already done in the past. I do think sns gives a sharper image. I like how it processes for the most part but it lacks control. contrast is easier to put in but its also easy to go overboard

malch,

As I said, alignment issues affect per-pixel sharpness as seen in the 100% crops in your link. Even when I click to enlarge the two full frame images from Photomatix alone and Photoshop+Photomatix I see no difference in overall sharpness at that enlargement, and I see softness in both images. By softness I mean a lack of macro-contrast. For example in the corrected image I posted I started with a 30 pixel radius USM.

As I mentioned I see softness in OP's #3 image which is tripod shot while #5 looks fine even though it's handheld. #3's image content trips up Photomatix while #5's doesn't (less abrupt brightness transitions).

It's as though Photomatix uses "Paint With Light" to remove halo artifacts and goes too far in the other direction.

malch said:

Joe0Bloggs said:

I don't think it's a problem with alignment, but rather with the way their tone mapping algorithm itself deals with high-contrast transitions.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The alignment issue is often subtle but it is an alignment issue. I say that because, some images are noticeably sharper if you reprocess them in Photomatix after pre-aligning the exposures with a good alignment program such as CS4 or align_image_stack.

Here's an example of that:

http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/2008/11/why-i-use-photoshop-to-create-hdr-files/

Although it's one simple evaluation, it's totally consistent with my own findings and I've seen quite a few other folks report very similar results.

Click to expand...