Reading mode: Light Dark

To Much HDR

Go to last post
J Mountford

J Mountford

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
255
Reaction score
71
Location
Iloilo, PH
I rarely use it, it seems to have the problem of too much "in your face" HDR, I like HDR to be more subtle.
 
Austinian said:
J Mountford said:
Austinian said:
"J Mountford said:
Austinian said:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
You expect Photomatix to read your mind and provide the exact settings you want automatically?
Austinian said:
I haven't used my copy in over a year, maybe any upgrade is better.
Click to expand...
And you wait over a year to provide this so-called "review"?
Click to expand...
What I dislike about this site, is when an honest opinion
Click to expand...
You called it a review. "Review of HDRsoft Photomatix Pro"

One vague sentence...
Austinian said:
is offered and people don't like it, they tend to be mean, like you.
Click to expand...
Sometimes truth isn't fun, but it's better than living with nonsense.
Austinian said:
To answer your question, I use Topaz, I find it better
To answer your other question, I stopped using it because of Topaz
Click to expand...
Those statements have nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...
Rule of thumb, don't be mean and condescending. Think about what you are saying and if it is, then think about why you are doing it and is it necessary. I gave an opinion, you don't like it. That does not give you license to make the kitchen hot.
Click to expand...
Rule of thumb, think before you post superficial 'reviews' and remember that newbies in particular may not know enough to judge the validity of a post, and can be easily misled. This is not good.

Don't be surprised when others publicly disagree with such posts, and point out their defects. They have opinions too, whether you like them or not.
Austinian said:
This is not directed just at you, it is directed at other members as well.
Click to expand...
Ditto!
Click to expand...
It is one thing offering an opposing opinion constructively, it is quite another doing it destructively.

I updated my Photomatrix and I still don't much care for it. It's adding to many steps to my workflow and I don't like spending a lot of time behind the computer making a photo work, I'd rather be out shooting and getting that magic moment with the computer when I feel it is right in the least amount of time possible.

In all fairness to Photomatrix, I used it for quite a long time and loved it, but then I discovered Topaz and found it more to my liking.

I've been shooting since I was 14, 52 years ago. Got into digital in 1998 or so and consider it a God send since I grew to hate the drudgery in the darkroom.

JM
 
NikonNature said:
J Mountford said:
Austinian said:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
You expect Photomatix to read your mind and provide the exact settings you want automatically?
NikonNature said:
I haven't used my copy in over a year, maybe any upgrade is better.
Click to expand...
And you wait over a year to provide this so-called "review"?
Click to expand...
What I dislike about this site, is when an honest opinion is offered and people don't like it, they tend to be mean, like you.

To answer your question, I use Topaz, I find it better
To answer your other question, I stopped using it because of Topaz

JM
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
J Mountford said:
Fishchris said:
J Mountford said:
I rarely use it, it seems to have the problem of too much "in your face" HDR, I like HDR to be more subtle.

--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius
Click to expand...
Of course you do ! Your on the DPreview forum :) LOL

Fortunately for me (and my tastes) the general public LOVES "in your face" HDR photography :)

Now, if your only shooting for yourself, or to get praise on this forum, your on the right track. But if your trying to sell your work, your probably hurting yourself.

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
Click to expand...
I was a pro photographer back in the film days and learned to hate photography because it became a job. Now I just shoot for myself, being retired with enough of an income I no longer feel the need to make money, so those days of obligation, except to myself are gone.

JM

--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius
Click to expand...
Thats cool. Im not sure what kinds of photography you got paid for, but i could totally imagine photography becoming a PITA job too, "IF" it was contracted work....

i shoot for myself. I just happen to be an oddball who after shooting for more than 15 years, with much of that being very natural birds and wildlife, I have really gotten into surreal HDR with lots of color and contrast for a few years now.

And as it turns out, the stuff i love to shoot / procrss for myself, just happens to be really popular among your everage every day person on the street.

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
 
Last edited:
J Mountford said:
NikonNature said:
J Mountford said:
Austinian said:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
You expect Photomatix to read your mind and provide the exact settings you want automatically?
J Mountford said:
I haven't used my copy in over a year, maybe any upgrade is better.
Click to expand...
And you wait over a year to provide this so-called "review"?
Click to expand...
What I dislike about this site, is when an honest opinion is offered and people don't like it, they tend to be mean, like you.

To answer your question, I use Topaz, I find it better
To answer your other question, I stopped using it because of Topaz

JM
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
AmbleYonder said:
  1. HiAmbleYonder wrote:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
then your criticism is just a indication of a lazy workflow in not creating a custom preset tailored to your own preferences. .
Click to expand...
But you know Amble, while i love Photomatix, and use it all the time, along with Photomerge in Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion, i find my processing so different from shot to shot, that i have yet to figure out a preset that works for the majority of shots i process ???

Not really that big a deal for me, as i like playing with photoshop anyway, plus I'm pretty good at getting close to what i want pretty quickly, from scratch.....
 
Fishchris said:
But you know Amble, while i love Photomatix, and use it all the time, along with Photomerge in Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion, i find my processing so different from shot to shot, that i have yet to figure out a preset that works for the majority of shots i process ???

Not really that big a deal for me, as i like playing with photoshop anyway, plus I'm pretty good at getting close to what i want pretty quickly, from scratch.....

--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
Click to expand...
I've found that different software produces different HDR results. And not every HDR photo requires the same kind of processing.

For me, the more subtle, more natural looking, HDR things I do, tend to be done with Photomatix 5, while I tend to do the more 'over the top' tone mapping with the HDR utility that comes with PaintShop Pro. PSP offers a unique. . . ah . . . 'subtle' over the top quality that I can't seem to duplicate with other software. I urge others to try PSP out for that sort of HDR. It also has the best results (natural or otherwise) for single raw images.

PSP X6 Single raw photo as natural as I can get it.

PSP X6 Single raw photo as natural as I can get it.



Photomatix natural tone mapping.
Photomatix natural tone mapping.

NOW, we add Affinity to the mix, with its wonderful stacking utilities including HDR. I've only started testing the Affinity HDR capabilities, but so far, It looks like I will be using it (if I use it at all for HDR) for more naturalistic HDR photos. It doesn't have the control of Photomatix of course, but the preliminary naturalistic results are pleasing to me. I still like PSP for the over the top stuff, and I like the control Photomatix offers, so I'm not sure I will NEED Affinity for HDR.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
Fishchris said:
Chris Wolfgram said:
  1. HiAmbleYonder wrote:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
then your criticism is just a indication of a lazy workflow in not creating a custom preset tailored to your own preferences. .
Click to expand...
But you know Amble, while i love Photomatix, and use it all the time, along with Photomerge in Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion, i find my processing so different from shot to shot, that i have yet to figure out a preset that works for the majority of shots i process ???
Click to expand...
That's also my experience. Given how different my various shots are, I don't really expect one preset to be suitable for them all.

I usually end up using one of the "Realistic" presets, then tweaking various sliders to get what I want for that particular image.
 
Glen Barrington said:
I've found that different software produces different HDR results. And not every HDR photo requires the same kind of processing.

For me, the more subtle, more natural looking, HDR things I do, tend to be done with Photomatix 5, while I tend to do the more 'over the top' tone mapping with the HDR utility that comes with PaintShop Pro. PSP offers a unique. . . ah . . . 'subtle' over the top quality that I can't seem to duplicate with other software. I urge others to try PSP out for that sort of HDR. It also has the best results (natural or otherwise) for single raw images.
Click to expand...
I had never tried PSP's HDR function (version X8 for me) till now. I just had a quick look at it.

Interesting merge results, but my standard HDR test set is a 5-image merge where leaves and falling water were affected by a gentle breeze. I tried both "Edge" and "Feature" Align, but neither could do deghosting on the leaves.

To be fair, deghosting is where most other HDR software (like my otherwise favorite SNS-HDR) falls down compared to Photomatix.

Photomatix natural tone mapping.
Photomatix natural tone mapping.

This image looks familiar. Where is it? We have a sinkhole like that near Austin, Hamilton Pool.
Glen Barrington said:
NOW, we add Affinity to the mix, with its wonderful stacking utilities including HDR. I've only started testing the Affinity HDR capabilities, but so far, It looks like I will be using it (if I use it at all for HDR) for more naturalistic HDR photos. It doesn't have the control of Photomatix of course, but the preliminary naturalistic results are pleasing to me. I still like PSP for the over the top stuff, and I like the control Photomatix offers, so I'm not sure I will NEED Affinity for HDR.
Click to expand...
I tried my HDR test images set on Affinity a few days ago, and it wasn't as able to cope with the ghosted leaves as well as Photomatix with automatic deghosting set at 75% did. But it's early days for Affinity, of course.
 
Last edited:
Austinian said:
Fishchris said:
Austinian said:
  1. HiAmbleYonder wrote:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
then your criticism is just a indication of a lazy workflow in not creating a custom preset tailored to your own preferences. .
Click to expand...
But you know Amble, while i love Photomatix, and use it all the time, along with Photomerge in Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion, i find my processing so different from shot to shot, that i have yet to figure out a preset that works for the majority of shots i process ???
Click to expand...
That's also my experience. Given how different my various shots are, I don't really expect one preset to be suitable for them all.

I usually end up using one of the "Realistic" presets, then tweaking various sliders to get what I want for that particular image.
Click to expand...
Exactly how i usually do it myself. "Natural" or "Photographic" seem to be good starting points much of the time.
 
Austinian said:
Glen Barrington said:
I've found that different software produces different HDR results. And not every HDR photo requires the same kind of processing.

For me, the more subtle, more natural looking, HDR things I do, tend to be done with Photomatix 5, while I tend to do the more 'over the top' tone mapping with the HDR utility that comes with PaintShop Pro. PSP offers a unique. . . ah . . . 'subtle' over the top quality that I can't seem to duplicate with other software. I urge others to try PSP out for that sort of HDR. It also has the best results (natural or otherwise) for single raw images.
Click to expand...
I had never tried PSP's HDR function (version X8 for me) till now. I just had a quick look at it.

Interesting merge results, but my standard HDR test set is a 5-image merge where leaves and falling water were affected by a gentle breeze. I tried both "Edge" and "Feature" Align, but neither could do deghosting on the leaves.

To be fair, deghosting is where most other HDR software (like my otherwise favorite SNS-HDR) falls down compared to Photomatix.
Click to expand...
I'm almost a little bummed to hear this, because as much as i like Photomatix, i still have ghosting issues with it pretty often. although i must admit, i shoot moving stuff for HDR quite a bit, so i dont know how much i should really expect ?

Maybe i just sound like a spoiled brat ☺ These programs along with our gear are actually pretty darn amazing ! Its just easy to get jaded.
Austinian said:
Photomatix natural tone mapping.
Photomatix natural tone mapping.

This image looks familiar. Where is it? We have a sinkhole like that near Austin, Hamilton Pool.
Austinian said:
NOW, we add Affinity to the mix, with its wonderful stacking utilities including HDR. I've only started testing the Affinity HDR capabilities, but so far, It looks like I will be using it (if I use it at all for HDR) for more naturalistic HDR photos. It doesn't have the control of Photomatix of course, but the preliminary naturalistic results are pleasing to me. I still like PSP for the over the top stuff, and I like the control Photomatix offers, so I'm not sure I will NEED Affinity for HDR.
Click to expand...
I tried my HDR test images set on Affinity a few days ago, and it wasn't as able to cope with the ghosted leaves as well as Photomatix with automatic deghosting set at 75% did. But it's early days for Affinity, of course.
Click to expand...


--
Photos are my paintings. The camera is my brush.
DPreview gallery; http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5075216809
 
Fishchris said:
Austinian said:
Glen Barrington said:
I've found that different software produces different HDR results. And not every HDR photo requires the same kind of processing.

For me, the more subtle, more natural looking, HDR things I do, tend to be done with Photomatix 5, while I tend to do the more 'over the top' tone mapping with the HDR utility that comes with PaintShop Pro. PSP offers a unique. . . ah . . . 'subtle' over the top quality that I can't seem to duplicate with other software. I urge others to try PSP out for that sort of HDR. It also has the best results (natural or otherwise) for single raw images.
Click to expand...
I had never tried PSP's HDR function (version X8 for me) till now. I just had a quick look at it.

Interesting merge results, but my standard HDR test set is a 5-image merge where leaves and falling water were affected by a gentle breeze. I tried both "Edge" and "Feature" Align, but neither could do deghosting on the leaves.

To be fair, deghosting is where most other HDR software (like my otherwise favorite SNS-HDR) falls down compared to Photomatix.
Click to expand...
I'm almost a little bummed to hear this, because as much as i like Photomatix, i still have ghosting issues with it pretty often. although i must admit, i shoot moving stuff for HDR quite a bit, so i dont know how much i should really expect ?
Click to expand...
I know I can't expect too much; there's a bracketed set I have of an interior with people moving around. Photomatix with all the manual deghosting I can do won't remove all the ghosts--I had to resort to per-pixel clone brush work, and even that is less than satisfactory. :-(
Chris Wolfgram said:
Maybe i just sound like a spoiled brat ☺ These programs along with our gear are actually pretty darn amazing ! Its just easy to get jaded.
Click to expand...
You're right. The things we can do with our wonderful digital images are amazing; I was a slide shooter for many years, and I'm just delighted with today's capabilities.
 
Fishchris said:
Austinian said:
Fishchris said:
Chris Wolfgram said:
  1. HiAmbleYonder wrote:
J Mountford said:
I don't like the default settings, hence my criticism.
Click to expand...
then your criticism is just a indication of a lazy workflow in not creating a custom preset tailored to your own preferences. .
Click to expand...
But you know Amble, while i love Photomatix, and use it all the time, along with Photomerge in Lightroom and Photoshop on occasion, i find my processing so different from shot to shot, that i have yet to figure out a preset that works for the majority of shots i process ???
Click to expand...
That's also my experience. Given how different my various shots are, I don't really expect one preset to be suitable for them all.

I usually end up using one of the "Realistic" presets, then tweaking various sliders to get what I want for that particular image.
Click to expand...
Exactly how i usually do it myself. "Natural" or "Photographic" seem to be good starting points much of the time.
Click to expand...
I also go for a fairly natural look.

I use Photomatix on virtually all my images - however, I don't try to get the final result there. Instead I use HDR to enhance parts of the source image. I might have one or two HDR processed versions which are then blended, in whole or in part, usually at less than 100% opacity, with the original.

Here are two examples of what that looks like:

Englishman River
Englishman River

Bracelet and shell lighting test
Bracelet and shell lighting test



--
My photos: http://www.gordonpritchard.blogspot.com/
 
That is Hamilton Pool, I go there whenever I get to Austin (2-3 times a year, family business) I love that place. Going Next week after Christmas for a month or so!

For what it was worth, I was not satisfied with my post I wrote above, it was just a post of my impressions. So I wrote a more structured article for my personal blog, comparing Photomatix, PSP X8 HDR utility and the Affinity HDR utility.

http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2016/12/hdr-utilities-compared.html

As always, this was just for fun, so I welcome any comments on errors and omissions on the article. I always try to fix what I can.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/
 
Last edited:
Glen Barrington said:
That is Hamilton Pool, I go there whenever I get to Austin (2-3 times a year, family business) I love that place. Going Next week after Christmas for a month or so!
Click to expand...
All right! I'm glad it's still being enjoyed.

I haven't been there in years; now I live far on the other side of town and Austin traffic has become too much for driving to be fun anymore.

Back in the 1970's my friends and I used to go there at night when it was almost deserted, sneaking over a conveniently damaged fence. The events there were so NSFW I can't even begin to describe them. :-D
Glen Barrington said:
For what it was worth, I was not satisfied with my post I wrote above, it was just a post of my impressions. So I wrote a more structured article for my personal blog, comparing Photomatix, PSP X8 HDR utility and the Affinity HDR utility.

http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2016/12/hdr-utilities-compared.html

As always, this was just for fun, so I welcome any comments on errors and omissions on the article. I always try to fix what I can.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I'll have a look at that blog post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top