Image & Video Galleries > HDR - High Dynamic Range

Best HDR Software?

<< < (7/10) > >>

acoll123:
I have both Photomatix and the NIK suite. I think NIK is slightly better for HDR.

gferdinandsen:

--- Quote from: acoll123 on August 26, 2013, 04:57:56 PM ---I have both Photomatix and the NIK suite. I think NIK is slightly better for HDR.

--- End quote ---

+1 I use both and prefer NIK, and now that you can buy the entire suite for $150 (I think it's $150), it's the clear price winner.

dlleno:

--- Quote from: mycanonphotos on April 28, 2013, 05:29:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: The_Arsonist on January 12, 2013, 06:02:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: wickidwombat on January 11, 2013, 02:01:19 AM ---photomatix is mostly crap IMO or possibly too often abused causing heavily over cooked images

LR enfuse is an awesome awesome plugin for inside lightroom
there are some standalone enfuse programs

enfuse is and open source program and is more like an advanced exposure blending algorythm rather than the pure "HDR" that creates a radiance file and then applies false tone mapping to the image

No god awefull halos and cartoon like colour shifts, and it produces much more natural images.

although having said that photomatix can work quite well with night scenes if done right

I've been meaning to try a hybrid combination between an LR enfuse with a photomatix processed image blended into certain areas I think this could work out quite nicely

i've attached an enfuse sample

--- End quote ---

Thanks for the tip. Enfuse works great when I just want to quickly combine exposures to bring out the shadows and bring down the highlights

--- End quote ---

There are a lots of programs out there now made for doing HDR.  None of them are CRAP in my opinion... what matters most is what you are trying to accomplish with that program for YOUR photographs and getting the output you so desire... Some are better for different reasons and will process data differently. One of the things that it comes down to is garbage in garbage out...

--- End quote ---

+1 on this post.  what you need to do is try them out and see what you are symatico with.  you won't know that until you use it. I happen to like the Nik way (I start with "deep 2" a lot and tweek from there). Great results can come from PHotomatix too; I just found the Nik package fit my workflow and goals better.  Aside from Alignment and Ghost reduction, you really need to stress the package with some test shots and look for CA, noise, etc. 

I think there is one area in which photomatix is superior, and that is ghost reduction. Nik does a good job too, and its "good enough" for my needs, but I suspect Photomatix has the edge here, for example, if moving people are involved.   THat said,  Nik has vastly improved in this area, and also in the area of alignment.  So much so that one can get by (gasp) in a pinch with a handheld IS lens (and those shutter speeds can get pretty low at +4 EV...) 

jwilbern:
I really like Photomatix 4. It gives you a lot of choices from subtle to psychedelic. You can look at thumbnail previews of all the presets, and get started on the path of your choice.

Gay Head Lighthouse by jwilbern, on Flickr

LetTheRightLensIn:
Using Viveza 2 can help keeps things a lot more natural too that plus the CS6 ACR tools and later combined for single shot HDR or the 32bit thing from Adorama if you can't get away with single shot (often with Exmor-like sensors, not as often with Canon) and the scene is amenable to multiple shots. it often helps to start with a rather raised dull looking image in ACR (with some exposure raising, lots of highlight protection, a good chunk of shadow raising on the curves plot lowering the first slider, raising the second a lot, raising the next one often a bit although sometimes not and same for the last one) and then you can go in use viveza to selectively darken up parts and to add more contrast and local tone contrast to them (with the brightness, shadows, contrast and structure tools) and also to add a bit more punch to some bright parts while keeping the ones already near max from getting blown out any more. It's important to leave light source areas and sky looking at least a bit relatively bright compared to other things otherwise you start getting that fake look that you see most of the time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version