HDR results- Photomatix vs Essential HDR

scole

For the benefit of others searching the forum, I thought I'd post this...

About a month ago, I posted some photos from a hike up into the snow where I had some real challenges due to a large dynamic range. Anyways, some folks suggested HDR processing as an alternative. I've been hesitant about it since I feel that most HDR photos don't appear realistic. I decided to try it out so the question then becomes which program to use- Photomatix or ?......

Unfortunately, I didn't have a proper sequence of bracketed photos to work with so I made three exposures from the source RAW file (-2, 0, +2). First up, here's my "best" attempt with just curve adjustments to the RAW file:



Next is the result from Photomatix using Tone Mapping:



I did like the results although it had some of that "dreamy" (or halo effect) that is typical of Photomatix HDRs. I wasn't sure what other HDR programs to consider but after some digging, I decided to try Essential HDR. Using Essential HDR, I tried to produce an image which was similar to the Photomatix output. Here's the result using their "Detail Revealer" dialog:



I prefer the Essential HDR output MUCH more. As advertised, there are no halo effects in the image. The foreground seems more balanced exposure wise and the valley immediately across from me in the lower left doesn't look like a series of water spots on the lens like the Photomatix HDR version.

I have not had an opportunity to work with a bracketed set of images yet but hope to do so after this weekend. Anyways, I just wanted to post some examples from both programs for the benefit of others.

pathfinder

Thank you for introducing this new software, it looks very interesting. I just wish there were a Mac version. I would explore it if I could run it.

I have little experience with HDR images, and have used either Photoshop or PhotoMatix for what I have prepared. I favor more realistic representations over some of the obvious haloed HDRs, but maybe that is just because I am an old fogy Some of the strange ones can look rather nice, depending on subject, lighting, etc.


This is one of mine, rendered as a jpg for online viewing



And another



It has occurred to me that HDR is an answer to dealing with the very large differences in exposure you have when shooting woodland scenes with deep shadows and bright sunlit areas, as well.

kdog

Here's a link to a comparison of 8 different HDR tools done by Allen Smallbone, who's a member on this forum.

http://www.pbase.com/snowlep/hdrtest

Both of the tools mentioned in this thread are included in his reviews. He also reviewed a few books on HDR as well.

I'll let you read the article rather than cutting/pasting his work. However, his conclusion was that if he were to select a single HDR tool, it would be Photomatix. Makes sense, given that Photomatix is the most widely tool being used out there.

BTW, I don't know where you got the impression that Photomatix imparts any particular look or artifacts like halos into images. There number of ways to use the tools are almost limitless and one can achieve any look they want.

Regards,
-joel

scole

Thanks for that link, Joel. I'll need to read up on it.

My use of the "halo" term probably comes from Essential HDR's website where they compare their product versus others and use this term in one of their arguments.

After reading that and running my little test, I began to see what they were referring to. It may not be as apparent here in my post but when I viewed the two images fullscreen and flipped back & forth between the two, I noticed the softness/dreamyness/halo in a number of areas. It does make for a more dramatic photo but I'm after more natural.

At some point, I'll probably break down and get Photomatix as well but right now I'm happier with Essential HDR's results.

Thanks for your comments!

Steve

kdog

scole wrote:

It may not be as apparent here in my post but when I viewed the two images fullscreen and flipped back & forth between the two, I noticed the softness/dreamyness/halo in a number of areas. It does make for a more dramatic photo but I'm after more natural.

Did you use Photomatix Exposure/Blend or HDR Mode? Tone Mapping Details Enhancer, or Tone Compressor modes? Those different options produce drastically different results. Exposure Blend mode does exactly that. It's in fact incapable of producing any HDR look, because all it's doing is preventing clipping by pixel selection. Likewise, Tone Compressor mode provides global tone mapping corrections that produce much more realstic results than does Details Enhancer which does the fine-detail contrast enhancements that give it the HDR look. These are actually quite complicated tools which one can not evaluate without spending a lot of time with them.

If you want a natural look, I would recommend using either the pure exposure blending option, or the HDR tone-compressor exposure blending mode. You can get as natural as you like.

BTW, I'm not trying to change your mind. You should use the tools that work best for you. I'm just trying to dispel the myth that there's a single Photomatix "HDR look", when there are a huge number of options that can achieve results all over the map. Sometimes simpler tools are better for many people because they remove choices and make it easier to do what the tool maker thinks are the common cases.

scole

Not a problem, Joel. Your posts are what this forum is all about. If I am wrong about something, I'd like to know!

In regards to your followup, I used the HDR Mode using the Tone Mapping Detail Enhancer. I just tried using the exposure blending option on my test images and you are right- you can produce a very natural looking photo.

I want to do more tests but just haven't been able to get out and take some properly bracketed source images. I do appreciate your comments and suggestions!

Steve

RAW-Shooter

I own EssentialHDR for quite a while and I am quite happy with the results. However, the current version does not save the EXIF data from the RAW into the resulting file (JPG). This is very annoying, but the free of cost updates are supposed to take care of that. Essential HDR has no function to manually align multiple exposed pictures. For the best results a tripod is a must.

Photomatix is known to create halos - however, moving the correct slider (micro detail) can take care of that.

In any case all HDR software can be found on flickr - there are tons of samples...

HTH

kdog

RAW-Shooter wrote:

Photomatix is known to create halos - however, moving the correct slider (micro detail) can take care of that.

Source?

I've never seen any reference that Photomatix is any more prone to produce halos than any other HDR tool in the book I've read (Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range), even though it devotes a whole chapter to Photomatix. Nor have I seen mention of it in any of the on-line tutorials on Photomatix (there are many), nor in any of the HDR tools comparos I've seen (see link in previous response). Nor was there any mention of that in a recent Photomatix workshop I attended by the Naturescapes folks.

HDR processing is a balancing act and one can create halos or not as they choose by making any number of adjustments.

That being said, there is no "micro-detail slider" in Photomatix, nor is there any single control that adjusts halos. The generally accepted controls which can affect halos in Photomatix are Highlights Smoothing, Light Smoothing, and Strength.

-joel

RAW-Shooter

I stand corrected the slider in question is called "Highlight Smoothing" under the S/H tab.

Even the manufacturer has acknowledged halo effects as it is mentioned in their very own tips & tricks section of their very own FAQ section. So has the community on flickr and on picasa.

Be it as it may - the slider is the key here...

kdog

Here's the relevant section from the FAQ:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="10"><tbody><tr><td class="bullet2" valign="top" width="3%" align="right" height="25">›</td> <td class="titre2" valign="top" width="97%"> How do I reduce/eliminate "halo" effects with tone mapping?</td></tr> <tr><td width="3%"> </td> <td class="texte" width="97%"> There are several ways to achieve that. The simplest and most effective one is to use the Tone Compressor method for tone mapping your image, as this method is free from halo artifacts.</td></tr> <tr><td width="3%"> </td> <td class="texte" width="97%"> With the Details Enhancer method, the setting Highlights Smoothing (under the S/H tab) is useful for reducing halos around objects placed against bright backgrounds. The other adjustments that may help are lowering the Strength or increasing the value of the Light Smoothing setting. </td></tr></tbody></table>
Note they mention the same three sliders that I did. It's a balancing act, like I said.

Secondly, halos can be generated in any HDR tool. I see nothing to suggest that Photomatix's behavior in that regard is worth calling out.

-joel

RAW-Shooter

I don't want to start an argument here, but I tested the 7 HDR tools for about 3 months and none of the others are so prone to create those artifacts. This is either due to lack of that internal functionality (no such slider to begin with) or due to the default settings in Photomatix.

BTW, the default settings in DynamicPhoto are not my thing either and it took way longer to create a realistic HDR than in Photomatix.

Also, Photomatix auto alignment works much better than in the competitor products.

In short, if somebody would combine EssentialHDR, Photomatix, FDRTools, easyHDR and DynamicPhoto....:D

kdog

RAW-Shooter wrote:

I don't want to start an argument here, but I tested the 7 HDR tools for about 3 months and none of the others are so prone to create those artifacts.

If you had said that to begin with, you would have gotten no argument from me. However, what you actually said was: "Photomatix is known to create halos". That was the point of contention, because that's not a generally accepted sentiment as far as I know. Even the Dynamic PhotoHDR website says that halos are common in over-processed HDRs

I do agree with the notion that no single tool does everything. In fact the pros recommend owning and using several. However, Photomatix is the most popular.

canon400d

kdog wrote:

If you had said that to begin with, you would have gotten no argument from me. However, what you actually said was: "Photomatix is known to create halos". That was the point of contention, because that's not a generally accepted sentiment as far as I know. Even the Dynamic PhotoHDR website says that halos are common in over-processed HDRs

I do agree with the notion that no single tool does everything. In fact the pros recommend owning and using several. However, Photomatix is the most popular.

I am no professional like you guys as Joel knows. I have had Photomatix for a couple of months and have yet to produce a decent photo. I always think others HDR shots appearing on here are way by far better than mine and that is the total reason I bought it. I was told by Photomatix it would cost £62 and I looked at my account and see it cost £82. I have just accepted it. But I would love to take decent HDR shots. As Joel knows he has just viewed Bamburgh Castle on Landscapes. Any help would be more than appreciated as I have almost given up on HDR. I quite enjoyed your argument as I was trying to pick out bits that would be beneficial to me.
Regards
Bob

RAW-Shooter

canon400d wrote:

I am no professional like you guys as Joel knows. I have had Photomatix for a couple of months and have yet to produce a decent photo. I always think others HDR shots appearing on here are way by far better than mine and that is the total reason I bought it. I was told by Photomatix it would cost £62 and I looked at my account and see it cost £82. I have just accepted it. But I would love to take decent HDR shots. As Joel knows he has just viewed Bamburgh Castle on Landscapes. Any help would be more than appreciated as I have almost given up on HDR. I quite enjoyed your argument as I was trying to pick out bits that would be beneficial to me.
Regards
Bob

I am not a pro either and fairly new on this forum, which I found accidently. But I create photos for like 30 years or so and I am a software knitter for this long as well.

Continuing the argument...no problem...:D...did I mention the halos in Photomatix and that I have that product as well???

£82 - that's about $119 and so I take it you purchased the software and the plugin, which is about right.

Do you have some HDR's posted somewhere?

BoKo

canon400d

RAW-Shooter wrote:

I am not a pro either and fairly new on this forum, which I found accidently. But I create photos for like 30 years or so and I am a software knitter for this long as well.

Continuing the argument...no problem...:D...did I mention the halos in Photomatix and that I have that product as well???

£82 - that's about $119 and so I take it you purchased the software and the plugin, which is about right.

Do you have some HDR's posted somewhere?

BoKo

Thanks for your reply. No I don't have anything else. I downloaded the Photomatix trial and then I paid and the watermark was cleared. I found that the end result with Photomatrix was far from natural. Having said that I saw everyone else shots quite superb so I thought here goes it must be me. I am sure (Joel) Kdog would say it is me and I would have to agree. Yes I made a note regarding the halos where Joel said S/H Tab light soothing and strength to reduce halos. To be honest that hasn't really been my problem. I find the end product of the whole image tends to be not right as I have already said not natural. I have just done another image through Photomatix and after noting that either you or Joel said try Tone-Compressor for more natural toning and I think that is better looking at the end result. I have posted a few HDR's in Landscapes. By the way I am not making a big issues over £20 as I am sure Photomatix is good and I accept it has to be me, I would just like to mast it to a reasonable acceptance. I have done the necessary like AV Mode, AEB, with -2 0 +2 on a tripod with cable release. I have also tried the pseudo HDR with the five images on the computer.
Regards
Bob

RAW-Shooter

I just looked at the castle. As you can imagine, I have no idea how the scene looked like when you took the picture. I can only asume - late afternoon sunlight and for that the pic is too yellowish.

I don't want to talk you into another software...give EssentialHDR a try. http://www.imagingluminary.com/ The trial version produces images with fixed resolution (800x???), but for testing it should be OK. That program has a minimalistic approach. It is fast, easy to use and the default settings are quite realistic - to my eyes at least. Just check it out to see if that gives you a different result at all. You can take that as a baseline to fiddle with Photomatix.
There is one other thing about Photomatix (my current version that is). It remembers the slider settings from one picture to the next. I have to hit the default button every time to have a common starting point...very annoying - I just cannot seem to get used to that. I end up making the same mistake over and over again.

Those here are done with EssentialHDR from a single picture though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31117518@N08/

HTH

BoKo

canon400d

RAW-Shooter wrote:

I just looked at the castle. As you can imagine, I have no idea how the scene looked like when you took the picture. I can only asume - late afternoon sunlight and for that the pic is too yellowish.

I don't want to talk you into another software...give EssentialHDR a try. http://www.imagingluminary.com/ The trial version produces images with fixed resolution (800x???), but for testing it should be OK. That program has a minimalistic approach. It is fast, easy to use and the default settings are quite realistic - to my eyes at least. Just check it out to see if that gives you a different result at all. You can take that as a baseline to fiddle with Photomatix.
There is one other thing about Photomatix (my current version that is). It remembers the slider settings from one picture to the next. I have to hit the default button every time to have a common starting point...very annoying - I just cannot seem to get used to that. I end up making the same mistake over and over again.

Those here are done with EssentialHDR from a single picture though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31117518@N08/

HTH

BoKo

Thanks for looking. I have downloaded Essential HDR and I must say it is really easy and with very few slideres to work with. The end result I was very impressed indeed. I have it for 40 days and I can see I will probably end up buying it as it is much easier than Photomatix and produces a more natural finish.
Regards
Bob

cryptochrome

Judging the photos posted in the first message, I really like the first one best, the one which was made without special software. It looks the most natural to me, and if that's what you're looking for, you are already there.