Changing how we create HDR: HDR PhotoStudio

agunther

Unified Color have introduced a new HDR software called HDR PhotoStudio. With this software you can generate HDR images, similar to Photomatix, but with a very different workflow and what Unified Color claims to be a radically new color model based on human vision. The result is a level of color rendition unprecedented.
If I sound like a marketer, its because I really liked the software.
There are a couple of things I didn't like (processing speed was not great and the RAW converter was very basic) but overall the software left a very good impression. I wrote a review in case you care about these things:

HDR PhotoStudio Review

You can download a free trial version and I also have a coupon for the full version (disclaimer: it's an affiliate coupon).

I am going to play around with this tool a bit for the next couple of days to try some more things.

Here is a sample image. I only tested this with a +/-2EV picture, but if you shoot a much wider range the software can really show its strength according to UC. I applied some levels in Photoshop after the HDR output.

Tango

sweet image but will you post a x2 or x3 size ?...

even with this small size i can see a halo effect everywhere and i would like to know from you; is that user or software problems...?
i wont even bother to try this if its software problems...

Tango

maybe show us the image straight out of software, (no PS pls)
and also post the sooc shots too....

agunther

AaronNelson wrote:

maybe show us the image straight out of software, (no PS pls)
and also post the sooc shots too....

Will post it tonight. Halos came from the Midtone adjustments in Photoshop. However I thought I had this under control. One of the big advantages I found was that this sofware produces a lot LESS halos than Photomatix.
Here is one closer to the result from the software:

kdog

agunther wrote:

One of the big advantages I found was that this sofware produces a lot LESS halos than Photomatix.

Photomatix doesn't produce any halos if you use it properly, so that statement doesn't make any sense to me.

pathfinder

agunther wrote:

Unified Color have introduced a new HDR software called HDR PhotoStudio. With this software you can generate HDR images, similar to Photomatix, but with a very different workflow and what Unified Color claims to be a radically new color model based on human vision. The result is a level of color rendition unprecedented.
If I sound like a marketer, its because I really liked the software.
There are a couple of things I didn't like (processing speed was not great and the RAW converter was very basic) but overall the software left a very good impression. I wrote a review in case you care about these things:

HDR PhotoStudio Review

You can download a free trial version and I also have a coupon for the full version (disclaimer: it's an affiliate coupon).

I am going to play around with this tool a bit for the next couple of days to try some more things.

Here is a sample image. I only tested this with a +/-2EV picture, but if you shoot a much wider range the software can really show its strength according to UC. I applied some levels in Photoshop after the HDR output.

I signed up to try it when it is available in OS X.

It currently only supports XP and Vista.

agunther

kdog wrote:

Photomatix doesn't produce any halos if you use it properly, so that statement doesn't make any sense to me.

True, but it requires a lot more tweaking on the Tone Mapping. Thanks for clarifying, I will write a correction for this!

kdog

agunther wrote:

True, but it requires a lot more tweaking on the Tone Mapping.

Sorry, but I still don't agree. Here's a a shot using the default tone mapping in the Photomatix. I just now reprocessed this shot using the default settings, just to see what would happen.

I don't see any particularly noticeable halos there. Do you? The place you'd see them is where the mountains meet the sky. This has been typical of my experience with the tool. So you can see why I don't agree with your contention that it takes a lot of tweaking to remove halos in Photomatix.

Halos generally start showing up when you start introducing surrealism in your HDRs. In fact, the halos are part of the surreal look. So if you don't like them, you generally have to back off of your settings. But they're settings that you introduced, not the tool.

Cheers,
-joel

Tango

young jedi, no halo my eye sees

kdog

AaronNelson wrote:

young jedi, no halo my eye sees

Thank you, master.

You know, the above exercise reminded me just how good the default settings are in Photomatix. I generally like to stay very close to the defaults when I want a realistic look. The temptation is to tweak things until they look right. However, that's actually wrong because the shot has no post processing yet. The image doesn't really start to pop until after you set levels, curves and sharpening in Photoshop. I think a lot of those overprocessed HDR shots you see are from folks trying to create the finished product in the HDR tool.

Cheers,
-joel

dlplumer

kdog wrote:

Thank you, master.

You know, the above exercise reminded me just how good the default settings are in Photomatix. I generally like to stay very close to the defaults when I want a realistic look. The temptation is to tweak things until they look right. However, that's actually wrong because the shot has no post processing yet. The image doesn't really start to pop until after you set levels, curves and sharpening in Photoshop. I think a lot of those overprocessed HDR shots you see are from folks trying to create the finished product in the HDR tool.

Cheers,
-joel

Guilty as charged

Tango

Joel, actually i have no idea how to make HDR look good...every attempt has failed for me. and i really dont like the jagged pixelation HDR software does to the "Far BG".....it seems to always lose detail, so when if i lose detail i would rather it be soft instead of that dot jagged look....ya know what i mean?

i guess i just prefer using layers of multiple expos and use the brush and grad tools, then i do select adjustments....(but still not like a master)

my other problem i have it simple....i cant ever get to the places i want to photograph.....haha (im looking forward to July)

kdog

dlplumer wrote:

Guilty as charged

Hey, it's not like I didn't do that a few hundred times myself.

kdog

AaronNelson wrote:

Joel, actually i have no idea how to make HDR look good...every attempt has failed for me. and i really dont like the jagged pixelation HDR software does to the "Far BG".....it seems to always lose detail, so when if i lose detail i would rather it be soft instead of that dot jagged look....ya know what i mean?

No, actually I'm not sure what you mean, Aaron. Do you see that effect in any of the images in this thread? Maybe you can point it out. I wonder if you're talking about increased noise that often occurs in HDRs.

i guess i just prefer using layers of multiple expos and use the brush and grad tools, then i do select adjustments....(but still not like a master)

You and Nikolai, Marc Muench, and countless other excellent photographers. I wish I had the skills to do that. There are some things HDR can do that you can't do though, and that's increase the contrast in fine detail (microcontrast). That's what gives HDR the gritty look, which may or may not be appealing depending on how it's used.

my other problem i have it simple....i cant ever get to the places i want to photograph.....haha (im looking forward to July)

If you figure that one out, definitely let me know. I hope to see you in July as well. Even if it's just for a brief overnighter.

Cheers,
-joel

Tango

first, i argue that i should not be mentioned in the same sentence and Nik & Marc....way above my league.

second, yes Noise is a good discription, but its a different look to it...its like dot jaggednessness-es:D so when i have zero noise in my sooc expos and then do HDR through a software like photomatix and get that look i dont consider that really noise...or should i?
anyway...i dont like it.

i just want to go do some photography...!

anonymouscuban

Joel,

I try not to become a fan-boy of any product. However, I find that people are always trying to put down Photomatix. I think the only "problem" that Photomatix has is that its probably the most widely used HDR Tone Mapping software out. And because of that, there are a lot of garbage images floating around on the interwebs that were created by people that don't know how to use Photomatix or push the surrealness factor to the max. People then come to the false conclusion that Photomatix sucks based on the images these see that were created with it.

I have tried at least 4 different tone mapping tools and I find Photomatix to be the simplest and the one to produce the most consistent and best results. I don't have any of the issues that are often attributed to Photomatix, unless I create them by pushing the tone mapping.

I haven't tried this software but I will give it a shot today and report back my opinion on it.

agunther

kdog wrote:

Sorry, but I still don't agree. Here's a a shot using the default tone mapping in the Photomatix.

-joel

Hello Joel,

maybe your picture doesn't lend itself to halos, but the cave picture is showing some really nasty halos where the sky and the cave meet, especially with default settings.
It DOES require a lot of tweaking for that image, a lot more than HDR PhotoStuiod.

kwcrow

agunther wrote:

Hello Joel,

maybe your picture doesn't lend itself to halos, but the cave picture is showing some really nasty halos where the sky and the cave meet, especially with default settings.
It DOES require a lot of tweaking for that image, a lot more than HDR PhotoStuiod.

agunther,
Show us your results from photomatix with default settings and let us decide for ourselves.
Thanks,
-Kevin

anonymouscuban

I downloaded the trial version of this software. I was hoping to do a head-to-head comparison between it and Photomatix. So I loaded up three bracketed exposures in Photomatix. I ran it through the tone mapping processes and then set the Detailed Enhancer to default settings and saved the image. This took all of maybe 2-minutes.

I then loaded up the same three bracketed images into HDR PhotoStudio, set it Quality and clicked to process. It sat in process for over 6-7 minutes at which time I got really impatient and aborted the application. I tried again, same thing. So either my computer doesn't have the capacity to run this software, which I seriously doubt, or the tone mapper takes a really long time.

I will try again when I get home since I am very curious to see what kind of results it produces. So far though, I am not sold on this as a replacement to Photomatix.

kdog

kwcrow wrote:

agunther,
Show us your results from photomatix with default settings and let us decide for ourselves.
Thanks,
-Kevin

Or better yet, make the RAW available, or a similar RAW that shows the problem (shouldn't be a problem since they all do that, right? ). Then we can run it through Photomatix with the default and try it ourselves.

Another thing to remember about Photomatix is that there are THREE different tools to produce HDRs within it.

1) Exposure Blending. They don't actually call this HDR. It does simple pixel selection to recover shadow detail and highlights. There is no tone mapping function with exposure blend. Once you blend, you are done. This produces the most natural and realistic images.

2) HDR + Tone Compressor tone mapping. Tone Compressor only has a few options. This tool produces very natural looking HDRs by doing global image adjustments. I don't think it's even possible to generate halos using tone compressor even if you wanted to.

3) HDR + Details Enhancer. This allows local image adjustments, like smoothing and microcontrast. This gives the gritty exaggerated contrast HDR look. Most folks use this mode, as it comes up by default when you tone map. Once you venture past the defaults, you're in halo territory if you push things to far. Increase light smoothing, highlight smoothing, or back off on strength to reduce halos.

If you don't like the look from one of those modes, try another! As I said, you cannot get halos from exposure blend, and probably not from tone compressor either. To fully compare Photomatix to any other tool means you have to compare the outputs from all three modes, which is a non-trivial amount of work. But it's kind meaningless to pick just one mode as the basis for a comparison against another tool.

But, don't get me wrong. I'm no Photmatix fan-boy. There are lots of things I don't like about it. I've read enough reviews about other HDR tools to know they have their place. Each tool has its strengths and weaknesses. These tools are economical enough that it's possible to own several without going broke. The thing I do like about Photomatix is that it's the most widely used tool. So if somebody says they used it to produce an image, I know I can eventually recreate the look myself if I keep trying.

The first tool I tried was Mediachance Dynamic PhotoHDR, and I produced some great shots with it. I tried to buy it, but they (a) inadvertently ripped me off, and (b) didn't respond to repeated complaints about getting ripped off. I'm not a person who generally needs a lot of support from a software vendor. But I draw the line when you pay for something, never receive it, and then are completely ignored by the vendor. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably still be using it.

Cheers,
-joel

agunther

Thanks guys. I guess my post made Photmatix look more negative than I intended. I love Photomatix and I use it a lot too. I have written a raving review about it some time ago and I still believe every word of it.

Comparing some things will always bring out many people defending their beloved ..... (see OS wars). I am sure once some of you are familiar with this software you will defend it as ferociously.

I get halos when I use photographs that have a very high contrast edge (e.g. In my picture thats the edge between the sky and the cave). You can take a similar test shot yourself (e.g. photograph from inside a tunnel or inside your room). Use the standard settings of the Details Enhancer. Doesn't mean I always get halos, but I did in my test case (see example shots in the article). I didn't get halos with PS. That is something I liked better in my test of PhotoStudio and I wrote about it.

BTW, my comparison includes Tone Compressor and Details Enhancer. I also mentioned that the software is slower. For the same amount of dynamic range mapping I get much less halos. I like the fact that PhotoStudio uses RAW directly, but its also a disadvantage in some situations.

Thanks everyone for your rebuttals . After I swallowed my pride I realized that I could clean up my article a bit.

I will see if I can post a few more comparison shots within the next few weeks for those of you who are interested.

Forgive me for picking such a blunt title, but it got some attention didin't it?
Feel free to send me an email to talk about any of that in private (use the contact form on my site or in this forum) or whatever else you feel must be done to eraticate this scremaing injustice towards Photomatix. I am open to all forms of harrassment

I love both tools and I use one or the other depending on the effect I wish to accomplish, the amount of time I have to fuzz with (yes PM is faster than PS) and the output I desire.

Try the tool and form your own opinion. I'd love to hear feedback from people who tried both instead of just PM defending.

Professional

And i love HDR and Photomatix, i myself posted a thread here for HDR of my shots.

kdog

agunther wrote:

I like the fact that PhotoStudio uses RAW directly

You know that Photomatix does too, right? It'll take raw, tiff or jpg.

Professional

kdog wrote:

You know that Photomatix does too, right? It'll take raw, tiff or jpg.

Photomatix convert RAW to HDR format that can be tonemapped and adjusted in Photomatix, not as RAW itself.

agunther

kdog wrote:

You know that Photomatix does too, right? It'll take raw, tiff or jpg.

Nope, apparently I did not know.

kdog

Professional wrote:

Photomatix convert RAW to HDR format that can be tonemapped and adjusted in Photomatix, not as RAW itself.

True, although that's a technicality. The workflow is to import a RAW file into Photomatix, then tone map it and save it as a TIFF. The user doesn't need to be exposed to the HDR file unless they explicitly export it.

Professional

kdog wrote:

True, although that's a technicality. The workflow is to import a RAW file into Photomatix, then tone map it and save it as a TIFF. The user doesn't need to be exposed to the HDR file unless they explicitly export it.

I didn't do a comparison tests, but i always prefer to create 3 or more bracketed shots [TIFF or JPEG] from one single RAW file and then process then by Photomatix.
In all cases, doing that or taking multi shots first place out of camera all re necessary to get HDR, i can do an HDR even from one JPEG file only, i did an HDR shot on a portraits from one TIFF file only because i was using Hasselblad and it was difficult for me to use RAW files, so i just converted one shot to TIFF and worked on that file.

kdog

Professional wrote:

I didn't do a comparison tests, but i always prefer to create 3 or more bracketed shots [TIFF or JPEG] from one single RAW file and then process then by Photomatix.
In all cases, doing that or taking multi shots first place out of camera all re necessary to get HDR, i can do an HDR even from one JPEG file only, i did an HDR shot on a portraits from one TIFF file only because i was using Hasselblad and it was difficult for me to use RAW files, so i just converted one shot to TIFF and worked on that file.

Ok. As you can see from the shot above, it does work pretty well. I haven't done any comparisons against synthesizing multiple exposures in camera raw, versus importing a single raw into Photomatix. I should probably do that.

At any rate, one cannot argue with the results you achieve. So whatever it is you're doing, you should keep doing it.

Cheers,
-joel

Professional

kdog wrote:

Ok. As you can see from the shot above, it does work pretty well. I haven't done any comparisons against synthesizing multiple exposures in camera raw, versus importing a single raw into Photomatix. I should probably do that.

At any rate, one cannot argue with the results you achieve. So whatever it is you're doing, you should keep doing it.

Cheers,
-joel

It is still a great job, i did few times to use RAW directly on Photomatix and got great results, but i didn't do comparison tests between that and getting multiple shots and merge them in Photomatix to see the difference.

As you said, whatever way you use and you happy with you, keep it or use it and don't look back!

agunther

Just for my benefit, does Photomatix support merging several RAW into a single HDR shot?

kdog

agunther wrote:

Just for my benefit, does Photomatix support merging several RAW into a single HDR shot?

Absolutely. The way I do it is to simply open Photomatix, and then drag my multiply-selected raw files from Adobe Bridge directly onto the Photomatix window in one fell swoop.