Photomatrix HDR Walk-Through

gmitchel850 · June 21, 2009

Lowell Franga sent me a set of four exposures from the interior of a German church. He asked me to use Photomatrix Pro to demonstrate how I'd go about extending dynamic range.

Well, this coaching session goes a bit beyond Photomatrix. To get as much detail as possible in the stained glass, I composited two tone mapped HDR photos from Photomatrix.

http://www.thelightsright.com/CoachingSession4

http://www.thelightsright.com/files/coaching/franga3/coachingsession4.pdf

Enjoy!

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,

Mitch

kwcrow · June 22, 2009

Good article, although the product is photomatix, not photomatrix. It looks like it is spelled wrong in the article also.

gmitchel850 · June 22, 2009

kwcrow wrote:

Good articles, although the product is photomatix, not photomatrix. It looks like it is spelled wrong in the article also.

Thanks. That's been fixed.

Mitch

kdog · June 22, 2009

Interesting approach. A couple of things come to mind. First, did you try the details enhancer tone mapping mode at all on this image? You should have been able to get everything in range in a single pass with it. The tone compressor mode is less aggressive about fixing dynamic range problems. The second thing that came to mind is why didn't you simply merge the EV -3 original as the source for the windows with the "normal" tone compressor output image?

If you'd wanted to coax more detail out of the stained glass, the other thing you could have done was to use the details enhancer HDR mode for the stained glass source and merge that with tone-compressor HDR output. Merging the two tone mapping modes is actually a common thing to do with Photomatix, as is merging a tone-mapped image with an original source image. Merging two variants of a single tone-mapping mode is something I've not heard done before. But as you said, there are often many ways to achieve the same results.

Thanks for taking the time to share your technique.

Cheers,
-joel

gmitchel850 · June 22, 2009

Good questions, Joel.

I briefly looked at the Details Enhancer and decided that I could achieve a more natural look quicker and easier with Tone Compressor.

I did consider using the -3 original for the stained glass. In fact, I created a mask on the original file with that in mind and found that Photomatix would not create an HDR when the input files had an unequal number of channels. IOW, having an alpha channel for one file, it didn't like at all.

When I looked at the Brightness -6 result from the Tone Compressor, I liked it better than the -3 EV original. Could I have edited the -3 EV to get a similar appearance, bt why go to the effort.

The coaching session is pretty much stream of consciousness. If I see a -6 Brightness result from Tone Compressor looks better than the -3EV original, I'm going to be inclined to use (and I did).

I am not an expert with Photomatix or HDR. Just an avid digital photography hobbyist. So I'm not familiar with people merging multiple tone mapped versions. If it is common, you'd think the facility would be easier to do from the Photomatix interface. It was clunky saving the first version then backing out of it to save the second.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Interesting discussion was what I was looking for.

Cheers,

Mitch

kdog wrote:

Interesting approach. A couple of things come to mind. First, did you try the details enhancer tone mapping mode at all on this image? You should have been able to get everything in range in a single pass with it. The tone compressor mode is less aggressive about fixing dynamic range problems. The second thing that came to mind is why didn't you simply merge the EV -3 original as the source for the windows with the "normal" tone compressor output image?

If you'd wanted to coax more detail out of the stained glass, the other thing you could have done was to use the details enhancer HDR mode for the stained glass source and merge that with tone-compressor HDR output. Merging the two tone mapping modes is actually a common thing to do with Photomatix, as is merging a tone-mapped image with an original source image. Merging two variants of a single tone-mapping mode is something I've not heard done before. But as you said, there are often many ways to achieve the same results.

Thanks for taking the time to share your technique.

Cheers,
-joel

kdog · June 22, 2009

gmitchel850 wrote:

If I see a -6 Brightness result from Tone Compressor looks better than the -3EV original, I'm going to be inclined to use (and I did).

Interesting! Glad to hear you tried it both ways.

I might mention that if you haven't played around with the Details Enhancer, you might want to give it a shot sometime. If you choose the DEFAULT setting in the dropdown menu it applies a very conservative tone mapping which you may like. (Careful, because the dropdown defaults to the last applied setting, not the default setting.

) It will look a little flat, but that's what PP is for. The range should be acceptable though. The histogram works in Photomatix too, so watch to make sure your mods aren't blowing out pixels. It will happily do that if you're not paying attention.

I am not an expert with Photomatix or HDR. Just an avid digital photography hobbyist. So I'm not familiar with people merging multiple tone mapped versions. If it is common, you'd think the facility would be easier to do from the Photomatix interface. It was clunky saving the first version then backing out of it to save the second.

Hey, we're all learning here.

My frame of reference on that comment was as described in the book High Dynamic Range Digital Photography, by Ferrell McCollough, page 88. He describes both the blending scenarios I mentioned, plus a couple more (including merging outputs from completely different HDR tools!) In addition to the book, the blend-multiple-tone-mapping scenario was also taught in an HDR workshop put on by Naturescapes. Good for you for coming up with your own variant.

Cheers,
-joel

gmitchel850 · June 23, 2009

I've used the Details Enhancer. I fiod it tends to give a "more over the top" look to photos. That's great for some photos. It's just not what I wanted for the interior of a church.

My comment about being an avid hobbyist wasn't directed at you at all.

I was just signaling that while I post a lot of tutorials, I don't apply the title of expert to myself. There are too many people out there who award themselves such designations.

I'm also aware that there are multiple tools and techniques to achieve the same or a similar result.

I got what I was looking for. People appreciate the effort that went into the tutorial and it's stimulated some interesting discussion and suggestions.

You and I are fine.

Cheers,

Mitch

kdog wrote:

Interesting! Glad to hear you tried it both ways.

I might mention that if you haven't played around with the Details Enhancer, you might want to give it a shot sometime. If you choose the DEFAULT setting in the dropdown menu it applies a very conservative tone mapping which you may like. (Careful, because the dropdown defaults to the last applied setting, not the default setting. ) It will look a little flat, but that's what PP is for. The range should be acceptable though. The histogram works in Photomatix too, so watch to make sure your mods aren't blowing out pixels. It will happily do that if you're not paying attention.

Hey, we're all learning here. My frame of reference on that comment was as described in the book High Dynamic Range Digital Photography, by Ferrell McCollough, page 88. He describes both the blending scenarios I mentioned, plus a couple more (including merging outputs from completely different HDR tools!) In addition to the book, the blend-multiple-tone-mapping scenario was also taught in an HDR workshop put on by Naturescapes. Good for you for coming up with your own variant.

Cheers,
-joel

kdog · June 24, 2009

gmitchel850 wrote:

I've used the Details Enhancer. I fiod it tends to give a "more over the top" look to photos.

Using the default settings? Ok, there's where we disagree. :nah

PS: It's all good though!

Cheers,
-joel