Photomatix question

Dogdots

I'm thinking of purchasing Photomatix and I don't know if the plug-in is needed or not.

Could someone tell me how it works as a plug-in? Right now I'm playing with the trial version and I'm just wondering how it opens and you can work with it in CS3.

Thanks

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

I'm thinking of purchasing Photomatix and I don't know if the plug-in is needed or not.

Could someone tell me how it works as a plug-in? Right now I'm playing with the trial version and I'm just wondering how it opens and you can work with it in CS3.

Thanks

When I do use photomatix I either use it stand alone or I use the Lightroom plug in. The download says there is a CS3 plug in but I've not come across a way to open it so I'm interested as to its utility as well.

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

When I do use photomatix I either use it stand alone or I use the Lightroom plug in. The download says there is a CS3 plug in but I've not come across a way to open it so I'm interested as to its utility as well.

I was wondering if anyone was going to answer my question

Its the CS3 that I'm wondering about too as I don't have Lightroom. So I was thinking the stand alone would be the best option. Still haven't purchased it yet as I'm hoping someone who uses it with CS3 would post with some information on it.

Thanks for posting -- lets hope someone finds this thread and helps us out

CoryUT

The plugin (as far as I'm familiar with it) shows up in the Filters menu. It's the same as the tone-mapping step in the standalone version, but I don't think you can generate the HDR image with the plugin (have to do it in CS3 and then tone-map with the plugin).

Dogdots

CoryUT wrote:

The plugin (as far as I'm familiar with it) shows up in the Filters menu. It's the same as the tone-mapping step in the standalone version, but I don't think you can generate the HDR image with the plugin (have to do it in CS3 and then tone-map with the plugin).

Your right -- I was just reading on their site and it is located in the Filters menu. Chris should be able to access it thru his filter menu in CS3 if he has the plug-in.

This is interesting.......You need to generate your photos in Photomatix, but can't in CS3 so the plug-in is only for a way to transfer over to Photoshop...nothing more. Am I right in this?

theNOIZ

I use Photomatix with Lightroom 2. In the sense of an Adobe plug-in, it's not really a true plug-in. It's more of an "add-on." It's basically automating a few keystrokes and mouse clicks.

In Lightroom, you can export images from your library directly to Photomatix. What happens in the background is Lightroom takes your raw images, converts them to tif and then launches Photomatix. After you're done editing in Photomatix, it will automatically import your new image back into your Lightroom library. Of course all of this can be changed in the configuration.

Dogdots

theNOIZ wrote:

I use Photomatix with Lightroom 2. In the sense of an Adobe plug-in, it's not really a true plug-in. It's more of an "add-on." It's basically automating a few keystrokes and mouse clicks.

In Lightroom, you can export images from your library directly to Photomatix. What happens in the background is Lightroom takes your raw images, converts them to tif and then launches Photomatix. After you're done editing in Photomatix, it will automatically import your new image back into your Lightroom library. Of course all of this can be changed in the configuration.

Thank you for the information. One question...what size file does it work on in Photomatix and when it goes back to your lightroom library does the size change? It's still a tiff file right?

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

Thank you for the information. One question...what size file does it work on in Photomatix and when it goes back to your lightroom library does the size change? It's still a tiff file right?

the file size and resolution are the same, it is saved back to lightroom as 8 bit or 16 bit tiff.

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

the file size and resolution are the same, it is saved back to lightroom as 8 bit or 16 bit tiff.

Thank-you Chris for this information

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

Thank-you Chris for this information

You're welcome. I still use manual masking/blending more than HDR as I feel I get more realistic looking results, but recently I began playing with the Exposure Blending option in Photomatix as opposed to "generate hdr image," and I have to say I like the results. There tends to be less noise and halos (the halos drive me nuts).

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

You're welcome. I still use manual masking/blending more than HDR as I feel I get more realistic looking results, but recently I began playing with the Exposure Blending option in Photomatix as opposed to "generate hdr image," and I have to say I like the results. There tends to be less noise and halos (the halos drive me nuts).

Could you show me a photo that you've done this process on

I took a look at your site Your photos are wonderful.

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

Could you show me a photo that you've done this process on

I took a look at your site Your photos are wonderful.

Thanks for the compliment. Here is an example of a photo in which Exposure blending was used as part of the processing:

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

Thanks for the compliment. Here is an example of a photo in which Exposure blending was used as part of the processing:

WOW -- that is nice. The water pooling at the bottom center looks like milk. Halo's???? What are halos? If you don't mind me asking?

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

WOW -- that is nice. The water pooling at the bottom center looks like milk. Halo's???? What are halos? If you don't mind me asking?

halos are areas of brightness artifact produced by edges with distinct borders and contrasty edges. head over to the HDR group on flickr and you'll see many examples

chrismoore

I do also want to add that the results of what consititutes a "good" hdr image is very subjective and depends on what endpoint the photographer is aiming for. I think it definitely has a useful place when in scenes with a wide range of tonality, though I tend to use it sparingly and always blend the HDR rendering with the processed original. my personal opinion is that hdr images look very unnatural when overcooked, but at the same time I've seen some overcooked images that I like because somehow they 'just work.' As I said, very subjective.

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

I do also want to add that the results of what consititutes a "good" hdr image is very subjective and depends on what endpoint the photographer is aiming for. I think it definitely has a useful place when in scenes with a wide range of tonality, though I tend to use it sparingly and always blend the HDR rendering with the processed original. my personal opinion is that hdr images look very unnatural when overcooked, but at the same time I've seen some overcooked images that I like because somehow they 'just work.' As I said, very subjective.

I had read last night about blending with the original image. How can that be done when you start with 3 images? I'm confused on that process.

Heading to flickr to see the halos -- thanks for link

chrismoore

Dogdots wrote:

I had read last night about blending with the original image. How can that be done when you start with 3 images? I'm confused on that process.

Heading to flickr to see the halos -- thanks for link

Here's what I do: Lets say when you take the photo, you bracket the exposure so that you have one properly exposed image, a +1 EV image and a -1 EV image. Use exposure blending in photomatix to blend those three images in the standard way. Next, take your properly exposed image and process it in photoshop like you would any other photo until it looks like you want. Be sure not to do any cropping on either image.

Next, open both images in photoshop (the photomatix blended image and the one you processed without photomatix). Select the move tool, hold the shift key while dragging one image on top of the other. It will automatically align in a new layer. I usually put the photomatix on top, but it doesn't matter. Then take down the opacity, I usually go down to around 50% or until it looks good. Next, create a layer mask on the top layer and use the brush tool to selectively increase or decrease the layer opacity in the areas you still feel need improvement.

You may do the exposure blending with photomatix, plus a little photoshop and feel that the photo is fine after that; in that case you don't need to do any of this. Personally I'm just conscious of not producing an overcooked HDR and feel that using this method of blending the two processed images gives me a natural look, while still being able to use the benefits of HDR in keeping the tonal range intact.

Dogdots

chrismoore wrote:

Here's what I do: Lets say when you take the photo, you bracket the exposure so that you have one properly exposed image, a +1 EV image and a -1 EV image. Use exposure blending in photomatix to blend those three images in the standard way. Next, take your properly exposed image and process it in photoshop like you would any other photo until it looks like you want. Be sure not to do any cropping on either image.

Next, open both images in photoshop (the photomatix blended image and the one you processed without photomatix). Select the move tool, hold the shift key while dragging one image on top of the other. It will automatically align in a new layer. I usually put the photomatix on top, but it doesn't matter. Then take down the opacity, I usually go down to around 50% or until it looks good. Next, create a layer mask on the top layer and use the brush tool to selectively increase or decrease the layer opacity in the areas you still feel need improvement.

You may do the exposure blending with photomatix, plus a little photoshop and feel that the photo is fine after that; in that case you don't need to do any of this. Personally I'm just conscious of not producing an overcooked HDR and feel that using this method of blending the two processed images gives me a natural look, while still being able to use the benefits of HDR in keeping the tonal range intact.

Thank you so much Chris for taking the time to share with me and others out there how you do this

Never would of thought about the layer mask and brush -- that's a good tip

Today is my day to play with Photomatix so I'll be practicing your steps. I know what you mean about over doing it. Hopefully I will be light with the sliders.

malch

chrismoore wrote:

recently I began playing with the Exposure Blending option in Photomatix as opposed to "generate hdr image," and I have to say I like the results. There tends to be less noise and halos (the halos drive me nuts).

Those who like this kind of natural look might want to try playing with the Enfuse program. It's a simple command line program but it's open source and free. The images it produces are very clean indeed. They may look a little flat and need some more post-processing with a little color and curves. But in my view, the results are better than anything out of Photomatix or any of the other HDR programs.

You can get Enfuse here:

http://enblend.sourceforge.net/

For HDR's that were shot handheld, I recommend downloading qtpfsgui:

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/download.php

Extract the program align_image_stack and use that to align your exposures before running Enfuse on them. Again, in my experience, align_image_stack does a much better job of alignment than Photomatix.

chrismoore

malch wrote:

Those who like this kind of natural look might want to try playing with the Enfuse program. It's a simple command line program but it's open source and free. The images it produces are very clean indeed. They may look a little flat and need some more post-processing with a little color and curves. But in my view, the results are better than anything out of Photomatix or any of the other HDR programs.

You can get Enfuse here:

http://enblend.sourceforge.net/

For HDR's that were shot handheld, I recommend downloading qtpfsgui:

http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/download.php

Extract the program align_image_stack and use that to align your exposures before running Enfuse on them. Again, in my experience, align_image_stack does a much better job of alignment than Photomatix.

I do like Enfuse very much, it gives a much more subtle, albeit natural, blending than does photomatix. For those who are unfamiliar with using the command line, or like me just don't like using it, there is a UI for it called Exfuse that makes it really simple to use. I'm having problems running it on Snow Leopard right now and currently trying to sort that out.