HDR: LR Enfuse

paddler4

I just encountered reference to an HDR plug-in for Lightroom called L/R Enfuse. It is mentioned at the end of this article:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/the-digital-zone-system.html?start=3
Anyone have enough experience with it to know how it compares to Essential HDR or Photomatix?

thanks

pathfinder

Here is an interesting take on Enfuse vs Photomatx. http://mirmilant.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/enfusephotomatix-hdr-comparison/

Short version is they thought Photomatix handled color better, but that Enfuse aligned hand held three images more accurately. That might be important if you refuse/decline to use a tripod...... I have no experience with Enfuse, but the fact that it is open source will be very appealing to lots of folks, and that it is available in both Windows and Mac as well.


I have only recently begun using the Fusion setting in Photomatix Pro, as opposed to creating an hdr. My limited experience is that Fusion in Photomatix Pro works well for two frame images.

paddler4

Thank. a very helpful link. I am interested in natural-looking images, so the greater saturation in his photomatix shots was actually a drawback in my view.

kdog

pathfinder wrote:

Short version is they thought Photomatix handled color better, but that Enfuse aligned hand held three images more accurately. That might be important if you refuse/decline to use a tripod...... I have no experience with Enfuse, but the fact that it is open source will be very appealing to lots of folks, and that it is available in both Windows and Mac as well.

I've hand-held tons of HDRs and have always been impressed at how well Photomatix handles them. My problem with that review is that it seems overly simplistic. The first Photomatix screen has settings for two different types of motion correction, across various strength settings. The defaults, are not the best settings. Since the author doesn't mention any of that, I have trouble lending much credence to his claim that he sees motion artifacts.

That being said, being a software hacker, I really appreciate open source software. So maybe I'll have to take a look at Enfuse. If nothing else, I'd like to see how's it's put together.

I have only recently begun using the Fusion setting in Photomatix Pro, as opposed to creating an hdr. My limited experience is that Fusion in Photomatix Pro works well for two frame images.

Interesting. Despite trying all the different modes in Photomatix, I still haven't figured out which modes are best for which situations. Basically you have to try them all on every photo and see which one gives you the best results. That does get old. Lately I've been starting with with HDR/Details Enhancer and often just settle with that if it looks ok. I half suspect you can get the look of either Tone Compressor or Fusion from the Details Enhancer if you play with it long enough.

kdog

paddler4 wrote:

I am interested in natural-looking images, so the greater saturation in his photomatix shots was actually a drawback in my view.

In as much as there's a saturation slider in Photomatix that can be set completely desaturated if you like, your concern is unfounded.

BinaryFx

I use EnfuseGUI for Mac, which is for rendered and gamma corrected images (TIFF, JPEG etc) - rather than for linear raw camera files.

http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI/Main.html

I prefer the fused/blended/merged look to the more common but "artificially tone mapped" look where extreme local/global contrast, halos and other obviously post processed effects are common.

If one is going after the artificial tone mapped look, I usually prefer to see this blended at lower opacity over the top of a fused image. One has the extended range from the fused image, with more subtle artificial tone mapping effects.

This is of course personal and subjective (some like the over-the-top look).


Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/