Photomatix 3.2 HDR

dlplumer · July 13, 2009

Thought I'd try it:

dseidman · July 13, 2009

This is actually very natural looking for something out of Photomatix. The only problem I see is the patch of extra bright sky where it meets the trees. Other than that, nice image!

thapamd · July 13, 2009

Very, very natural looking shot, Dan. I like this a lot. Maybe I'll give the software a try. How many exposures did you blend here?

dlplumer · July 13, 2009

thapamd wrote:

Very, very natural looking shot, Dan. I like this a lot. Maybe I'll give the software a try. How many exposures did you blend here?

-2, 0, +2 (3 exposures)

ront · July 13, 2009

I just noticed that it was available today. I have it downloaded and will give it a try later at home.

Nice image Dan!

Eia · July 13, 2009

Not bad at all... pretty natural looking i think. I do see a line between the sky and mountain. Do you like the program?

coscorrosa · July 13, 2009

Really nice Dan, like that leading line made by the rocks in the foreground to the mountains in the background

anwmn1 · July 13, 2009

Agree with the crowd. Very natural looking for an HDR and a very nice shot.

squirl033 · July 14, 2009

i'll have to download 3.2 myself. Photomatix is really quite good, and can produce excellent results as long as you use it with a light touch... the smoothing to eliminate the "halo" effect has always been the bugaboo for this program, though, and hopefully the new version improves that...

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

Thanks everyone. The new version has a whole bunch of fixes and improvements, but having tried it on only one photo I really cannot comment.

I tend to like the artificial over baked results that HDRs can have, but I purposely kept this one natural looking. Appreciate all your comments.

Dan

Doug Solis · July 14, 2009

Well done. really nice composition.

kdog · July 14, 2009

Well................ I would have to say that's perfection in an HDR Dan, and a lovely composition to boot. Kudos to you, and Photomatix, and thanks a bunch for the heads-up on the new version.

Cheers,
-joel

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

kdog wrote:

Well................ I would have to say that's perfection in an HDR Dan, and a lovely composition to boot. Kudos to you, and Photomatix, and thanks a bunch for the heads-up on the new version.

Cheers,
-joel

Thanks Joel

See you soon.

Chris H · July 14, 2009

Nicely done, and thanks for the heads up on the new version. I've just downloaded it. On first imression it looks like they've managed to change some of the algorithms to allow it to produce more natural looking shots.

richtersl · July 14, 2009

This is well done, Dan. Like the others have commented, it looks natural and not overcooked.

I just recently upgraded to 3.2 and it's much less frustrating to use than the earlier version I had. I may actually begin using Photomatix again.

Jack'll do · July 14, 2009

Hi Dan
Very nice HDR!

thumb Thanks for the heads up about the new version. I've been using Photomatix 3.1 for some time now and really like the results. I too prefer the natural look. I presume you used the Tone Compressor option and not Detail Enhancer on this no?

Ric Grupe · July 14, 2009

Nice, Dan!

Since this scene isn't going anywhere...I'd try backing up a bit and doing a wider more panoramic shot...1X2 crop ratio. I like the rocks in the foreground, but I'd like to see a bit more sky and the hillside on the left.

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

Jack'll do wrote:

Hi Dan
Very nice HDR! thumb Thanks for the heads up about the new version. I've been using Photomatix 3.1 for some time now and really like the results. I too prefer the natural look. I presume you used the Tone Compressor option and not Detail Enhancer on this no?

No Jack, I used the "details enhancer". Thanks.

aerosmith9110 · July 14, 2009

very natural looking unlike mine..

nice. doesn't even look like HDR to my untrained eye

endsoftheearth · July 14, 2009

HDR try
Even though the basic composition of this shot is ok, it certainly does not contain the standards of a good hdr shot. It actually lacks the central elements that give hdr its distinct advantages. Basically, all the dark shadow areas that show no detail and should have been opened up, are still lacking any detail. Both foreground and background areas are sorely lacking in detail and clarity. The light part of the sky that some might think is haloing, is actually a natural phenomenon when the sun is just below a large object such as rock formations or mountains in the middle of the day. Assuming your exposures were correct, photomatix should have been able to handle the wide exposure latitudes in the various areas better. Perhaps more time needs to be applied to working with the program to achieve a better rendering of the scene.

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

endsoftheearth wrote:

Even though the basic composition of this shot is ok, it certainly does not contain the standards of a good hdr shot. It actually lacks the central elements that give hdr its distinct advantages. Basically, all the dark shadow areas that show no detail and should have been opened up, are still lacking any detail. Both foreground and background areas are sorely lacking in detail and clarity. The light part of the sky that some might think is haloing, is actually a natural phenomenon when the sun is just below a large object such as rock formations or mountains in the middle of the day. Assuming your exposures were correct, photomatix should have been able to handle the wide exposure latitudes in the various areas better. Perhaps more time needs to be applied to working with the program to achieve a better rendering of the scene.

I appreciate all feedback and am certainly open to criticism, but I do not see what you see.

The fg and bg detail and exposures seem pretty darn good to me, and apparently to others. Are you sure your monitor is OK?

kdog · July 14, 2009

endsoftheearth wrote:

Even though the basic composition of this shot is ok, it certainly does not contain the standards of a good hdr shot. It actually lacks the central elements that give hdr its distinct advantages. Basically, all the dark shadow areas that show no detail and should have been opened up, are still lacking any detail. Both foreground and background areas are sorely lacking in detail and clarity. The light part of the sky that some might think is haloing, is actually a natural phenomenon when the sun is just below a large object such as rock formations or mountains in the middle of the day. Assuming your exposures were correct, photomatix should have been able to handle the wide exposure latitudes in the various areas better. Perhaps more time needs to be applied to working with the program to achieve a better rendering of the scene.

I think that's a highly subjective call and way overstated. On my monitor, I can see details in the rocks to the left and right of the scene which I know I wouldn't see on a non-HDR shot. When you reach too deep into the shadows, or go too far in any of the myriad of HDR controls, you're entering the surreal realm, along with its attendant tradeoffs (See example). Exactly where that boundary is is a judgment call best left to the artist. The beauty of Dan's image is that nobody would know it's an HDR unless he told you. I think it's perfectly appropriate to use HDR to make subtle improvements to an image. So to say the image "does not contain the standards of a good hdr shot" just because the artist didn't get as radical as you would have strikes me as a bit arrogant.

Respectfully submitted,
-joel

whiteagle · July 14, 2009

I think it's kind of like any other post processing. It's all a matter of how heavy or light handed you choose to be. Of course the extremes always look bad.

While I think you could have pushed it a bit farther, it's certainly a nice shot. Not knowing it's a 3 exposure HDR, no one can just look at it and go "That looks bad. He should have opened up the shadows more."

Good job.

Ric Grupe · July 14, 2009

kdog wrote:

I think that's a highly subjective call and way overstated.

Not overly interested in HDR myself (not to say I won't be), but I think that so many HDRs that you see are way overdone...Dan's looks like it was baked just right!

I truly believe that I can get this same look using the "Tonal Contrast" adjustments in Nik's Color Effects Pro plugin for PS. Much easier, I might add.

ront · July 14, 2009

Very well stated joel!! I am really liking HDR, but generally only use it to help make the photo look like my eye saw it. I like to process a photo and hopefully not give away that the HDR process was even done.

Ron

kdog wrote:

The beauty of Dan's image is that nobody would know it's an HDR unless he told you. I think it's perfectly appropriate to use HDR to make subtle improvements to an image. So to say the image "does not contain the standards of a good hdr shot" just because the artist didn't get as radical as you would have strikes me as a bit arrogant.

Respectfully submitted,
-joel

endsoftheearth · July 14, 2009

HDR image

ront wrote:

Very well stated joel!! I am really liking HDR, but generally only use it to help make the photo look like my eye saw it. I like to process a photo and hopefully not give away that the HDR process was even done.

Ron

Well now I'm wondering if I am seeing the same scene as some others on this post. I know my monitor is very accurate on countless other images, but in this case I am not seeing anything but black featureless trees in the centerground, and black water in the left upper foreground. ???

Ric Grupe · July 14, 2009

endsoftheearth wrote:

Well now I'm wondering if I am seeing the same scene as some others on this post. I know my monitor is very accurate on countless other images, but in this case I am not seeing anything but black featureless trees in the centerground, and black water in the left upper foreground. ???

Check your monitor!

I can easily see detail.

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

endsoftheearth wrote:

Well now I'm wondering if I am seeing the same scene as some others on this post. I know my monitor is very accurate on countless other images, but in this case I am not seeing anything but black featureless trees in the centerground, and black water in the left upper foreground. ???

Your monitor is apparently off. There is NO black water and all the trees are well exposed with detail.

ront · July 14, 2009

Dan, I just noticed that I have made a couple of comments in this thread and have not even commented on your photo:(. I think it is a great photo. I really the like work that you did with this one. The HDR work is very well done IMHO.

Ron

Jack'll do · July 14, 2009

Hey Dan
I was just wondering if this image is straight out of photomatix or did you do some post processing on it after tone mapping.

dlplumer · July 14, 2009

Jack'll do wrote:

Hey Dan
I was just wondering if this image is straight out of photomatix or did you do some post processing on it after tone mapping.

I think I did some minor levels adjustment and maybe a tad sharpening but nothing significant Jack.

Photomatix 3.2 HDR

Comments