HDR Software

Browncoat

Senior Member
What HDR programs does anyone use?

Photomatix seems to be the most popular. I've given the trial version a test drive and it seems to do everything I want it to. They also have a Photoshop plug-in that is a bit cheaper, but it somewhat limited in its tone mapping capabilities.
 

Joseph Bautsch

New member
I use the Photomatix plugin for Aperture3. I have not found any limits to it's merging or tone mapping capabilities. I also have the full Photomatix Pro but prefer using the Aperture plugin. It's quicker and easier to use.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I was just playing with Photoshop CS5's new Pro-HDR this morning. I took one image in Program mode and then a 9-image series to convert to HDR in aperture priority. Here are the results. (I don't care for the over-the-top HDR look.)

Non-HDR:

starved_rock_2010_0719_13522686_d300.jpg


HDR:
starved_rock_2010_0719_1353_d300_hdr.jpg
 

Joseph Bautsch

New member
HDR is great for putting details into the shadows and into blown out highlights. And you are right there can be too much detail in shadows and highlights that give you a over the top look. That's where you should go back into CS5 and tune down the shadows and highlights until you get a more reasonable balance. One more to your liking.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I do like the over the top look.

HDR has so many applications. It can really amp up the grittiness of abandoned buildings and urban photography. It can also add levels of depth to landscapes or make a scene border on the surreal.

I have yet to see HDR used well on portraits without them looking fake, however.
 
Last edited:

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I do like the over the top look. HDR has so many applications. It can really amp up the grittiness of abandoned buildings and urban photography.

That gritty look on buildings and urban streetscapes is a GREAT effect! Thanks for catching me on that!
 
Last edited:

Joseph Bautsch

New member
With some types of photos HDR works great, in others it can be awful. HDR will give you a grainy look. If one of the three exposures has some noise then the resulting merger can have a grainy look to it. How much "grain" will depend on the amount of noise introduced. I have found HDR works best with scenic type photos. Those pictures that are static in nature. Scenes that have subjects in motion can give very weird results when the three shots are merged. However even motion in an HDR works out OK or is even desirable. If you go to my Gallery and open up the "Double Rainbow" shot you will see three ducks flying near the rainbow. The shot is a three shot HDR and that is not three ducks. It's one duck I caught flying by at the time but the HDR caught it in three different positions. That's OK because it's not unusual to see ducks flying in formation like that. Now open up "The Power of Niagara Falls" shot. This is also an HDR shot where I wanted to emphasize the motion of the water and still get a lot of detail in the water highlights and the shadows in the rocks.

Speaking of grain, for more years than I want to count or admit to everyone wanted to get rid of, "that gritty look". Film manufacturers spent millions in research developing high speed film and chemical processing formulas that produced no grain. It was the Holy Grail of photography. Even in the very early days of digital the advanced amateur and professional photographers didn't want to use it because of the grain. How times have changed with technology. Today there are any number of presets in post processing, that have become popular, that will give you the "old time" grainy look of a number of different film types. Sorry guys I'm from the old school. Now a days you might say the very old school. I spent too many years of my life trying to get rid of the grain to find it acceptable or even desirable in my photos. You might say its been in-grained in me for too many years for me to change now.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Today there are any number of presets in post processing, that have become popular, that will give you the "old time" grainy look of a number of different film types.

You bring up a very good point, Joseph. Lomography (such as the LOMO LC-A and Diana F+) and the vintage/retro look is very "in" right now. The retro look and classic black and white are my favorite types of images, and go well with the subjects I enjoy photographing the most.

And you're absolutely right, HDR certainly has its place. I don't recall ever seeing an HDR portrait that looked right for example. I'm a big fan of Dave Hill's work, but that's mostly about lighting and Photoshop tweaks as opposed to HDR.
 
I use Hydra HDR software, but am eagerly awaiting the Nik Software plug-in for Aperture which will be able to work magic on the photos. I'm really used to the Nik software interface, and have the rest of the collection for Aperture as well.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
My first two go's at Lightroom 3...
I'm happy with the lighthouse for the most part.. The landscape I'm still in debate rather I like it or not.....It feels over the top as Eduard mentioned... the contrast of colors are fantastical!

I like them! Go figure!
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
My first two go's at Lightroom 3...
I'm happy with the lighthouse for the most part.. The landscape I'm still in debate rather I like it or not.....It feels over the top as Eduard mentioned... the contrast of colors are fantastical!

Hi, Karlyh

Are your photos HDR (high dynamic range)? I ask because you can't accomplish HDR within lightroom but have to go to an external editor like photoshop or photomatix. I found this link on the web that explains HDR in a nutshell in case you're new to this. The ultimate guide to HDR photography :: Photocritic photography blog

Your lighthouse photo is gorgeous . . . very stormy and dramatic. On your landscape, you might try cropping it, e.g. take out the tree on the right and a little less greenery in the front. Lightroom is wonderful for cropping. You can adjust and readjust and save virtual copies and compare.

Great job and just keep shooting!
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I use Hydra HDR software, but am eagerly awaiting the Nik Software plug-in for Aperture which will be able to work magic on the photos. I'm really used to the Nik software interface, and have the rest of the collection for Aperture as well.

I, too, am very impressed with the Nik software. I wasn't aware that they were working on HDR sofware. I just purchased Photmatix Pro because I wasn't happy with Photoshop's handling of HDR. I'm hoping it will be of the same caliber as the rest of their software.
 
I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival - just announced for October - of the Nik Software HDR Efex Pro. BTW, I have a discount code to save 15% off the software price for any of the Nik Software if anyone is interested.
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival - just announced for October - of the Nik Software HDR Efex Pro. BTW, I have a discount code to save 15% off the software price for any of the Nik Software if anyone is interested.
EOI, I would love the discount code if you're allowed to share. Already checked out their announcement and it does look really good.

Best Regards
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I would appreciate a little help or suggestions from those of you using HDR. I've been experimenting with this for the past few days, shooting deliberately for HDR processing. I had initially tried the HDR Pro in CS5, but didn't like the result, so switched to Photomatix Pro (stand alone version) and am much happier. I compared two batches of photos . . . both processed in photomatix. The first processed pretty nicely with limited noise and ghosting. The second had lots of noise . . . to the point that taking out the noise took out a lot of detail. The only drastic difference in the shooting was the ISO . . .the first batch I shot at ISO 200 and the second at 800 (which I would not consider too high).

Am I correct to assume that the higher ISO would cause this or am I not processing them correctly? I used the D2X with 35-70 mm 2.8
 
Top