HDR software

Philnz

Senior Member
Just trying to get into HDR editing does any one use "Photomatix Essentials 3.1.1 I do not want to spend a lot of cash on softwhare but for the price this looks to be quite good. anycomments?
 

Lscha

Senior Member
That's what I was using and then went to the Pro, but I think I got this advice on here. I like it. I found that the tonemapping tool in Paintshop Pro X3 is often all I need for small tweaking.
 

Philnz

Senior Member
That's what I was using and then went to the Pro, but I think I got this advice on here. I like it. I found that the tonemapping tool in Paintshop Pro X3 is often all I need for small tweaking.
I am about to have a play with it before I buy. Essentials will most likely do all I want in the mean time.it looks fairly straight forward At my time of life it takes a little longer to learn. Thank you for that.
Regards Phil
 

Markmako

Senior Member
If you already own Photoshop or LightRoom, Nik Software makes a plug-in called HDR Efex Pro. It adds a lot of funcitonality to what is already in Photoshop. Personally, I like it and use it a lot.
 
Last edited:

KWJams

Senior Member
I think it is built into your D5100 Phil
Nikon D5100:
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
In scenes with extreme contrasts, such as bright, sunlit clouds and a foreground deep in shadow, it was once quite difficult to render the textures of both equally. Not any more. D5100 combines two exposures to create an image revealing an extremely wide dynamic range, but with less noise and richer color gradation than ever before.
 

Philnz

Senior Member
I think it is built into your D5100 Phil
Nikon D5100:
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
In scenes with extreme contrasts, such as bright, sunlit clouds and a foreground deep in shadow, it was once quite difficult to render the textures of both equally. Not any more. D5100 combines two exposures to create an image revealing an extremely wide dynamic range, but with less noise and richer color gradation than ever before.
Yes you are quite right but all the experts tell me you need a least 3 exposures ie -2-0-+2 in order to get the best out of it. But hay I'm stil learning. Thanks for your input.
 

KWJams

Senior Member
That's what they say -- but I am going to stir the pot and ask why?

It seems like the idea behind HDR is to capture the brights and the darks and then merge them together as one image. That is only two exposures and if all the rest of the components of the exposure triangle are correctly met then why is there a need for anymore?
Are the darks, the not as dark and the not really that dark exposures going to make that much of a difference when merged with not so light, really light and way too light ones?

Is HDR about cartoon looking pictures or crisp images with a strong range of contrasts captured?

I'm certainly no expert, but just my opinion of what looks good and what ends up looking contrived.
 

Philnz

Senior Member
That's what they say -- but I am going to stir the pot and ask why?

It seems like the idea behind HDR is to capture the brights and the darks and then merge them together as one image. That is only two exposures and if all the rest of the components of the exposure triangle are correctly met then why is there a need for anymore?
Are the darks, the not as dark and the not really that dark exposures going to make that much of a difference when merged with not so light, really light and way too light ones?

Is HDR about cartoon looking pictures or crisp images with a strong range of contrasts captured?

I'm certainly no expert, but just my opinion of what looks good and what ends up looking contrived.
I think you have a good point about some HDR images taking on an unreal look I will try the builded in one thats with the 5100 Thanks again for your comments.
 

miknoypinoy

Senior Member
it's about both (cartoon looking, and higher detail images.). we are the artists and producers. we render to what we like. or to what others like if we are commissioned to do so. the more exposures used , the more we are able to fine tune I think. I do alot of audio production and the same method is used for audio tracks. we record an instrument track, filter the lows, then the highs and blend both with the original. I just got into hdr and love it. photomatix is definitely worth the money.


I'm not afraid . . . YOU WILL BE. . . YOU WILL BE. . .
 

Markmako

Senior Member
I'v done a lot of work on images creating HDR files. I started wit a D300 that woudl allow up to 9 frames but I typically set it for five, maybe seven. It wasn't hard to get a finshed product that had significantly more detail, color and tonal range. Imagine my disapppointment when my "new" D7000 only allowed three frames in HDR mode. I've managed but I've also tried different software to get more out of those three files. Some software seems to want to push the envelope to make the HDR look unrealistic, almost abstract and that's not I'm after. I go for the photo-realistic look with the increased detail, several are printed and hanging on my walls. Friends and neighbors can't beleive I took the picture. That's good enough for me.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
That's what they say -- but I am going to stir the pot and ask why?

It seems like the idea behind HDR is to capture the brights and the darks and then merge them together as one image. That is only two exposures and if all the rest of the components of the exposure triangle are correctly met then why is there a need for anymore?
Are the darks, the not as dark and the not really that dark exposures going to make that much of a difference when merged with not so light, really light and way too light ones?

Is HDR about cartoon looking pictures or crisp images with a strong range of contrasts captured?

I'm certainly no expert, but just my opinion of what looks good and what ends up looking contrived.

The primary point of HDR is to expand the range beyond normal, both above and below the normal exposure. The 2 over and under exposures do not capture everything captured by the normal exposure, it is still necessary to complete the range. Some people think you can manipulate a single exposure and merge two changed from the original, this does not work for the same reason, you cannot reproduce something that was not already in the image. The overexposure blows out some details, but picks up the shadow details, the underexposure picks up the blown out details from the normal. The normal brings together what the other 2 have lost.

Goes along the same theory as the conservation of matter and energy, in that you cannot get more out of something that isn't there to begin with, 1 or 2 exposures cannot reproduce the range as well as 3.

Just my 2 cents :)
 
Last edited:

KWJams

Senior Member
I'm not saying all the exposures are worthless. Just really depends on the subject, is it a landscape with a washed out back ground when capturing great foreground details or is the subject less complicated like a outdoor cafe with a table and chairs next to a stuccoed wall.
In my way of thinking the landscape would benefit from multiple exposures while the out door table scene would be alright with just two.
 
Top