Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:18:07 +0100, "Ken" wrote:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-06-28 16:02:29 -0700, "Matt Clara" said:

"Unbelievable" wrote in message
...

ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html


Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and
composed them into an HDRI last night.

http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clar...t-HDRi-02b.jpg

The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR
(and not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll
observe here are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of
the original images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due
to the averaging of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15, and
30 seconds--lots of noise in those, particularly noticeable in the sky.
I still went for a high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation is to
illuminate everything. I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to do some
shop work to get the dude to hold still.

...and I am impressed with your work here.

The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well planned
(there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).

I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as this
stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will reconsider.

For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

http://www.pbase.com/moorlands

Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking at
HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed. Take
alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.

good luck


Impressive!



Eric Stevens

Unbelievable wrote:

Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
Photomatix look like MS Paint.

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
herd following sheep that you are?

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?

There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.

Yes, we were discussing it recently, thanks.

BugBear

On 2009-06-29 01:18:07 -0700, "Ken" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-06-28 16:02:29 -0700, "Matt Clara" said:

"Unbelievable" wrote in message
...

ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html


Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and
composed them into an HDRI last night.

http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clar...t-HDRi-02b.jpg

The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR
(and not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll
observe here are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of
the original images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due
to the averaging of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15,
and 30 seconds--lots of noise in those, particularly noticeable in the
sky. I still went for a high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation
is to illuminate everything. I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to
do some shop work to get the dude to hold still.

...and I am impressed with your work here.

The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well
planned (there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).

I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as
this stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will
reconsider.

For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

http://www.pbase.com/moorlands

Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking
at HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very
impressed. Take alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses
Photomatix.

good luck

Ken

Now there is a photographer who has been working on his HDR techniques.
That is the sort of subtlety I would like to achieve, both for effect
and for shots taken in difficult light.

Knowing he used Photomatix tells me I have much more to learn, but with
time, scene/subject selection and planning getting good HDR results is
possible.

So, practice, practice, practice; patience, patience, patience, and persevere.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009062906133743658-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-06-29 01:18:07 -0700, "Ken" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-06-28 16:02:29 -0700, "Matt Clara" said:

"Unbelievable" wrote in message
...

ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html


Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and
composed them into an HDRI last night.

http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clar...t-HDRi-02b.jpg

The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR
(and not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll
observe here are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of
the original images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due
to the averaging of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15,
and 30 seconds--lots of noise in those, particularly noticeable in the
sky. I still went for a high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation
is to illuminate everything. I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to
do some shop work to get the dude to hold still.

...and I am impressed with your work here.

The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well
planned (there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).

I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as
this stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will
reconsider.

For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

http://www.pbase.com/moorlands

Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking
at HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed.
Take alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.

good luck

Ken

Now there is a photographer who has been working on his HDR techniques.
That is the sort of subtlety I would like to achieve, both for effect and
for shots taken in difficult light.

Knowing he used Photomatix tells me I have much more to learn, but with
time, scene/subject selection and planning getting good HDR results is
possible.

So, practice, practice, practice; patience, patience, patience, and
persevere.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Yes he is the ONLY reason why I am tempted to give it a go. Ironically he
lives about 5 miles away from me. Perhaps I should email and ask for private
lessons? ;-)

Ken wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/moorlands

Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking
at HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed.
Take alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.

Hmm. If you look at that guy's photo's BEFORE he used HDR they also
have that "a little more saturated and contrasty than nature" look.

My conclusion is that he's been messing with tone-mapping (in
the general sense) for a very long time, and has mastered it,
at least to the degree that he can achieve what he's aiming for.

I suspect that even if the HDR software gave results that weren't
what he wanted, his "usual techniques" in PhotoShop (or similar)
would soon have things back on track.

BugBear

PDM wrote:
Wow! I sure hope you are not in sales.
Len

He's sales manager for IBM

PDM



That's sad.

--

Len

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:12:17 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:15:58 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
wrote in
et:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:52:22 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows
machine.

BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechut...micPhoto-w.jpg

I certainly wouldn't pay for it based on this result. Your Photomatix-
versions, although far from perfect, were much better than this one.

Agreed.

Garbage in, garbage out. That's what happens when someone who doesn't know
what they are doing compares things. I have 99.999% of all Photomatix crap
examples that have ever been produced to prove all of you 100% wrong.