HDR rainforest

On Nov 19, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
It can merge to HDR multiple RAW images?

Yup!

Is it better than Photomatix?

HDR processing is a pretty subjective thing, and personally I have never been
that fond of Photomatix, which I first started using many years ago. I have
always found that one can easily overcook the tone mapping with Photomatix,
but if that is the only tool you have, and you like that sort of thing it
will do.

I have used many HDR tools over the years among them are Photomatix, NIK HDR
Efex, HDR Express 3, Aurora HDR, Lightroom/ACR, and now On1, and a few other
forgettables. Back then I prefered NIK HDR Efex over Photomatix, but now I
get much better results from the newer offerings.

Aurora HDR is very good, and provides excellent results.

Of all of them, for a natural result, I would say that Lightroom/ACR does a
great job without too many complications, and using a Lightroom/Photoshop
workflow, it is the simplest for me to use.

I have only done a few test HDRs with On1 PR 2018, and I find the ease of
use, and results to be very similar to Lightroom/ACR, and so far I am
impressed with them.

Here is another example which has been particularly tough to work with due to
the many moving people in the background. Photomatix and NIK HDR Efex
couldn’t deal with the ghosting, Aurora, Lightroom/ACR, and now On1 PR 2018
eliminate any ghosting artifacts, and alignment issues.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kb1podg9m04u76l/screenshot_226.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8is6zyqu3vwq8b0/DNC6049_HDRe.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i20ub96pdxgvqmo/DNC6054_HDRe.jpg

So to answer your question, yes I think it is better than Photomatix.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Originally Posted by David Taylor

On 18/11/2017 23:46, Alfred Molon wrote:
What do you think about this pictu
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Malays...img.php?pic=10

Photomatix Pro with five RAW images (0EV, +- 2EV, +-4EV);
"photographic" setting.

The water of the waterfall and the sky on top are very bright, while the
shadow areas in the trees are very dark.

I don't like it because I don't believe the colour of the leaves. Were
they /really/ that intensely green?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Now that you mentioned it, they do seem a bit too green. I like it though.

"EzekielTim" wrote

|
| I don't like it because I don't believe the colour of the leaves.

| Now that you mentioned it, they do seem a bit too green. I like it
| though.

I think the idea was to present a discussion of HDR
possibilities. He implied that the first image is HDR
while later links are to non-HDR images. In theory the
HDR image is closer to what your eye actually sees and
alows for more detail with extreme mix of lighting
levels. In practice it doesn't seem to work so well.

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a medium
that could do justice to the theory. We're looking
at the whole thing reduced to a 24-bit bitmap
displayed on a monitor. The result is garish and
inaccurate. But who knows whether the actual
HDR creation was?

On 11/21/2017 10:19 AM, EzekielTim wrote:
David Taylor;1049285 Wrote:
On 18/11/2017 23:46, Alfred Molon wrote:-
What do you think about this pictu
http://tinyurl.com/y7nn8y63

Photomatix Pro with five RAW images (0EV, +- 2EV, +-4EV);
"photographic" setting.

The water of the waterfall and the sky on top are very bright, while
the
shadow areas in the trees are very dark.-

I don't like it because I don't believe the colour of the leaves. Were

they /really/ that intensely green?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Now that you mentioned it, they do seem a bit too green. I like it
though.

The key is whether the photographer likes it.



--
PeterN

On 11/21/2017 9:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 11/21/2017 10:19 AM, EzekielTim wrote:
David Taylor;1049285 Wrote:
On 18/11/2017 23:46, Alfred Molon wrote:-
What do you think about this pictu
http://tinyurl.com/y7nn8y63

Photomatix Pro with five RAW images (0EV, +- 2EV, +-4EV);
"photographic" setting.

The water of the waterfall and the sky on top are very bright, while
the
shadow areas in the trees are very dark.-

I don't like it because I don't believe the colour of the leaves.* Were

they /really/ that intensely green?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Now that you mentioned it, they do seem a bit too green. I like it
though.

The key is whether the photographer likes it.



OK, I'm in with you in that I still like much
of my over baked stuff.
Thus (as always) YMMV.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--