Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: russellsnr on December 09, 2010, 06:29:56 am
-
Hi, There are so many HDR software options out there now from Phomatix to other free options and the list is growing so what in your opinions from those who have tried the differant options give the most realistic finish to a photograph ie what you saw when you pushed the shutter.
Thanks
Russ.
-
Hi,
HDR built in Photoshop is quite nice in my view.
Best regards
Erik
Hi, There are so many HDR software options out there now from Phomatix to other free options and the list is growing so what in your opinions from those who have tried the differant options give the most realistic finish to a photograph ie what you saw when you pushed the shutter.
Thanks
Russ.
-
Hi, There are so many HDR software options out there now from Phomatix to other free options and the list is growing so what in your opinions from those who have tried the differant options give the most realistic finish to a photograph ie what you saw when you pushed the shutter.
SNS-HDR (http://www.sns-hdr.com/) (select your preferred language at the top right).
Cheers,
Bart
-
SNS is very good. You can have a look at my review series (http://rf-photography.ca/reviews/) of many of the major HDR applications currently available on the market. I discuss the ability to generate realistic results from each.
Just a note that the review on Artizen HDR is a bit outdated. They're working on a new version that is vastly improved over the current. It's in later beta stages right now and should be available soon.
-
Hi,
HDR built in Photoshop is quite nice in my view.
Best regards
Erik
+1 -- especially since the OP also included "give the most realistic finish to a photograph" :)
Cheers,
-
I use Autopano Pro for combining both single and panoramic HDR images. Autopano has a great 'ghost removal' feature. I also like the LR/Enfuse plugin from Timothy Armes. I finish the images in Lightroom.
Mike.
-
Technically not HDR, but I prefer exposure fusion as implemented in Tufuse Pro (http://www.tawbaware.com/tufusepro.htm) over HDR tone-mapping. PTGui also has an implementation of exposure fusion for panos, and I believe somebody makes a Lightroom Plugin as well.
-
I use Autopano Pro for combining both single and panoramic HDR images. Autopano has a great 'ghost removal' feature. I also like the LR/Enfuse plugin from Timothy Armes. I finish the images in Lightroom.
Mike.
How do you get APP to work with HDR? I know it's supposed to but anytime I've tried it, the results are absolutely horrendous. Trying to tonemap the 32 bit file is a waste of time. Colours/noise are horrific.
-
Photoshop CS5's Merge To HDR Pro and HDR Expose, for very natural results. Also Olneo's latest Beta is quite promising. I also like NIK's HDR Efex Pro, although there is more noticeable noise than in the others, and some color fringing that does not happen in the others, nor in Photomatix. However, knowing NIK, there will soon be an update that will refine the product.
-
The beta of Oloneo is not bad, but the final version should have also an option for batch processing.
Not HDR, but also good (and free) is EnfuseGUI from Ingemar Bergmark: http://software.bergmark.com/enfuseGUI
-
I like Nik HDR Efex Pro. I think the tone mapping is great, but I use CS5 to merge the images. I tried HDR Efex to merge the images but it was slow and I like the deghosting in CS5.
Alan
-
Another vote for LR/enfuse here.
Whilst not pedanticly HDR as such, it does combine different exposures wonderfully well with none of the gaudiness usually associated with "HDR" images.
For extending dynamic range simply, I've not found a better application.
Only useful for Lightroom users of course.
IF you don't use LR you might like to look at the other enfuse products like enfusegui that use the same core application to blend multiple exposures naturally, it's freeware too.
-
Just for the sake of clarity, SNS isn't technically 'HDR' either. It's an exposure fusion software. The images never enter the 32 bit space.
-
Just for the sake of clarity, SNS isn't technically 'HDR' either. It's an exposure fusion software. The images never enter the 32 bit space.
Hi Bob,
That's correct, although one can use it to tonemap HDR files (which is what the OP was looking for), which are in 32-bit space in origin. Internally there is probably also a fair amount of floating point calculation going on.
My perferred workflow with SNS-HDR is based on the import of multiple TIFFs though. While it's a more convoluted workflow, it does allow me to use some of the strengths of my favorite Raw converter, and determine the ColorSpace, but it also allows to use the very effective tonemapping of SNS-HDR. It also allows to use different color balances for shadows and highlights, if wanted. I prefer its blending to the Enfuse variations (I used Tufuse Pro before SNS-HDR), much better UI and control over the fusion process.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't disagree with any of that, Bart. Just pointing out that images merged in SNS aren't technically HDR as was pointed out earlier with regard to Enfuse.
If one is using an HDR app. that doesn't have an import from a RAW converter (i.e., Nik does, CS5 HDR Pro does, the PM LR plugin does, Unified Color's LR plugin does) so that pre-merge adjustments made to the RAW files get picked up automatically then using TIFFs in the merge is a better approach because you get the white/colour balance you want and you're confident in the conversion from the RAW file that's being done. You're right, it's an extra step - if I'm going to batch merge a bunch of files, I'll export the RAW files to a TIFF RAW folder as the intermediate step - but a worthwhile one.
-
i get good results with bracketeer, tried a few others but found it the best for natural looking results. CS5 looked like it could possibly match bracketeer but I couldn't see the point in spending time getting a good file when i'm happy with my current application.
bracketeer doesn't do tone mapping so i guess is an exposure blending app not true HDR?
-
Most of what I've seen of HDR pcitures is the sky and foreground have the same intensity making it look unnatural. Which program would have something like a slider that would allow you to change the relative brightness between the sky and foreground along a continuum of 0-100% so you can pick the point where you think it's most natural?
-
Most of what I've seen of HDR pcitures is the sky and foreground have the same intensity making it look unnatural. Which program would have something like a slider that would allow you to change the relative brightness between the sky and foreground along a continuum of 0-100% so you can pick the point where you think it's most natural?
Hi Alan,
It depends a bit on the basic philosophy of the program, and the tools that are used to reduce contrast. Basically there are 2 methods of contrast adjustment, global tonemapping and local tonemapping. The problem you mention is usually caused by the global tonemapping part of the method. The more successful 'realistic' methods allow to have a certain level of control over the local tonemapping.
That also explains why the exposure fusion approach can deliver such normal looking results, it mainly addresses the local (actually per pixel) contrast, and the better inplementations allow to reduce the global contrast by excluding those low frequency changes from the fusion process.
What I personally like about SNS-HDR is that it also addresses the challenge with an approach based on photographically relevant parameters such as shadows, mid-tones, and highlights, and they can be tweaked more-or-less individually. It cannot fully separate the zones because everything is related to something else in some way, but the ephasis can be placed where needed. The midtone contrast slider in SNS-HDR, if pushed too far, does what you dislike, so when used with restraint, things should be fine.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Another vote for Tufuse Pro if one insists on using automated methods.
For the most natural result I blend manually in PS.
-
Can you blend in PS Elements 8?
-
If you can use layers, you can blend manually. So yes, you can blend manually in PSE.
The issue of overall image contrast isn't so much an issue of global vs. local contrast or tonemapping. It's more a matter of how aggressively the tonemapping is applied and what other tools are used in combination with the brightness crunching (tonemapping).
Local tonemapping won't address sky vs. foreground contrast issues. That's a more global issue. Local contrast works at the pixel level. Sky vs. foreground (to keep with the same example) is a much broader issue.
Programs like Photomatix and PS CS5 HDR Pro (as well as others) give the user tools that will address both the brigthness crunching and after that the image contrast concerns. Tools like Highlights & Shadows adjustments or a Levels/Curves tool will help in this regard in many instances.
But before all that what's really important is an understanding of how the various tools in the program work, what they do and how they affect an image - both at the global and local level. In most cases, when you see a photo that's flat and uninteresting it's because the brightness crunching has been applied too aggressively.
The other aspect of all of this is that the tonemapped LDR image out of the HDR software isn't the end point, but rather a new starting point. Taking that tonemapped image and then applying other adjustments just as we would a single image out of the camera is the next step in the process.
The HDR Tutorial (http://rf-photography.ca/2010/12/hdr-tutorial/) on my website discusses much of this. The tutorial uses Photomatix but the same concepts can be applied to other HDR software, just substitute the tool titles.
-
Bob: You wrote an excellent tutorial. I don't have HDR programs but it seems interesting because I like to do landscapes and sky-ground exposures are always issues. Working with grad ND filters is the traditional approach but I'm interested in eventually trying out HDR software.
I'm starting to shoot medium format film again. Anything I should consider when shooting film that would be different than shooting digital shots to be used later with HDR? Anything I should consider when selecting and using HDR programs on scanned film? Tks. ALan.
-
Anything I should consider when shooting film that would be different than shooting digital shots to be used later with HDR?
Hi Alan,
Film has a non-linear response to light. That will make it harder to align exposure brackets on the exposure scale. It is therefore even more important than on digital to use a good sized fixed lens hood, or a bellows type of hood that's optimized for the aperture you use.
Anything I should consider when selecting and using HDR programs on scanned film?
Any kind of noise/grain is going to bite you when you start boosting local contrast. So use low ISO film, and scan at the scanner's native resolution to reduce grain-aliasing. Scanning with a more diffuse lightsource is beneficial. For assembling an HDR file you would need a program that eliminates the toe and shoulder response for intermediate exposures of the range. Therefore, if possible, the program should be able to calculate the tone response curve from the individual scans, not assume some sort of gamma.
Personally I think film is a better candidate for "exposure fusion" than for HDR tonemapping, because of the non-linearity issues mentioned.
What HDR can be used for is extracting more useful DR from a single frame, especially slide material. A scanning application like Vuescan Pro can deliver linear gamma TIFFs at different scanner exposure levels (which should make them easy to promote to a HDR scan file). The output as a TIFF file would have better shadow noise, and Vuescan can transform that into a gamma adjusted TIFF for the type of film used.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks, Alan. I appreciate the kind words.
As Bart says, HDR with film scans is a bit more difficult. Ideally, for best results, HDR programs want linear data. Even if you send gamma encoded TIFF files to an HDR program, the program should read the embedded gamma curve and reverse it to get back to linear data. Even if you shoot JPEG, while JPEGs aren't linear they only have the gamma encoding of the embedded colour profile to worry about. With film, you've got the natural tone curve of the film plus the gamma encoding from the scan and embedding of the colour profile.
Some scanning software can output linear 'RAW' scans. VueScan can, as Bart notes as can Silverfast (not sure about any others). This will eliminate the colour profile gamma encoding but not the natural tone curve of the film. Photomatix has a process that will attempt to reverse-engineer a tone curve that they suggest using for film scans. It's only available in Batch mode; however. Which is OK, you can use Batch mode on a single set of files.
Unlike digital where multiple processing of a single RAW file into 3 output files at different exposure settings won't have any benefit for HDR merging, with film it is possible to delve deeper into shadows and possibly recover some highlights by adjusting the scan exposure (at the time of scanning, not afteward). Not quite as good as having 3 separate film scans but still some benefit compared to digital RAW files.
I've tried the multiple scan method for HDR on some old film images with mixed results. None that I've been really pleased with but I haven't tried it in several years either so improvements in scanning software, HDR software and my own knowledge set may mean I could get better results today. Bracketing for HDR with film can get pretty expensive too. A scanner/software combination with multi-scan functionality that can do multiple scans of the same film frame at different exposure levels will help pull a bit more shadow detail than sometimes a straight, single scan can.
If the goal is simply expanded brightness range and GND filters aren't possible or aren't sufficient, then exposure fusion/exposure blending (either automated or manual) is the better approach, I think. Photomatix does have an exposure fusion utility. SNS-HDR, while having tonemapping ability, is an exposure fusion tool. There're also Enfuse & TuFuse which are good quality fusion programs.
-
Currently, I bracket my landscape shots one stop above and below calculated exposure even on those scenes when no Grad ND filters are being used. I usually bracket with shutter speed to keep my DOF a priority. I shoot on a tripod. Obviously I've been bracketing until now in case I screw up the calculated exposure not for HDR.
If I decide to try the HDR route without filters, what bracketing do you recommend? I could bracket two above and two below; one stop, half stops? Five shots would give me two scenes per roll of 120 film. Does it matter whether you bracket with shutter or aperture? I think negative film is better from a scanning standpoint with the Epson V600 flat bed scanner I use. What HDR program works better with film?
-
If I decide to try the HDR route without filters, what bracketing do you recommend? I could bracket two above and two below; one stop, half stops? Five shots would give me two scenes per roll of 120 film.
I wouldn't bracket wider than 1 stop between images with film for true HDR. Exposure Fusion/blending can tolerate more, but with larger increments the results will lack 'smoothness' in gradients. The number of stops will be determined by the scene dynamic range. Do note that negative film already has a huge scene DR capability.
Does it matter whether you bracket with shutter or aperture?
Always shutter. You don't want DOF variations between shots.
I think negative film is better from a scanning standpoint with the Epson V600 flat bed scanner I use. What HDR program works better with film?
Yes, negative film is overall easier to scan, provided that the workflow is good (mask removal by channel exposure), since the film dynamic range (D-max minus D-min) is limited, and the film curves are better aligned at higher densities (slide film loses color accuracy at D-max due to different D-max per channel).
I think Photomatix is an overall good choice for HDR assembly, but Photoshop (CS5) seems to get better (fewer crashes, ghost removal) at assembly as well. The benefit of Photomatix is that it also has a decent Exposure Fusion/blending, so you'll get both HDR tonemapping and Exposure Fusion capability. I haven't tried it with huge scan files though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What HDR program works better with film?
Used to be Diafine! I was just now google-amazed to discover you can still get that wonderful two-step brew! A little grainy, but gorgeous tonality and lotsa headroom...IIRC.
-
Ask a question and you shall receive a 1000 answers! :)
I am sure the original poster is just as confused as when he started.
You can be surprised that you can create "realistic" results from any of the software...including Photoshop itself. It just depends on your skill and amount of time you spend tweaking it...
I use them all - and sometimes, a different one suits the image better....sometimes I don't have the luxury of time to play with. I use Enfuse for Architecture/Interiors, SNS for most realistic scenes (anything really - but specifically for monuments, architecture etc), Photomatix for landscapes (I like them a little edgy) - and PTGui Pro for HDR Panos.
-
IMO specially Photomatic is highly overrated when it comes to realistic /natural pictures,major problem with it is HALO'S who are difficult or impossible to eliminate.
If you like fancy graphics then get it,there is no software that beat Photomatic this way.
As to learning the software in and outs to get a reasonable outcome,i will say you there others out there where the focus is on creating normal/realistic images.
-
IMO specially Photomatic is highly overrated when it comes to realistic /natural pictures,major problem with it is HALO'S who are difficult or impossible to eliminate.
If you like fancy graphics then get it,there is no software that beat Photomatic this way.
As to learning the software in and outs to get a reasonable outcome,i will say you there others out there where the focus is on creating normal/realistic images.
So what would you recomend?
-
I wouldn't bracket wider than 1 stop between images with film for true HDR. Exposure Fusion/blending can tolerate more, but with larger increments the results will lack 'smoothness' in gradients. The number of stops will be determined by the scene dynamic range. Do note that negative film already has a huge scene DR capability.
Cheers,
Bart
Should I take +1 and -1 and initial stting? Or +1 +2 -1 -2 plus initial setting?
Alan
-
Should I take +1 and -1 and initial stting? Or +1 +2 -1 -2 plus initial setting?
Hi Alan,
Depends on the negative film used. If it has a rather straight H&D curve (e.g. a Portra 160 type of emulsion, exposed as ISO 125 for the base exposure), try +/- 2, but make sure you have a good lens hood (to reduce the effects of lens glare). This is only needed for high contrast subject matter + high contrast lighting. For lower contrast scenarios a +/- 1 scenario (or no bracketing) might suffice.
For slide film, I'd add more (at 1 EV intervals) intermediate exposures.
For digital, I often use 1.33 EV intervals, and as many exposures as needed to cover the scene+lighting contrast, but sometimes no more than 2/3rd EV intervals for optimal results. It depends on whether I want to assemble HDR files (more small interval files may help), or do an exposure blending (upto 1.33 stop intervals may be enough, with 7 exposures).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Where most HDR app. fail is to having smooth gradations throughout the available color/luminance data
That is if you are after natural looking images while with most app. shadows are clogged up or noisy and high contrast highlights show annoying halo's its quite disappointing.
After trialling quite a few including the BIG names i settled for a not wellknown HDR app. from Everimaging,
guys from Zwitserland, and i have to admit that their software come very close to my ideal in having natural looking images. http://www.hdrdarkroom.com/
I'm amazed as to how it control the halo effect,basically halo free images with smooth gradations from shadows to highlights.
As i said earlier not wellknown but very mature !
-
Huupi, the problems you describe are typically the result of (a) over aggressive application of tonemapping operators, (b) improper/insufficient bracketing with the input images, (c) a less than extensive knowledge of HDR and tonemapping, or (d) some combination of the preceding.
Alan, personally, I'd use 1 1/2 or 2 stop brackets for neg. film and 1 to 1 1/2 stop brackets for slide film. Neg. film has so much latitude that a 1 stop change often is barely discernable which isn't a great deal of benefit when merging in HDR software.
-
Bob Fisher, It maybe all true what you said but for me it was a relief after painfull fiddling with other software i stumbled upon this program and got it just right with defaults after the first tonemapping.
I need tools that has to be good,fast and easy to use because my clients (architects,real estate,interior builders) demand fast delivery of the results.
These people are looking for a realistic display of their properties and not some artistic interpretation !
-
Where most HDR app. fail is to having smooth gradations throughout the available color/luminance data
That is if you are after natural looking images while with most app. shadows are clogged up or noisy and high contrast highlights show annoying halo's its quite disappointing.
After trialling quite a few including the BIG names i settled for a not wellknown HDR app. from Everimaging,
guys from Zwitserland, and i have to admit that their software come very close to my ideal in having natural looking images. http://www.hdrdarkroom.com/
I'm amazed as to how it control the halo effect,basically halo free images with smooth gradations from shadows to highlights.
As i said earlier not wellknown but very mature !
While some of the HDR samples posted (http://www.hdrdarkroom.com/examples.htm) look otherwise quite natural, every single one of them has prominent halos.
-
While some of the HDR samples posted (http://www.hdrdarkroom.com/examples.htm) look otherwise quite natural, every single one of them has prominent halos.
I agree. I found that only a couple of these looked very natural and many had quite obvious halos.
For my purposes I have gotten the best results from LR/Enfuse, BUT I can really only produce a natural looking image if I am trying to compress the tonal range in a scene that is maybe two stops beyond the native dynamic range of my sensor. Beyond that I can produce images that may be functionally ok, but aesthetically pretty wanky looking.
-
What are halos and how do you see them in the picture link?
Would the pictures look more natural if you try to combine shots with only 1 stop rather than 2 or does the unnatural look come from the process? My point is that let's say you expose one shot for the highlight (the sky). Instead of the other shot exposing the ground for full open look, leav a little in shadow. DOn't try to bring the sahdow area up to full "correct" exposure if you were shooting it by itself. Leave the difference .
Can that be done?
-
Alan, you know the halos you can get around the edges of objects if you're too aggressive with Unsharp Mask? Very much a similar thing can happen if you're too aggressive with HDR tonemapping. It's primarily the result of trying to enhance local (pixel level) contrast too much (basically what USM does). The bracketing, 1 stop or 2 stops, really doesn't make a difference. It's the processing that causes it. Bracketing too narrowly and trying to force the HDR app. to 'create' information where it doesn't exist in any of the bracketed images can also exacerbate the halo effect.
The method you describe would work as long as you didn't push the tonemap processing too far. That method would also work well for exposure fusion/blending rather than HDR.
-
If the goal is simply expanded brightness range and GND filters aren't possible or aren't sufficient, then exposure fusion/exposure blending (either automated or manual) is the better approach, I think. Photomatix does have an exposure fusion utility. SNS-HDR, while having tonemapping ability, is an exposure fusion tool. There're also Enfuse & TuFuse which are good quality fusion programs.
Bob I read you tutorial on Blended Exposures http://rf-photography.ca/2010/09/blended-exposures-tutorial/ The more natural effect it shows is what I'm looking for, not the equally looking exposed and low contrast HDR that most people are discussing. Do you know if I can do this with Elements 8 (PSE8) which is the only PP program I use right now? I can use ACR with PSE8 for my Olympus M4/3 raws but obviously can only scan in film pictures. Would you recommend one of the others above first depending the original capture (digital or film)? Thanks again Alan.
-
Yes, you can do blended exposures manually in PSE. You can work with layers in PSE which is what you need. I'm not sure if PSE has the advanced layer blending modes but if not, then manually blending should work. I think PSE only got true layer masks in PSE 9 so to make life a little easier you may want to upgrade.
-
Hi, There are so many HDR software options out there now from Phomatix to other free options and the list is growing so what in your opinions from those who have tried the differant options give the most realistic finish to a photograph ie what you saw when you pushed the shutter.
Thanks
Russ.
Good question, Russ. The bad news first: there's no clear answer to that question just yet. The good news: there are three or four really good options for HDR processing (I'm speaking for the Mac side here), each with its own set of strengths. I haven't had much chance to play with Nik's new HDR Efex plugin yet, but I have used three other options pretty extensively. Here's what I'd say generally:
• Photoshop CS5 Merge to HDR Pro: simple UI, moderate control over tones and colors; excellent deghosting process (simple to use, accurate); pretty easy to get a nice looking image on the first pass. The Curves with corner points is awesome... It's just a little obscure / not the most intuitive process ever. On the downside, not as easy to control specific areas of tone or color with the sliders, and the presets are not that useful IMHO. But for photo-real uses, the default workflow is well-suited to this purpose. In fact I'd say it's better used for this purpose than attempting a more stylized HDR shot.
• PhotoMatix Pro 4: wonky UI, lots of floating, odd-size windows (with screwy zoom controls) that don't always behave as (a Mac user would) expect, BUT, a LOT of control over those specific regions of tone and color. Just takes experimentation to learn and remember what each slider does in the Detail Enhancer's tone mapping controls. The downside of PhotoMatix IMHO, is all the extra clicks that are required to get you through the entire process (merge, deghost, process, save and open to Ps) as compared to Merge to HDR Pro. None of the steps are "hard" per se, there's just a lot of them. Some of the presets are pretty helpful in figuring out which tone mapping method you want to start with, etc. I would say on balance the results you get from PhotoMatix are more stylized than what you get from Photoshop but there's enough control there to make things look as natural or nutty as you want.
• HDR Expose 1.x: Very sleak, one-window UI with auto-collapsing panels that house all the controls. Control-wise, more than Photoshop, not as much as PhotoMatix. Some of the control properties in this app are not as intuitively named or set up as others, but the reality is that's part of learning software. There's always some button or slider that makes no sense to you at first; just have to experiment and find out. ;) The major weakness of Expose IMHO, is the deghosting. It is fairly simple to apply but the results are not great in many cases. I would say this app (when you can get a good deghost result) is also very good for producing photo-real results rather than more stylized looks, although again, certainly possible.
• Heard good things about HDR Efex from Nik. If it's as intuitive as Viveza and Silver Efex, then my guess is it's a good product that will produce pleasing results. One thing I did read about HDR Efex is that there are a decent number of presets that are helpful, as well as the fan-favorite u-point technology (which I think has a new name these days).
In short, if you're on a budget and are looking to create more realistic HDR shots, Photoshop CS5 is probably all you need. The real key is to give it enough information to work with, and that's all a function of how you bracket your exposures. Hope this helps some!