HDR Workflow for The Rest of Us -- A Nit

[rsamco]

I have found that the workflow described in yesterday's Lula article by Vegard Brenna, "HDR Workflow for The Rest of Us", produces excellent and easily obtained "natural" HDR result. As a result, I plan to start using it as my HDR workflow . I also plan to experiment with Nik's HDR Efex Pro to see if it can't be used in a similar way (i.e., figure out the parameters for generating a neutral color image which is then combined with a HDR luminosity image). However I question (or am misunderstanding) one of Vegard's workflow steps -- for best results, he recommends that you EXPLICITLY convert RAW files into TIFFs before opening in Photomatix. I agree with his reasoning that RAW conversion is better done by a raw converter (e.g., Lr/ACR),  rather than by Photomatix. However, it is my understanding that exporting RAW files out of Lightroom into Photomatix (or any export-targeted application) results in Lr first converting those RAW files into TIFFs before being handing them off. So an explicit, manual conversion step into TIFFs is not needed. Am I misunderstanding something?

[leuallen]

Not an answer to your question but I suggest looking at SS-HDR Pro. I have purchased SNS, Nik, Photomatix, and Oleoneo. Used the CS5 version and have tried 30 day trials from a couple of others which did not make the grade. For my money, when a natural result is desired, SNS wins hands down.

Look at the thread 'Using HDR tone mapping for ordinary images' in this forum. I discuss SNS at some length and show two examples.

I am not affiliated with SNS, just a satisfied user.

Larry

[bill t.]

I always convert to tif's in Lightroom (or ACR) if for no other reason than knocking down the chromatic aberration and correcting field uniformity.  HDR does really gross things to chromatic fringes, and clear skies go together a lot better when uniform in the input files.  And although for instance Photomatix claims to be able to correct for chromatic during import, LR does it much better.

[rsamco]

I agree with you, bill. My question isn't whether to convert in Lr or not, but whether you must convert explicitly into TIFFs and then manually (or through a script) hand them off to Photomatix as Vegard seems to instruct.  It seems to me that you get the same result just exporting directly into Photomatix out of Lr (i.e., Lr does the RAW conversion itself, not Photomatix).

[bill t.]

I don't see why there would be a difference.

You could process the images both ways with the exact smae Photomatix settings, then layer them together in PS with a "Difference" setting on the top layer.  Will instantly show any differences.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Don't know. I use Photoshop CS5 mostly for HDR and it handles DNG-files directly. It's also possible to export the files as DNG explicitly. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. With RAW/DNG route the HDR program can work on the raw data, which is better for HDR, I think, but the built in converter may be less optimal.

Best regards
Erik

I have found that the workflow described in yesterday's Lula article by Vegard Brenna, "HDR Workflow for The Rest of Us", produces excellent and easily obtained "natural" HDR result. As a result, I plan to start using it as my HDR workflow . I also plan to experiment with Nik's HDR Efex Pro to see if it can't be used in a similar way (i.e., figure out the parameters for generating a neutral color image which is then combined with a HDR luminosity image). However I question (or am misunderstanding) one of Vegard's workflow steps -- for best results, he recommends that you EXPLICITLY convert RAW files into TIFFs before opening in Photomatix. I agree with his reasoning that RAW conversion is better done by a raw converter (e.g., Lr/ACR),  rather than by Photomatix. However, it is my understanding that exporting RAW files out of Lightroom into Photomatix (or any export-targeted application) results in Lr first converting those RAW files into TIFFs before being handing them off. So an explicit, manual conversion step into TIFFs is not needed. Am I misunderstanding something?

[Erkki M]

According to hdrsoft faq  " the main benefit of using the Lightroom plugin is precisely the ability to have Lightroom automatically convert the raw/dng files to TIFF prior to processing in Photomatix". This actually means that you cannot export raw files from LR to Photomatix because LR will convert them to tiff files before sending them to Photomatix and Photomatix will receive tiff files. In order to use raw files in Photomatix you have to upload them separately.

Erkki

[Vegard]

Hi,

I may have misunderstood, but the reason I convert explicitly to TIFF is to stay in control of the process. I don't use the Photomatix plugin for LR. I forgot to state this in the article.

Vegard

[Vegard]

HDR does really gross things to chromatic fringes ...  And although for instance Photomatix claims to be able to correct for chromatic during import, LR does it much better.

You are absolutely right. It was a relief to get an Intel Mac and finally have access to the Lens Profiles in LR 3. Before LR 3, every HDR operation seemed to amplify CA - yes, gross. With LR 3 profiling, all CA disappeared 

Vegard

[wolfnowl]

While this post has a sample size of 1 image, it's worth reading: Creating HDR Images the Right Way

Mike.

[Vegard]

While this post has a sample size of 1 image, it's worth reading: Creating HDR Images the Right Way

Mike.

Thanks Mike! Great article. I have experienced exactly the same problem in churches. The detail is there in the glass paintings, but disappears in HDR processing. However, this is not unique to Photomatix. I had the same thing happening to me with Enfuse, but worse. For my Photomatix images I had to manually fix the windows in Lightroom in final processing.

[RFPhotography]

To answer the original question directly:  Yes, the LR plugin for PM automatically converts raw files to tiff before handing them off to PM.  The files are converted with whatever develop settings have been used.  So if you've converted to b&w, you'll send b&w images to PM.

PM does have a raw converter embedded in it.  It uses dcraw as the engine.  It's just not as fulsome as LR and doesn't allow for any pre-HDR merge edits.  It's best to make some corrections (e.g., WB, CA) before sending the files to the HDR cooker.

I'd also suggest that the process of ensuring the white/colour balance is where you want it will go a long way to resolving the red/yellow issue in PM.  The first image is without any corrections in LR.  The second is with corrections to cool the colour temperature and adjust the tint.  The same post-tonemap adjustments were made to both.  You may not like the processing used but that's not the point.  The lighting in the space was tungsten-based.  This is what can really cause the colour problems in the HDR image.  Similar results can be seen with images that have too cool a white balance out of the camera.  The resulting tonemapped images will tend to be far too blue/cool.

The idea of double tonemapping and merging the two files selectively is a good one and has been used for some time.

[CStaack]

I followed roughly the described path but thought I could do smarter with profiling and opted not to calibrate manually in Camera Raw but to use ColorChecker Passports functionality for this.
That produced a profile which is saved in the same directory as other profiles that were created with CCP, but the Profile-dialog in LR seems to filter it out, probably due to the fact that the profile contains the wrong tag for "camera" (the DNG Profile Manager from X-Rite shows "TIFF" as camera).
Does anybody know how I can edit the profile in a way that, say, "Nikon D300" replaces the "TIFF" entry? I used a simple editor to replace TIFF by Nikon D300 but that didn't do the trick. Or is it even possible to circumvent the filtering in LR somehow?

Thanks a lot for a hint.

[Bill Koenig]

I convert my raw files in ACR first, but don't forget that Photomatix wants very little processing done in ACR, and NO sharpening, I set almost everything to zero.
As Bill T said earlier, chromatic aberration is best fixed in ACR.
I might send the output from Photomatix back through ACR before stitching, but no sharpening, that's the last step for my pano's.