HDR Alternatives

[mdijb]

For a long time I have had an interest in HDR processing, to control highlights and shadows.  THE PROBLEMS FOR ME HAS BEEN TO GET RESULTS THAT LOOK LIKE A REAL PHOTOGRAPH.

I have tried everything out there and despite the hype and claims, none of the software produces natural results that does not look like HDR processing.  Photomatix, HDR Express . Nik HDR, etc, and everything else results in an Image that looks like an unnatural HDR That is quite obvious.  THere is a "veil". artefact, halloing or whatever you want to call it that makes all the result look manipulated and Unnatural.

The only software that produces result that look natural are PMATIX fusion allgorthyms and  Enfuse, A Lightroom Plugin.  The former has a few sliders to make adjustments, but the latter has none.

The Fusion method had the best result but the least flexibility, but the Tone mapping method has the worst result with the most flexibility.  I invite you make the comparisons I have made and confirm or refute my opinions..

I urge the programmers to write software that gives me more control over the the creation of natiural looking images. IF Fusion gets that result--wonderful--if tone mapping gets that result--wonderful--Whatever it takes to get more natural images with lots of control--hallelujah

For those of you that disagree with my opinion, direct me to where I can check out solutions that gives better results.

For those of you that agree, direct me to places that teach how I can get better results and keep pushing the program writers to offer better results, that I would be happy to pay for.!!

MDIJB

[bill t.]

Guillermo has championed this and other techniques that do a great job of increasing dynamic range while preserving photographic quality...

http://jtrujillo.net/qpix/

Search "zero noise" also.

Or make a fused image which will probably look great except for weak or missing highlights.  Layer the exposure for the highlights under the fused image, select just the highlight areas on the fused image, make a mask that holds out those blown out highlight it and reveals the nice highlights beneath.  Blur the mask, etc, ad infinitum.  Takes work, but looks great.  You don't even need to start with a fused image, just an overall good exposure with problem highlights or dark areas can usually be improved by subtly masking in better exposed areas from a bracketed set.

But seriously you CAN get a pretty natural look from most of the HDR programs.  If it's not happening, carefully review your input images, since HDR is the pits for exposure sets that don't really cover the required range.

One of the biggest problems with the latest HDR programs is that they allow so much adjustment that it can be hard to "find the image" between all the sliders, and it is in many ways too easy to pull at least some sort of result out a bad input set.  Photomatix doesn't allow so much adjustment (in most cases) and forces one to input a good exposure set to get reasonable results.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You could try SNS HDR...

On the other hand, HDR has extended dynamic range. To fit it into a contrast range that can be displayed on screen some kind of tone mapping is needed. It is very difficult to display a contrast range of say 1:16000 (14 bits) on a monitor that perhaps handles 1:500, not to talk about prints, which may reach 1:200.

In general I prefer to use Photoshop CS5 "merge to HDR".

As a side issue, I have found that digital sensors actually carry an incredible amount of information, but tone mapping may be necessary to really show all that information.

I have written a small article where I use HDR mapping on a single ETTR (Expose To The Right) image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image

Best regards
Erik

For a long time I have had an interest in HDR processing, to control highlights and shadows.  THE PROBLEMS FOR ME HAS BEEN TO GET RESULTS THAT LOOK LIKE A REAL PHOTOGRAPH.

I have tried everything out there and despite the hype and claims, none of the software produces natural results that does not look like HDR processing.  Photomatix, HDR Express . Nik HDR, etc, and everything else results in an Image that looks like an unnatural HDR That is quite obvious.  THere is a "veil". artefact, halloing or whatever you want to call it that makes all the result look manipulated and Unnatural.

The only software that produces result that look natural are PMATIX fusion allgorthyms and  Enfuse, A Lightroom Plugin.  The former has a few sliders to make adjustments, but the latter has none.

The Fusion method had the best result but the least flexibility, but the Tone mapping method has the worst result with the most flexibility.  I invite you make the comparisons I have made and confirm or refute my opinions..

I urge the programmers to write software that gives me more control over the the creation of natiural looking images. IF Fusion gets that result--wonderful--if tone mapping gets that result--wonderful--Whatever it takes to get more natural images with lots of control--hallelujah

For those of you that disagree with my opinion, direct me to where I can check out solutions that gives better results.

For those of you that agree, direct me to places that teach how I can get better results and keep pushing the program writers to offer better results, that I would be happy to pay for.!!

MDIJB

[wolfnowl]

If you use Lightroom you could try the LR/Enfuse plugin as it will combine the images using the best available information for each pixel.  Further 'developing' can be done in Lightroom itself.

Mike.

[tived]

i downloaded Zero Noise 1.1 (and 0.9) but it says its expired?
what a shame

Henrik

[Rhossydd]

The only software that produces result that look natural are PMATIX fusion allgorthyms and  Enfuse, A Lightroom Plugin.  The former has a few sliders to make adjustments, but the latter has none.

As a correction; Enfuse DOES have options, but they are in the configuration dialogue of the plug-in. As far as I know it's not possible to move them somewhere more visible in LR because of the software architecture or give a preview because the actual blending happens outside Lightroom.

However the defaults seem to work extremely well.

[MrSmith]

i have been using Bracketeer for a couple of years with good results, it's exposure blending not HDR (i'm a bit confused as to the differences TBH)
it takes a little bit of getting used to but you soon get a feel for it, it doesn't do the wacky tone mapping beloved by flickr amateurs and the reviews on the Apple ap store are not very good but i don't have any complaints from my furniture/interior clients.
it does a brilliant job with white walls that go from window lit daylight to warmer tungsten/halogen lit interiors in one smooth gradation, something that would be impossible to achieve with layers in PS.
 

[milt]

Nobody has mentioned Oloneo yet, which is my current favorite.  I look to spread out the histogram in Oloneo and then post process in PS.

Concerning the goals of HDR work, I think there is a kind of trap in saying that the goal should be to "GET RESULTS THAT LOOK LIKE A REAL PHOTOGRAPH".  We all have seen so many LDR photographs that there is definitely a sort of "LDR burn-in" effect, i.e. our eyes and our sensibilities have become used to "what photographs look like".  It makes more sense to me to try to get results that look like the original scene.  This certainly means avoiding the garishness that is so easy to do with HDR (particularly with Photomatix), but it also means things like bringing up shadow detail in the print when my eyes could see that detail, but an ordinary LDR print would lose them.

--Milt--

[Vegard]

IMNSVHO, why not have a look at HDR Workflow For The Rest Of Us?

[milt]

An interesting article.  I only had time right now for a quick scan, but it looks interesting enough to deserve a more careful read when I have time.  However, it does seem to be based entirely on Photomatix and its problems.  For those of us who have moved on from Photomatix, it doesn't sound like it will be of direct usefulness.

I notice another HDR thread is running simultaneously: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61980.0

--Milt--

[Vegard]

However, it does seem to be based entirely on Photomatix and its problems.  For those of us who have moved on from Photomatix, it doesn't sound like it will be of direct usefulness.

I think you may have misunderstood here. The only thing that is applicable to Photomatix only is the actual Developer Settings that represent the Photomatix colour calibration. Your problem as you state it is "none of the software produces natural results that does not look like HDR processing". That is the same problem that I am trying to address, and exactly what you state as "It makes more sense to me to try to get results that look like the original scene.  This certainly means avoiding the garishness that is so easy to do with HDR". I am quite pleased with my results. To me, they now look like the original scene as I saw it.

A problem might be if you're on Windows, since I have no VBS version of my scripts.

[Bill Koenig]

I get great results with Photomatix fusion, but you really need to use the right set of exposures to get the most out of it. You need to take the time to get a understanding of how it works, and you need to experiment to do this, and for any kind of experiment, your going need many more brackets to try out than just 3, try as many as 9. Once you get to know how its works, you'll have a better idea what you'll need.
Take the shadows as a example, when I first started using Photomatix fusion, when looking at my bracketed images, what I thought was way over exposed and useless, was in fact just what I wanted to include in my bracket set, even though it was almost white, that is where the deepest shadow info was, with out this very over exposed image, it didn't work, and I couldn't make the very small changes that make it look realistic, the same goes for the highlights.

[David Eichler]

For a long time I have had an interest in HDR processing, to control highlights and shadows.  THE PROBLEMS FOR ME HAS BEEN TO GET RESULTS THAT LOOK LIKE A REAL PHOTOGRAPH.

I have tried everything out there and despite the hype and claims, none of the software produces natural results that does not look like HDR processing.  Photomatix, HDR Express . Nik HDR, etc, and everything else results in an Image that looks like an unnatural HDR That is quite obvious.  THere is a "veil". artefact, halloing or whatever you want to call it that makes all the result look manipulated and Unnatural.

The only software that produces result that look natural are PMATIX fusion allgorthyms and  Enfuse, A Lightroom Plugin.  The former has a few sliders to make adjustments, but the latter has none.

The Fusion method had the best result but the least flexibility, but the Tone mapping method has the worst result with the most flexibility.  I invite you make the comparisons I have made and confirm or refute my opinions..

I urge the programmers to write software that gives me more control over the the creation of natiural looking images. IF Fusion gets that result--wonderful--if tone mapping gets that result--wonderful--Whatever it takes to get more natural images with lots of control--hallelujah

For those of you that disagree with my opinion, direct me to where I can check out solutions that gives better results.

For those of you that agree, direct me to places that teach how I can get better results and keep pushing the program writers to offer better results, that I would be happy to pay for.!!

MDIJB

What kind of subject matter are you shooting?

[mdijb]

I shoot landscapes, flowers, Old bldg interiors with difficult lighting conditions.   Even when the light is good and histograms looks good, I take a 3 exposure because I have found when blended using together, a lot more detail seems to become apparent.

[jrp]

Have a look at http://www.georgedewolfe.com/freehdr.html FreeHDR, which builds on Photoshop's superior alignment capability and blends the images to provide a good starting point for producing natural images.  Otherwise SNS-HDR and, sometimes, Oloneo are the only ones that I have stayed with, although the latter's image alignment / deghosting is very hit and miss.

[David Eichler]

I shoot landscapes, flowers, Old bldg interiors with difficult lighting conditions.   Even when the light is good and histograms looks good, I take a 3 exposure because I have found when blended using together, a lot more detail seems to become apparent.

While I sometimes use (32-bit moving point) HDR for less demanding work, I never use it where really high quality results are needed. I mainly use luminosity masking and compositing when using muliple exposures to control contrast. Sometimes exposure fusion. For nature photography, that is the best you can do, along with simply waiting for the best light. For interiors, supplementary lighting is extremely useful, if you have enough access to accommodate that, although I still might use the techniques describe along with supplementary lighting. No easy techniques with difficult lighting.

[shotworldwide]

Search for "Luminosity Masks" or "Luminosity Masking" - I am sure this is what you are looking for

Regards, Filip
---------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com