HDR Expose 3 - I like it!

[PeterAit]

I have gotten to like the program quite a bit, enough so that I actually bought a copy! I think the user interface is very well-designed and the program's automatic tools for aligning and merging seem, so far, to work perfectly. My source images are all sets of 3 shots taken hand-held using the D-600's "rapid fire" shutter mode , at -2, 0, and +2 EV. I like the fact that the program uses all 8 of my CPU cores while working. You have 2 operation modes: LR plug-in and stand-alone. The former is nice because the merged HDR image, when saved, is automatically put in your LR catalog. Stand-alone offers a terrific batch mode that automatically detects and groups all HDR "sets" in the specified folder and then can process them unattended. Output in 32 bit ProPhoto TIFFs is available, so all image quality can be maintained. This photo of Park Avenue in Arches National Park at sunset is a good example. None of the individual bracketed shots captured the subtleties of the light and shadows, this image is an excellent representation of what I experienced.

[PhotoEcosse]

I use Nik's HDR EfexPro2 (which I far prefer to Photomatix), Peter, but I'll have a look at the program you recommend. Generally my intention with HDR is to compensate for the deficiencies of the digital camera sensor in a way that no-one (hopefully) can tell the image is a doctored composite.

As a matter of interest, does this program allow different degrees of HDR to be eaily applied to different sections of the image in the way that the Nik product does?

I am really impressed that your example was created from three exposures taken hand-held.

[Schewe]

None of the individual bracketed shots captured the subtleties of the light and shadows, this image is an excellent representation of what I experienced.

Actually, I suspect what you "saw" contained more shadow detail that what you are showing in your converted image...prolly not too much but if you have the image in 32bit tiff, I suggest pumping up the shadows just a bit.

[Ellis Vener]

Peter, I like realistic large dynamic range renditions too. Have you also tried the Enfuse plug-in for Lightroom on the same set of images and if so how do the results compare?

[PeterAit]

I use Nik's HDR EfexPro2 (which I far prefer to Photomatix), Peter, but I'll have a look at the program you recommend. Generally my intention with HDR is to compensate for the deficiencies of the digital camera sensor in a way that no-one (hopefully) can tell the image is a doctored composite.

As a matter of interest, does this program allow different degrees of HDR to be eaily applied to different sections of the image in the way that the Nik product does?

I agree that an HDR image should never look like an HDR image! Some people go way overboard and the result is almost always, to my taste, just plain ugly. It my be "eye-popping" at first, but that's not what I want. AFAIK you cannot apply different HDR levels to specific areas of an image (to be honest I am not sure what that would give you). Expose 3 does have dodge and burn tools, but my approach (at least so far) is to merge unprocessed RAW images and then go back into LR for further processing.

[PeterAit]

Peter, I like realistic large dynamic range renditions too. Have you also tried the Enfuse plug-in for Lightroom on the same set of images and if so how do the results compare?

I have not tried Enfuse. I did compare Expose 3 with SNS HDR pro and liked it better, I don't recall exactly why but it was not any problems with the latter, just a personal preference.

[PeterAit]

Actually, I suspect what you "saw" contained more shadow detail that what you are showing in your converted image...prolly not too much but if you have the image in 32bit tiff, I suggest pumping up the shadows just a bit.

I did fiddle with the shadows quite a bit, they do comnprise a large and important part of the image. I prefer this to a bit lighter - one of those subjective things!

[PhotoEcosse]

AFAIK you cannot apply different HDR levels to specific areas of an image (to be honest I am not sure what that would give you). .

Often, to avoid "overcooking" an HDR image, you need to apply more of the effect to some areas that others.

I should say that I only use it in landscapes but, in that genre, there are often examples where there is, say, a need to deal with the dynamic range in the middle ground where there might be deep shadows or bright highlights (or both) but avoid it in water or sky. In particular, ripply water can begin to look most odd with even a slight degree of tone-compression applied. And I think we have all seen positively grotesque clouds in HDR photographs.

You can get the same degree of control in Photoshop by applying different levels of HDR processing to a number of layers and adjusting the opacity and blend modes for different parts of the image - but I find using the Nik plug-in in Lightroom gives me the same result in a fraction of the time (or maybe I should say, using a fraction of the skill!).

[Alan Klein]

The picture looks natural.  None of the exposures appear "cooked".  Finally an HDR shot I like.  Well done.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The picture looks natural.  None of the exposures appear "cooked".  Finally an HDR shot I like.  Well done.

HDR Expose will indeed allow to produce a natural looking tonemapping. However, IMHO there is an issue with a visible halo, that usually manifests itself clearly below white clouds in a blue sky, or similar edge contrast. I found it disturbing enough that I've not purchased Expose 3, but there is also a lot to like about it.

It does best with linear gamma input, so Raws or linear gamma TIFFs, but regular gamma adjusted images are not that well suited as input.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Bart:  1. Can you simply explain gamma adjusted images?  How do you get a linear gamma input so it works best?

2. Which HDR program works best for landscape photos at applying natural tonemapping wiht minimum other issues?   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart:  1. Can you simply explain gamma adjusted images?  How do you get a linear gamma input so it works best?

Hi Alan,

Images you normally process in an image editor, and display on your monitor or on a photosharing site, have a gamma curve (e.g. gamma 1/2.2 or similar) applied to them in order to pre-compensate for the display gamma (often gamma 2.2 for calibrated displays).

Some Raw converters, e.g. the Canon DPP converter, can also output linear gamma conversions from Raw as TIFFs without such a gamma adjustment. The benefit of such an approach is that one can apply things like Chromatic aberration correction, which HDR Expose (last time I checked) cannot do. Tonemapping will exaggerate such lens artifacts, so it's best to get rid of them before the tonemapping.

2. Which HDR program works best for landscape photos at applying natural tonemapping wiht minimum other issues?

My personal favorite is SNS-HDR, but it's an only Windows application (although it is reported to run fine under Fusion or Parallels on a Mac). It produces very natural looking tonemapped images (but can also be pushed too far), and offers lots of adjustment possibilities (including masked layers) for difficult images. It can automatically stack bracketed exposures but also tonemaps single images.

The author (who was delayed by an inner-ear inflammation) is working on a new version (with better noise and Ghost reduction) which, according to the information on his forum will be a free upgrade for existing users. It can use DCraw to convert Raw file input, or existing TIFF/JPEG files as input (the latter allows to preprocess the input files e.g. for chromatic aberration in one's favorite Raw converter). It can also import EXR files.

Cheers,
Bart

[bill t.]

I have talked to some photographers about what they felt was a "harsh" image in SNS-HDR, based on their initial experiences with it.

This probably relates to the fact that least on the installations and upgrades I have made, the default setting of Saturation is quite low, and Microcontrast, Microdetails, and Sharpening are set quite high, which gives a somewhat desiccated feeling to the image.  This was also my experience, and for a long time I preferred the look of other programs that seemed to offer a somewhat richer looking default image.  It was not until I spent some time with SNS that I really came to like it.  Just shove those sliders around a bit, spectacular results await you.  The tonality and beauty of image available from SNS is top quality, but you need to know your way around within the program which is at about the same level of complexity as LR5.

Its best feature may be that for certain controls like Brightness there is a separate setting for light areas which nicely solves the problem of crushed feeling highlights in HDR images.  The implementation of that somewhat modal feature is admittedly a little outside the normal user interface paradigm, but you begin to love it after while.  With other controls that somewhat mimic LR5 "Highlights" and "Whites" sliders, the control over highlights in SNS is excellent, and that is must-have for natural looking images.  And SNS is very good about recovering natural looking skies when perhaps only one of you input images has reasonable sky detail.

In general in SNS one can very directly modify a particular quality of the image with relatively few control changes once you've got the methodology down.  There is relatively little feeling of having to balance lots of indirect controls to get a particular result.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks Bart and Bill.  My only need is to balance skies against foregrounds to replace graduated natural density filters.  Nothing fancy.  Which than would be the simplest to use with good results?

[bill t.]

Shoot two images, one exposed for the sky and the other for ground.  Stack 'em up in PS with say the sky image on top.  Make a mask for the sky, and with a very large soft edge brush paint part of the sky layer mask black to reveal the ground layer underneath.  That masked layer will contribute only the sky area to the overall image, where the mask is still white.  That very closely approximates a graded filter.  In some rare instances you may want a hard edge matte conformed to the skyline, which you make with a selection tool, and don't forget Refine Mask.  But the soft edge matte revealing the sky layer over the ground layer usually looks appealing as it automatically creates the natural effect of the distant sky just above the horizon being lighter.  You may also benefit from individual Levels or Curves control layers over each of the two color layers, clipped to the layer directly underneath them (at least for the topmost layer).

Or, instead of shooting two images, process the same raw file twice, once for the sky, once for the ground.  Then stack those.  Or just a masked correction in LR, but that's too easy.

[Alan Klein]

Can you do it with  LR3?  Or Photoshop Elements 12?

[Ellis Vener]

Tonight I was unable download the HDR Expose 3 demo for OS X. I tried three times and kept getting a 404 page. An email was sent to the company's tech support but has anyone else had difficulty downloading it?

I want to compare it to Enfuse, my standard choice for extending dynamic range in a photo without the fake color and weird tonality of most tone mapping processes.

From the Timothy Armes description at    of how Enfuse works:

"You may have seen the me mention this photo in a previous post. The shot is taken using ambient light only, and yet everything is well exposed from the forground table right through to the back of the room. Normally we would expect most of the room to fall into shadow due to the high constrast difference between the window-lit table and the shaded corridor; so how was this avoided?

Well, it was easy actually.  I took several shots at different exposures and then blended them together directly from within Lightroom using my LR/Enfuse plugin.


Isn’t that the same as HDR?

Exposure blending essentially involves examing a group of photos with varying exposures and creating a final photo, pixel by pixel, by choosing the best exposed pixel from all of the photos.

Note that this is not the same as creating an HDR (high dynamic range) image. To create an HDR image several exposures are also used, but the similarity stops there. An HDR image uses 32 bits per pixel, and these bits are used to store a floating-point value.  We don’t wish to delve into the technicalities, but the result is that an HDR image allows for each pixel to contain practically any exposure value, so if the difference between the the darkest and lightest parts of an image is 20 stops, this will be faithfully preserved in the HDR’s file format.

The difficulty comes when we need to display an HDR image on media that can’t display this high dynamic range, such as a screen or a sheet of paper. The dynamic range of the image needs to be compressed to fit within the dynamic range of the chosen media. Typically this is done by controlling a tone mapping curve that dictates how and where the dynamic range is compressed.

Are the end results of the two approaches the same? Well, sometimes they can be, but mostly they’re not. Here are the main differences:

Blending software is very easy to use but it can only produce natural looking images."

See the rest of the post at http://photographers-toolbox.com/blog/2008/12/lrenfuse-for-interiors/ for examples of LR/Enfuse at work and a longer description of it.

So from his first paragraph it seems to me like Enfuse is analyzing and selecting specific pixels from different exposures to make up the finished photo

One thing I was unaware of before looking this up tonight is that Enfuse also works for doing focus stacking work according to the products homepage  http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php

While there check out Wayne Gandy's assessment of different HDR and exposure blending plug-ins and applications. It looks a little dated to me but might prove useful.

[bill t.]

Enfuse crunches the images down to the equivalent of a flat looking camera file with a very large dynamic range, rather than to an initially unviewable HDR file.  The best "tone mapping" tool to apply is perhaps LR5 for most images, or normal PS editing if a lot of masked adjustment layers are required.  In most cases the results are quite nice without the compromises that come out of HDR processing.  Enfuse images are the best looking option in many cases where the input dynamic range of the scene is not dramatically higher than the camera's native range.  Enfuse images doe not usually suffer the burden of heaviness too often seen in HDR images.  But Enfuse does not offer the extreme dynamic range available from SNS, etc.  In particular, it doesn't recover extremely bright sunset skies above the shadowy ground very well.  But for what it does well, LR/Enfuse is a joy to use with LR5.

I don't use Enfuse much on my panoramas.  It applies heavy heuristics to the point where adjacent and very similar bracket sets from adjoining panorama panels sometimes give surprisingly different results requiring significantly different post processing adjustments for each panel.  OTOH, in SNS and Photomatix applying the setting for the most typical panel to the others seems to produce a fairly consistent and slowly trending results across many panels, and that is easily done through a batch file scheme.

Alan, the only condition to being able to use the "dual exposure" sky/ground trick is that you need an editor with layers to which you can apply individual adjustments.  PS for sure can do that, I don't know Elements enough to say.  I think the OnOne Suite (and perhaps also the Topaz suite) now handles layers well enough to do the job.

PS, found this old illustration of the kind of stack I was talking about.  The two image layers are the very same raw file processed differently in LR5.  I made a "virtual copy" of the file in LR, then processed one just for the sky ignoring the ground, and the inverse.  Much easier to do when you have to only get one of those areas right!  Note how the mask that lets just the sky layer come through extends up into the sky in a way that makes the sky above the horizon brighter, just like real life.  Also, the curves layer that affects the sky is set to "Luminosity" blending mode to avoid oversaturating the sky from the extreme inflection.  I sent them directly to PS with the "Edit In->Open as layers in Photoshop" option available by right-clicking on the image, while just the two files were selected.  LR3 can do the same, I think.

[PhotoEcosse]

Thanks Bart and Bill.  My only need is to balance skies against foregrounds to replace graduated natural density filters.  Nothing fancy.  Which than would be the simplest to use with good results?

Are you sure that the DR is such that HDR processing of two or more exposures is required?

In Lightroom, quite effective results can often be obtained with the Highlights and Shadows sliders, especially if applied selectively with the adjustment brush (or, in some cases, the graduate tool).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Are you sure that the DR is such that HDR processing of two or more exposures is required?

Hi,

There are two aspects in play here. One is a potentially huge dynamic range, but the other is a better blending of sky/cloud region, and land region. Even with a more moderate DR, it is easy to get very good results with SNS-HDR, based on 2 Raw conversions from the same file (one optimized for sky and one for land). It is also possible to blend differently White-balanced images, e.g. less blue for shadow regions, and normal for medium/bright regions, although the user interface also allows to adjust for such things in post (but that takes more time).

A major part of the realism that SNS-HDR achieves is caused by the fact that it uses exposure blending, instead of HDR file creation and tonemapping. That allows to use natural looking gamma adjusted brightness regions, and manipulate the brightness transitions invisibly.

Cheers,
Bart