digiKam humiliates Photoshop in HDR Challenge

rm2 · 10-11-2010, 12:55 PM

We had an office picture taken last week. We have a guy in the office who has been the "official" office photographer for a long time. He posted a preliminary print on the announcement board the next day. When I saw it I was horrified in seeing that the sky was completely washed off. The exposure was challenging but since my newly acquired HDR "skills" I have become more demanding with respects to dynamic range. So, I tactfully asked him if he had bracketed the shot. He said he did. I then asked him if he knew how to merge them into one HDR shot. His look told me that he didn't. I told him that it could be done with Photoshop, but I also told him that I had a program that could probably do a better job. He told me where to find the RAW images and told me to give it a try. The following crops give you an idea of just how much better digiKam did. I cropped out the office people that would have been right below the bottom edge of these pictures, in the shade.

Here is the Photoshop HDR result:

And here is the digiKam HDR result:

There is clearly more detail in the digiKam image. Photoshop produced a 32 bit image file with a lot of room for post processing, but it already had lost details like the ones in the clouds. Now, I know there are probably ways to use Photoshop to manually produced better HDR results. But, I was just testing the tool that most people are likely to use, the automated one.

Oh, and I did this with digiKam 1.5 on PCLinuxOS.

**jpzk** · 10-11-2010, 03:42 PM

Hi rm ...

Although I am not a user of any HDR features/software/in-camera settings, I am not sure if this software really beats the PhotoShop HDR.
Maybe it's me, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the digiKam HDR produces a washed out image, and with less details in the highlights. Looking at the far building with its brick walls, the details seem lost.
Yes, the rendering of the shadow details is somewhat better with digiKam.

My opinion, for what it's worth..

JP

**Wheatfield** · 10-11-2010, 04:06 PM

Honestly, they are both pretty bad renderings.

**jpzk** · 10-11-2010, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Honestly, they are both pretty bad renderings.

I was too shy to say that!

JP

**deadwolfbones** · 10-11-2010, 04:26 PM

Agreed w/ Wheatfield.

rm2 · 10-11-2010, 04:39 PM

Please note that these crops are the edge of the picture. I can not post the center of the image, where all the people are, and the part that takes priority in the exposure. What you are seeing here are the salvageable extremes, the highlights and deep shadows. I think digiKam outdid Photoshop. These are not crops of the actual final images either though. I processed these two crops expressly to illustrate the difference in what each program gave me to play with. Notice that on the Photoshop HDR, to properly expose people in the shade, I would have to loose even more highlight detail. The digiKam one is almost there and still has plenty of more detail than the Photoshop one. Maybe it is hard to see what I mean.

**deadwolfbones** · 10-11-2010, 07:20 PM

IMO, the sky looks worse (more blown out) in the Photoshop version, but everything else looks better.

rm2 · 10-12-2010, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

IMO, the sky looks worse (more blown out) in the Photoshop version, but everything else looks better.

Mmm, I think you are talking about the saturation. I do think I have a bit too much saturation applied on the digiKam shot. But that is not what we are looking at here. We are looking at the dynamic range.

**deadwolfbones** · 10-12-2010, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by rm2

Mmm, I think you are talking about the saturation. I do think I have a bit too much saturation applied on the digiKam shot. But that is not what we are looking at here. We are looking at the dynamic range.

I'm talking about sharpness and contrast. Look at the area around the lefthand window on the round tower.

**Wheatfield** · 10-12-2010, 07:05 AM

It looks like you have one image stacked up on the right side of the histogram and the other image stacked up on the left side.
How much effort did you make to idealize the Photoshop HDR (IE: were you trying to make a point or a comparison?).
In any case, neither one is a good rendering, and neither one makes a case for one software being better than the other.

r0ckstarr · 10-12-2010, 07:30 AM

I think you should run some more tests with better pictures.

rm2 · 10-12-2010, 07:40 AM

For this comparison, since I can not post the center of the image and expose to that, I was aiming to show the same level of detail on the tower. That way I was hoping that the difference in detail on the sky and on the shade would become obvious.

I am certainly not a professional tester. If you can't see my point, then please excuse me. Maybe I'll do another test one of these days.

bobmaxja · 10-13-2010, 04:36 AM

Thay could be a good test if we have access to the raw photo and PP these to see the differencewith different software. I am using ACDsee Pro

bdery · 10-13-2010, 05:19 AM

We'll have to take your word for the center of the picture. That's the part that matters. Regarding your crops, the building looks better with Photoshop, the sky looks better with HDR.

TOUGEFC · 10-13-2010, 06:18 AM

I wouldnt say "digiKam humiliates Photoshop in HDR " they both look pretty average if you ask me.

10-11-2010, 12:55 PM	#1
rm2 Senior Member	digiKam humiliates Photoshop in HDR Challenge We had an office picture taken last week. We have a guy in the office who has been the "official" office photographer for a long time. He posted a preliminary print on the announcement board the next day. When I saw it I was horrified in seeing that the sky was completely washed off. The exposure was challenging but since my newly acquired HDR "skills" I have become more demanding with respects to dynamic range. So, I tactfully asked him if he had bracketed the shot. He said he did. I then asked him if he knew how to merge them into one HDR shot. His look told me that he didn't. I told him that it could be done with Photoshop, but I also told him that I had a program that could probably do a better job. He told me where to find the RAW images and told me to give it a try. The following crops give you an idea of just how much better digiKam did. I cropped out the office people that would have been right below the bottom edge of these pictures, in the shade. Here is the Photoshop HDR result: And here is the digiKam HDR result: There is clearly more detail in the digiKam image. Photoshop produced a 32 bit image file with a lot of room for post processing, but it already had lost details like the ones in the clouds. Now, I know there are probably ways to use Photoshop to manually produced better HDR results. But, I was just testing the tool that most people are likely to use, the automated one. Oh, and I did this with digiKam 1.5 on PCLinuxOS.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version E-mail to a Friend	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HDR on digiKam	rm2	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	09-18-2010 07:32 PM
Photoshop Elements & HDR	Johnny5	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	06-20-2010 07:32 AM
Post-Processing PP challenge#24(HDR special)	dandog	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	14	05-14-2010 01:15 AM
Digikam 0.9.5 released	Paul Hunt	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	1	03-17-2009 05:56 AM
digiKam vs. Aperture/Lightroom	nixcamic	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	8	12-09-2008 12:19 PM

10-11-2010, 03:42 PM	#2
jpzk Site Supporter	Hi rm ... Although I am not a user of any HDR features/software/in-camera settings, I am not sure if this software really beats the PhotoShop HDR. Maybe it's me, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the digiKam HDR produces a washed out image, and with less details in the highlights. Looking at the far building with its brick walls, the details seem lost. Yes, the rendering of the shadow details is somewhat better with digiKam. My opinion, for what it's worth.. JP

10-11-2010, 04:06 PM	#3
Wheatfield Site Supporter	Honestly, they are both pretty bad renderings.

10-11-2010, 04:21 PM	#4
jpzk Site Supporter	Originally posted by Wheatfield Honestly, they are both pretty bad renderings. I was too shy to say that! JP

10-11-2010, 04:26 PM	#5
deadwolfbones Site Supporter	Agreed w/ Wheatfield.

10-11-2010, 04:39 PM	#6
rm2 Senior Member	Please note that these crops are the edge of the picture. I can not post the center of the image, where all the people are, and the part that takes priority in the exposure. What you are seeing here are the salvageable extremes, the highlights and deep shadows. I think digiKam outdid Photoshop. These are not crops of the actual final images either though. I processed these two crops expressly to illustrate the difference in what each program gave me to play with. Notice that on the Photoshop HDR, to properly expose people in the shade, I would have to loose even more highlight detail. The digiKam one is almost there and still has plenty of more detail than the Photoshop one. Maybe it is hard to see what I mean.

10-11-2010, 07:20 PM	#7
deadwolfbones Site Supporter	IMO, the sky looks worse (more blown out) in the Photoshop version, but everything else looks better.

10-12-2010, 03:52 AM	#8
rm2 Senior Member	Originally posted by deadwolfbones IMO, the sky looks worse (more blown out) in the Photoshop version, but everything else looks better. Mmm, I think you are talking about the saturation. I do think I have a bit too much saturation applied on the digiKam shot. But that is not what we are looking at here. We are looking at the dynamic range.

10-12-2010, 06:41 AM	#9
deadwolfbones Site Supporter	Originally posted by rm2 Mmm, I think you are talking about the saturation. I do think I have a bit too much saturation applied on the digiKam shot. But that is not what we are looking at here. We are looking at the dynamic range. I'm talking about sharpness and contrast. Look at the area around the lefthand window on the round tower.

10-12-2010, 07:05 AM	#10
Wheatfield Site Supporter	It looks like you have one image stacked up on the right side of the histogram and the other image stacked up on the left side. How much effort did you make to idealize the Photoshop HDR (IE: were you trying to make a point or a comparison?). In any case, neither one is a good rendering, and neither one makes a case for one software being better than the other.

10-12-2010, 07:30 AM	#11
r0ckstarr Veteran Member	I think you should run some more tests with better pictures.

10-12-2010, 07:40 AM	#12
rm2 Senior Member	For this comparison, since I can not post the center of the image and expose to that, I was aiming to show the same level of detail on the tower. That way I was hoping that the difference in detail on the sky and on the shade would become obvious. I am certainly not a professional tester. If you can't see my point, then please excuse me. Maybe I'll do another test one of these days.

10-13-2010, 04:36 AM	#13
bobmaxja Pentaxian	Thay could be a good test if we have access to the raw photo and PP these to see the differencewith different software. I am using ACDsee Pro

10-13-2010, 05:19 AM	#14
bdery Pentaxian	We'll have to take your word for the center of the picture. That's the part that matters. Regarding your crops, the building looks better with Photoshop, the sky looks better with HDR.

10-13-2010, 06:18 AM	#15
TOUGEFC Pentaxian	I wouldnt say "digiKam humiliates Photoshop in HDR " they both look pretty average if you ask me.