digiKam humiliates Photoshop in HDR Challenge

**rm2** · 10-18-2010, 01:59 PM

I am having a hard time matching digiKam HDR results with Photoshop. I am talking about level of detail in highlights and shadows. But, I am willing to concede that it is probably just me and my lack of familiarity with Photoshop. I am using Photoshop CS3, by the way. Things may be different with another version. Any way, here is your chance to vindicate Photoshop.

The image below was processed with digiKam's Merge to HDR tool ("Blend bracketed images"). It is an HDR made from three RAW images from my Pentax istDS camera. I am having a hard time matching it with Phtoshop's HDR tool. If you can match the level of detail and clarity (saturation is not as important) with Photoshop's HDR tool please post your result. The rules for this 'pseudo' challenge are:

*Besides the HDR tool, you can not use extra layers. You can only adjust Levels, Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpening.

*You have post your methodology so that I can duplicate it in my computer. Otherwise how do I know that you are not using some other manual method of achieving the HDR. At least that way I will learn something from this.

Got it? OK. Here is the target:

The three raw files are compressed into one 7z file that you can download here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13495054/MillRiver/MillRiver.7z

Have fun!

Wheatfield · 10-19-2010, 07:46 AM

Let me get this straight, you are using a 2 generation old version of Photoshop and comparing it's HDR capabilities to a modern specialty HDR software?
Give your head a serious shake and smarten up.

SpecialK · 10-19-2010, 08:25 AM

^ Good one.

I think software skills play a large part in the variables. Not saying the OP doesn't have them, but what I see is ...blah.

**newmikey** · 10-19-2010, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

Let me get this straight, you are using a 2 generation old version of Photoshop and comparing it's HDR capabilities to a modern specialty HDR software?
Give your head a serious shake and smarten up.

DigiKam is certainly NOT "specialty HDR software", digiKam is "an advanced digital photo management application for Linux, Windows, and Mac-OSX" as claimed on its webpage.

OP, I understand what you are trying to accomplish but the deal cannot be on. First of all, your resulting image was not arrived at through an HDR process but rather through exposure blending which is what DigiKam is extremely good at, or rather its plugins or even one up from that the programs used by the plugin: align_image_stack from the Hugin project and enfuse from the Enblend project.

I believe Photoshop has excellent plugins that will accomplish the exact same thing, possibly minus the alignment (I do not know enough about PS to even be certain about that).

If you would really like to compare HDR, you'd compare f.i. Photomatix Pro to Luminance HDR (previously known as QtPFSGUI).

Comparing PS to digiKam will prove nothing, accomplish nothing. PS is an image editing suite, digiKam is an image management application with some (exteremely good an handy) editing capabilities. If you'd compare digiKam to anything at all, it would have to be Lightroom.

Don't take me wrong: I am a convinced user of FOSS and I love digiKam for what it does, but the pitch here is just wrong - digiKam is not trying to be an alternative to PS to even begin with and does not compete in the same arena.

Last edited by newmikey; 10-19-2010 at 09:13 AM.

**rm2** · 10-19-2010, 10:45 AM

Photoshop is a seven or eight hundred dollar program. I thought it was rather interesting that a *free* program could do better at something like this. I guess the fact that I do not have the latest version is a good point. But, that is why I posted the RAW images, so that I could be shown the opposite. I find it sad that instead of that, I find so much defensiveness and verbal jabs. That is fine. I'll leave it at that.

MRRiley · 10-19-2010, 11:51 AM

rm2... I think the mistake was using the word "humiliate". First off you cannot humiliate an inanimate thing like a software program. Second, the results were not a slam dunk in digiKam's favor. This caused people to react to your claims. Shrug it off and move on. LOL

Mike
PF Moderation Team

tuco · 10-19-2010, 12:10 PM

I second Mike's comment. And I'd add, "humiliate" would be one is totally awesome and the other sucks. Not the case here. Was that the new HDR version in CS5? And was there any picture in the group that had the sky exposed correctly?

SpecialK · 10-19-2010, 12:40 PM

You can not post RAW images. They must be processed somehow, someway...

**rm2** · 10-19-2010, 01:28 PM

The link to the RAW files is right there. See for yourself. As I said above, I am willing to admit that I am not that experienced with Photoshop and that I may just not be doing it right. Prove it to me if you like.

If I was charging $800 for a product and someone was able to do the same or better for nothing, I think I would be humiliated.

tuco · 10-19-2010, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by rm2

If I was charging $800 for a product and someone was able to do the same or better for nothing, I think I would be humiliated.

Yes, it's expensive but CS5 is not just a photo management application with limited image editing abilities. I like digiKam's multi platform support and it looks like a good tool for those who can't/won't afford the proprietary offerings.

SpecialK · 10-19-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

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.

On an "$800-dollar" program, I doubt people are going to use the "bingo" button too much. That's what Elements is for :-)

Have fun.

sniper29a · 10-19-2010, 06:30 PM

Best HDR "SW" is to take as many pictures as necessary to cover whole dynamic range and then digitally blend them in PS or any post-processing SW ;-) No HDR, such as Photomatix, will determine correct workflow. Some time ago, I was "excited" about HDR SW as well, which is very often misused due incompetence of photograph to expose properly. Of couse it takes some more time to digitally blend few pictures together, but there is no match in quality. All HDR SWs share same problem. Moving objects in pictures, result is horrible. I have pruchased Photomatix and didn't use it ever since.

sniper29a · 10-19-2010, 06:35 PM

PS HDR script is useless in CS4 and I doubt they improved somehow the script in CS5. It is bloody slow and tone mapping is pretty poor. Photomatix plug-in does much better tone mapping after PS HDR script. But why use slow poor script of PS if you can use Photomatix if you seek quick results with little adjustments.

Wheatfield · 10-20-2010, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by sniper29a

PS HDR script is useless in CS4 and I doubt they improved somehow the script in CS5. It is bloody slow and tone mapping is pretty poor. Photomatix plug-in does much better tone mapping after PS HDR script. But why use slow poor script of PS if you can use Photomatix if you seek quick results with little adjustments.

HDR in CS5 is greatly improved over CS4, so you can lay you doubts to rest.
The tone mapping still isn't anywhere near as good as the specialty plug ins (photomatix is the best one I've found so far).

Also, just snapping a few images in an exposure bracket and letting the software blend them in an HDR does not guarantee a good HDR image.
Some scenes, while very long range, just plain don't work as an HDR.

simico · 10-21-2010, 03:40 AM

This topic reminds me of "Kenny vs Spenny"

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 01:19 PM

10-18-2010, 01:59 PM	#16
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	I am having a hard time matching digiKam HDR results with Photoshop. I am talking about level of detail in highlights and shadows. But, I am willing to concede that it is probably just me and my lack of familiarity with Photoshop. I am using Photoshop CS3, by the way. Things may be different with another version. Any way, here is your chance to vindicate Photoshop. The image below was processed with digiKam's Merge to HDR tool ("Blend bracketed images"). It is an HDR made from three RAW images from my Pentax istDS camera. I am having a hard time matching it with Phtoshop's HDR tool. If you can match the level of detail and clarity (saturation is not as important) with Photoshop's HDR tool please post your result. The rules for this 'pseudo' challenge are: Besides the HDR tool, you can not use extra layers. You can only adjust Levels, Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpening. You have post your methodology so that I can duplicate it in my computer. Otherwise how do I know that you are not using some other manual method of achieving the HDR. At least that way I will learn something from this. Got it? OK. Here is the target: The three raw files are compressed into one 7z file that you can download here: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13495054/MillRiver/MillRiver.7z Have fun!

10-19-2010, 07:46 AM	#17
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Let me get this straight, you are using a 2 generation old version of Photoshop and comparing it's HDR capabilities to a modern specialty HDR software? Give your head a serious shake and smarten up.

10-19-2010, 08:25 AM	#18
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	^ Good one. I think software skills play a large part in the variables. Not saying the OP doesn't have them, but what I see is ...blah.

10-19-2010, 08:46 AM	#19
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287	Originally posted by Wheatfield Let me get this straight, you are using a 2 generation old version of Photoshop and comparing it's HDR capabilities to a modern specialty HDR software? Give your head a serious shake and smarten up. DigiKam is certainly NOT "specialty HDR software", digiKam is "an advanced digital photo management application for Linux, Windows, and Mac-OSX" as claimed on its webpage. OP, I understand what you are trying to accomplish but the deal cannot be on. First of all, your resulting image was not arrived at through an HDR process but rather through exposure blending which is what DigiKam is extremely good at, or rather its plugins or even one up from that the programs used by the plugin: align_image_stack from the Hugin project and enfuse from the Enblend project. I believe Photoshop has excellent plugins that will accomplish the exact same thing, possibly minus the alignment (I do not know enough about PS to even be certain about that). If you would really like to compare HDR, you'd compare f.i. Photomatix Pro to Luminance HDR (previously known as QtPFSGUI). Comparing PS to digiKam will prove nothing, accomplish nothing. PS is an image editing suite, digiKam is an image management application with some (exteremely good an handy) editing capabilities. If you'd compare digiKam to anything at all, it would have to be Lightroom. Don't take me wrong: I am a convinced user of FOSS and I love digiKam for what it does, but the pitch here is just wrong - digiKam is not trying to be an alternative to PS to even begin with and does not compete in the same arena. Last edited by newmikey; 10-19-2010 at 09:13 AM.

10-19-2010, 10:45 AM	#20
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Photoshop is a seven or eight hundred dollar program. I thought it was rather interesting that a free program could do better at something like this. I guess the fact that I do not have the latest version is a good point. But, that is why I posted the RAW images, so that I could be shown the opposite. I find it sad that instead of that, I find so much defensiveness and verbal jabs. That is fine. I'll leave it at that.

10-19-2010, 11:51 AM	#21
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	rm2... I think the mistake was using the word "humiliate". First off you cannot humiliate an inanimate thing like a software program. Second, the results were not a slam dunk in digiKam's favor. This caused people to react to your claims. Shrug it off and move on. LOL Mike PF Moderation Team

10-19-2010, 12:10 PM	#22
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	I second Mike's comment. And I'd add, "humiliate" would be one is totally awesome and the other sucks. Not the case here. Was that the new HDR version in CS5? And was there any picture in the group that had the sky exposed correctly?

10-19-2010, 12:40 PM	#23
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	You can not post RAW images. They must be processed somehow, someway...

10-19-2010, 01:28 PM	#24
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	The link to the RAW files is right there. See for yourself. As I said above, I am willing to admit that I am not that experienced with Photoshop and that I may just not be doing it right. Prove it to me if you like. If I was charging $800 for a product and someone was able to do the same or better for nothing, I think I would be humiliated.

10-19-2010, 01:53 PM	#25
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by rm2 If I was charging $800 for a product and someone was able to do the same or better for nothing, I think I would be humiliated. Yes, it's expensive but CS5 is not just a photo management application with limited image editing abilities. I like digiKam's multi platform support and it looks like a good tool for those who can't/won't afford the proprietary offerings.

10-19-2010, 05:53 PM	#26
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Quote: 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. On an "$800-dollar" program, I doubt people are going to use the "bingo" button too much. That's what Elements is for :-) Have fun.

10-19-2010, 06:30 PM	#27
sniper29a Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 56	Best HDR "SW" is to take as many pictures as necessary to cover whole dynamic range and then digitally blend them in PS or any post-processing SW ;-) No HDR, such as Photomatix, will determine correct workflow. Some time ago, I was "excited" about HDR SW as well, which is very often misused due incompetence of photograph to expose properly. Of couse it takes some more time to digitally blend few pictures together, but there is no match in quality. All HDR SWs share same problem. Moving objects in pictures, result is horrible. I have pruchased Photomatix and didn't use it ever since.

10-19-2010, 06:35 PM	#28
sniper29a Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 56	PS HDR script is useless in CS4 and I doubt they improved somehow the script in CS5. It is bloody slow and tone mapping is pretty poor. Photomatix plug-in does much better tone mapping after PS HDR script. But why use slow poor script of PS if you can use Photomatix if you seek quick results with little adjustments.

10-20-2010, 06:56 AM	#29
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by sniper29a PS HDR script is useless in CS4 and I doubt they improved somehow the script in CS5. It is bloody slow and tone mapping is pretty poor. Photomatix plug-in does much better tone mapping after PS HDR script. But why use slow poor script of PS if you can use Photomatix if you seek quick results with little adjustments. HDR in CS5 is greatly improved over CS4, so you can lay you doubts to rest. The tone mapping still isn't anywhere near as good as the specialty plug ins (photomatix is the best one I've found so far). Also, just snapping a few images in an exposure bracket and letting the software blend them in an HDR does not guarantee a good HDR image. Some scenes, while very long range, just plain don't work as an HDR.

10-21-2010, 03:40 AM	#30
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	This topic reminds me of "Kenny vs Spenny"