[travis_cooper]

I have been wanting to get into HDR for a while now, and I have done a couple of shots. I merged the pictures together using CS3 and I was pleased with the results, but I still see shots from other people that just blow me away. It seems that the majority of the use Photomatix. My question is what program do you think yields the best results and why. Also if you have any killer, must know, HDR tips for me that would be great. I have also noticed that a lot of people are creating some stunning images out of just one RAW shot. So when is it better to use one shot rather than multiple shots? The obvious time I can see is if your scene has a lot of motion, it would be hard to get that working with multiple shots.

[yeahwhatever]

Photomatix works great if you are looking for that stunning HDR type look.
I tryed using the HDR in CS3, and it doesn't give that "surreal" look.
Also, there is a plugin
for CS3 that allows you to use Photomatix tone mapper alone, but still does not give
a great effect, but you may want to look into it.
As far as RAW file HDR, I have not tryed that yet, so I will be interested to see what
others have to say about that.
I have only done a few HDR shots, and tryed a few different programs, and so far
Photomatix seems to work the best for the look I was after.

Here is THE very FIRST HDR I did with Photomatix, not the greatest shot, but
shows the effect I got with being a complete beginner.

[travis_cooper]

I have heard a lot of good things about Photomatix. I am going to get the trial version and start playing with it this weekend. Although I might try some of the more saturated style HDR, I like the HDRs that aren't overdone and look, IMO, more realistic. Here is the first HDR I have done. This was done in CS3 and I didn't tweak any settings, I just wanted to see what it looked like without me doing anything, and I am pretty pleased with it. I used the equalize histrogram option when dropping the bits to 16.

[Mattp9]

I use Photomatix Pro and have been using direct RAW for a few weeks. There's some shots with extreme darks which don't work well using RAW in Photomatix, in my experience. For these, I go back to creating jpg versions of a single shot with exposure variations using Lightroom sliders. These jpgs I then bring into Photomatix and have better luck.

For some HDR & Photomatix (and one other program I can't recall at the moment) tips see one of the masters (in my opinion) Stuckincustoms.com He freely shares his method.

Also - for some subjects, use the multiple exposure setting in the K10D. I keep forgetting this feature but have used it for static HDR-like photos.

[travis_cooper]

I use Photomatix Pro and have been using direct RAW for a few weeks. There's some shots with extreme darks which don't work well using RAW in Photomatix, in my experience. For these, I go back to creating jpg versions of a single shot with exposure variations using Lightroom sliders. These jpgs I then bring into Photomatix and have better luck.

For some HDR & Photomatix (and one other program I can't recall at the moment) tips see one of the masters (in my opinion) Stuckincustoms.com He freely shares his method.

Also - for some subjects, use the multiple exposure setting in the K10D. I keep forgetting this feature but have used it for static HDR-like photos.

Thanks, I have actually read his tutorial for doing multiple shots and single shots. He uses a plugin for PS called LucasArt to get some details, in his tutorial it was for the clouds.

ETA: Check out the original tutorial here. Then check out his update here.

[kurt]

Hello Travis,

I use Photomatix and like it a lot

As you point it out the movements (boat, car, bird, etc. or hard wind swinging tree/leafs) can be sometimes frustrating. Photomatix can clear some movements, but not large/complex ones.

Sometimes I have made a picture from the single RAW file. Just adjust the exposure and save th e images (for example -2, 0, +2).

[ftpaddict]

Photomatix, though results are often cheesy.

[travis_cooper]

Hello Travis,

I use Photomatix and like it a lot

As you point it out the movements (boat, car, bird, etc. or hard wind swinging tree/leafs) can be sometimes frustrating. Photomatix can clear some movements, but not large/complex ones.

Sometimes I have made a picture from the single RAW file. Just adjust the exposure and save th e images (for example -2, 0, +2).

From what I have heard an undocumented feature of Photomatix is that you can open just the one file and it will do the exposure compensation stuff for you. So you don't have to create the three differently exposed files yourself. Give it a try, I'm pretty sure all you need is one file.

[jshurak]

photomatix

I don't like the 32 bit to 16 or 8 bit conversion that photoshop offers.

[kurt]

From what I have heard an undocumented feature of Photomatix is that you can open just the one file and it will do the exposure compensation stuff for you. So you don't have to create the three differently exposed files yourself. Give it a try, I'm pretty sure all you need is one file.

I have not noticed this kind of feature ... maybe because it is undocumented
Quickly looking the options in program did not reveal this kind of feature. I have to do some google-search. I noticed that you can open single RAW-file and make a Tone Mapping to that file .... but that is not the same thing ... I have to look it further ...

Anyway, making the differently exposed files is an easy task with Silkypix.

[travis_cooper]

I have not noticed this kind of feature ... maybe because it is undocumented
Quickly looking the options in program did not reveal this kind of feature. I have to do some google-search. I noticed that you can open single RAW-file and make a Tone Mapping to that file .... but that is not the same thing ... I have to look it further ...

Anyway, making the differently exposed files is an easy task with Silkypix.

I played with the trial version a little bit last night. There is an option where you automate the process to convert a single file. I did that and then did tone mapping on the .hdr file it produced. It seemed like it did a decent job, I didn't really notice much difference from creating 3 seperate images from the original. I also tried 3 different images on CS3 and it didn't seem to do a good job. I think the problem is that it thinks the exposures for each of the images is the same. When it shows the screen letting you decide which ones to use they all show EV 0. I'm wondering if that is why it doesn't do a good job, I'll have to do some more playing with the single file thing. It could come in handy where there is a lot of motion. Is there a way to change the EXIF data to show a change in exposure? I'm wondering if that will make CS3 get it right. I would love to figure things out there since I already have it rather than buying photomatix. I still need to try the trial of the other one I listed in the poll. I have heard it does a great job and it is a lot cheaper.

[raz-0]

I use Dynamic Photo HDR.

It's cheap, it can produce subtle or heavily processed looks, it does single image HDR in a very friendly way. It has very nice tools for dealing with camera shake in between frames which are priceless if youw ant to try some HDR handheld. And most importnantly, it works in some sane manner rather than photoshop's inscrutable process and photomatix's touchy interface where some sliders appear to have no effect and others quickly make images look like crap if you move them two pixels left or right. It also lets you easily and simply preserve settings while you eperiment, and save settings you like to a file for later use. Not to mention saving your calculated and straightened HDR file is easy too, so you might even be able to get the same image out of the thing twice.

At $40 for the full standalone version you can't go wrong.

Oh yeah it reads .pef files in directly just fine. No screwing around with conversion.

[G M Fude]

Another vote for Dynamic Photo HDR. Because it's a no-brainer to use. Once the processing is complete you are left with the feeling "Uhhh... is that all there is to doing this?", a bit like Arcsoft Panorama Maker for stitching photos together; should it really be that simple? Yes it should, a well-designed interface is a blessing, freeing up the few brain cells I have left for creative input!

[travis_cooper]

Thanks for some feedback on this one. I am going to download the trial next chance I get. I would have tried it last night, but I was playing with the Photomatix trial and ran out of time. From what I have heard, and not just from you two, it is a great program, and I definitely like the price. I actually like what I was getting from CS3 using multiple imags, but everytime I try a single image, with different exposures from LR, I can't get good results, so having a program that can would be a plus. I am getting more excited to try this one out now that you have weighed in.

[germar]

If you're willing to work a bit with several different formulas to tonemap an HDR, try the package called QTPFSGUI.

It is here: Qtpfsgui website

It isn't a total one-click solution, but with a bit of work I find I can create images that are clearly superior than other programs. It will handle Pentax RAW files as well. It's open-source, so it's FREE ... available for Linux, Windows and MAC.

The linked page has further links to how-to pages...you really want to read them, as it can save you a great deal of experimentation time. Again, I think once you hit on your favorite formula and settings, you've got HDRs as good as any commercial program.

good luck,

Germar