HDR Software (Photomatix Pro 3)

[Mark Elberson]

I am really interested in HDR but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. I use DPP to convert from RAW and I have access to Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0. After doing some online research I stumbled upon Photomatix Pro 3. It seemed to get some good reviews but what does everyone here think? I also read an article in Popular Photography about Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 which said that it had a good HDR package. Adobe® Photoshop® CS4 is definitely out of the question by the way.



I downloaded a trial version of Photomatix Pro 3 and it was simple to use and seemed to produce good results. Before I spend $100 to register it I would like to get everyone's opinion on the matter.

Your input is extremely appreciated.

[Dumien]

I personally like Digital Photo HDR more than Photomatix. I don't really know why, though. I never got used to the Tone Mapping in Photomatix, whereas in DP HDR it is a lot more easy to use, to me, at least.

[peety3]

I use Essentials HDR. I showed it to someone who uses Photomatix, and he seemed ready to switch ASAP. Simple controls but faster processing and better results. I seem to notice a lack of black in my output, but I assume I could fix that in Photoshop.


A few samples:








The two above were handheld, assembled from a five-shot bracket ranging from -2 to +2.


The two below were tripod supported, assembled from a seven-shot bracket ranging from -3 to +3.

[peety3]

Oh, this part is totally software-independent: several camera settings are quite important in my (limited) HDR experience:


Low ISO is key; don't even think about an H setting of any form, and I'd likely stay at least a stop lower than max native ISO. Noise becomes your enemy very quickly.


Do "some math" ahead of time: for me, I usually shoot seven bracketed exposures (because my camera can, quickly, and seven seems to help the HDR tool more than five) at 1EV steps (so -3 to +3 inclusive). With a camera shutter-speed limit of 1/8000, I know that I need to start with a shutter speed that's 1/1000 or slower, or my -3 shot wouldn't be -3. On the other side, I know that I want a shutter speed of 1/30th on many of my wide-angle shots (for 1/focal-length), so if the +3 shot is 1/30th I need a baseline shot of 1/250th. So, I have a starting window of 1/250th to 1/1000th for handheld shots. The math might be different for <your> camera, but still worthwhile to plan ahead by doing the math.

[alex]

how do you take 7 bracketed shots in one burst, let alone 5? i can only figure out how to make my camera do three shots in a bracketed burst. is that an option a 450D doesn't have?

[George Slusher]

how do you take 7 bracketed shots in one burst, let alone 5? i can only figure out how to make my camera do three shots in a bracketed burst. is that an option a 450D doesn't have?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

It's actually easy. Use the main exposure compensation control. For example, on my 30D, I can set the bracketing to +/-1, then use exposure compensation to get all the shots. The easiest way is to set exposure compensation (with the main dial) to "0," take 3 shots (-1, 0, +1), then spin the dial counterclockwise to exposure compensation -2 (that's as far as it goes, so I don't even have to look at the readout), take 3 more shots (-3, -2, -1), then spin the dial clockwise to exposure compensation +2 (again, that's as far as it goes) and take 3 more shots (+1, +2, +3). That makes 7 different exposures: -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3. However, I usually just take -2, 0, +2. Again, on the 30D, with exposure bracketing set, the camera will automatically take 3 shots if I hold down the shutter button (or, better, use a remote release) or use the self-timer. (Naturally, I'll have the camera clamped down tight on a sturdy tripod and touch it the least I can.)


I use Photomatix and generally like it. It does take some experimenting. (It has three different modes that will give different results.) Their "details" mode gives the most dramatic shots (it works with "micro-contrast" to bring out details). Their "tone compression" mode, on the other hand, usually gives a more "realistic" image. Here are some examples.


Start with this at "0," then take -2 &amp; +2:





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1148_5F00_800.jpg[/img]





Use the "details" tonal mapping to get:





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1149_5F00_50_5F00_48_5F00_auto_5F00_tm1_5 F00_2_5F00_800.jpg[/img]





Note that it looks a bit "fake." If you use tone compression, you can get a more realistic look:





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1149_5F00_50_5F00_48_5F00_auto_5F00_comp1 _5F00_2_5F00_800.jpg[/img]





Since I worked from RAW (which Photomatix can do), I was able to change the white balance ("Auto" above) to "Shade" and get (tone compression):





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1149_5F00_50_5F00_48_5F00_shade_5F00_comp 1_5F00_2_5F00_800.jpg[/img]





The barn looks better, but the grass is too warm. That's the problem with having different colored light (here shade &amp; sunset daylight) in the same photo. (I expect that I could play with Photoshop Elements to correct this, but I'm just a beginner with it.)


One can go to extremes, as well. Here's what I started with (same location, same day, a little bit later, looking off in the distance):





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1193_5F00_800.jpg[/img]


Now use details and "fake" the white balance to tungsten to get:





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_1195_5F00_4_5F00_3_5F00_tungstn_5F00_tm1_ 5F00_2_5F00_800.jpg[/img]


Rather surreal.


Finally, here's the first image I did with Photomatix, still in the trial mode (thus the watermark). This is more "typical," showing dark clouds and details on the ground. (This is essentially the same scene as the last two above.)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_0957_5F00_5_5F00_6_5F00_details_5F00_800. jpg[/img]


One thing to note is that you can lose a bit of sharpness if anything moves, even a little bit. That can also result in "shadows" around the objects that moved. In this case, the tree on the right is a LOT closer (maybe 250 yards) than the island, which is over 1.5 miles away. The DOF at f/8 isn't that deep.

[peety3]

how do you take 7 bracketed shots in one burst, let alone 5? i can only figure out how to make my camera do three shots in a bracketed burst. is that an option a 450D doesn't have?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Sorry, yep, it's an option that's not in the 450D. I shoot with a 1D Mark III, and there's a custom function to do 2, 3, 5, or 7 bracketed shots. I'm renting a 5D in a couple of weeks and I don't think it even has the option to customize this.

[alex]

thanks for the replies, guys! since I don't have the custom function that peety mentioned, I'll have to go with George's solution, which seems like a good one. I didn't think about that.


I need to get a sturdier tripod though. I would imagine that changing the EV using the main dial will definitely move the camera with the weak tripod I've got.


Of course, this begs the question....


peety, do you see a noticeable benefit of shooting 7 bracketed shots vs. shooting 3?

[Alan]

The books on this subject (how many shots to take) generally say that you will, on most occasions, do fine with 3 shots (+2/-2,0 eV). You need to look at the histogram, to make sure there is adequate exposure in the deep shadows.


For subjects that move around a lot, it can be a challenge to bracket 5 or 7, because now you're fiddling around with the exposure compensation dial, and that takes up more time. Since you're trying to minimize movement in the scene, that extra time means that the subject has moved, which then translates into "ghosting" on the subject. Despite the various fixes in these programs for removing ghosting, it is tough to correct.


To see if there is a benefit, find a truly stationary scene, and take the 3 shots with 2 eV width, then try another with 5 and another with 7.


Like I said, it's the histogram that tells you whether you've exposed the scene properly, and if 3 bracketed shots does it for you, I doubt you will see a difference with 5 or 7 at 1 eV.

[peety3]

I'll be honest: I'm very new at HDR, so I don't have strong opinions whatsoever. That said, I don't know if I can answer your question that well, as I've only shot 5s and 7s, never 3s, and all of my bracketed sets have been at 1-stop steps, whereas my sense is that most folks shoot 2-stop steps in 3-shot sets.


I'll be processing some images today. I'll try re-running a few by picking just the -2/0/+2 shots and posting the results. Could be a good example, as it's a fire truck with an awfully bright red/neon green diagonal striping on the front bumper (like, doesn't this thing have a dimmer switch???).