HDR software for natural looking composites

[panovrx-2]

HDR Photostudio is a newish Photomatix-like HDR software
http://www.unifiedcolor.com/ 
which I have been trying out lately. (I keep track of these kinds of software with CGDigg btw -- http://www.cgdigg.com ) It does seem easier as it claims
to get more natural (less HDR looking) exposure composites than with Photomatix. Though its default settings look distinctly HDR it is possible to tweak the results with more controls than Photomatix.

http://www.mediavr.com/flash/landslide.html

I was happier with this HDR Photostudio result (-2, 0, +2stops) than with PTGui/Enfuse.
(The sky though is done more conventionally with a mask from the dark exposure sequence.

Peter M

[jrgen_schrader]

Forgive me, Peter, but to me that looks more like the result of a tweaked single exposure then a decent HDR.

And I'm not saying this to critisize your work (which is always much inspiring to me) but because I take processing HDRs very serious.

Outdoor sceneries  are usually very easy to handle in an HDR postprocess. The challenge (for the software and the operator as well) starts with interiors and extreme contrasts in very small aereas such as windows and opened doors to unlit rooms.

I tested HDR-Photostudio a while ago but found it by far too slow to even try it.

Regards
Jürgen

--- In [hidden email], "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:

>
> HDR Photostudio is a newish Photomatix-like HDR software
> http://www.unifiedcolor.com/ 
> which I have been trying out lately. (I keep track of these kinds of software with CGDigg btw -- http://www.cgdigg.com ) It does seem easier as it claims
> to get more natural (less HDR looking) exposure composites than with Photomatix. Though its default settings look distinctly HDR it is possible to tweak the results with more controls than Photomatix.
>
> http://www.mediavr.com/flash/landslide.html
>
> I was happier with this HDR Photostudio result (-2, 0, +2stops) than with PTGui/Enfuse.
> (The sky though is done more conventionally with a mask from the dark exposure sequence.
>
> Peter M
>

[panovrx-2]

--- In [hidden email], "Juergen Schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:

>
> Forgive me, Peter, but to me that looks more like the result of a tweaked single exposure then a decent HDR.
>
> And I'm not saying this to critisize your work (which is always much inspiring to me) but because I take processing HDRs very serious.
>
> Outdoor sceneries  are usually very easy to handle in an HDR postprocess. The challenge (for the software and the operator as well) starts with interiors and extreme contrasts in very small aereas such as windows and opened doors to unlit rooms.
>
> I tested HDR-Photostudio a while ago but found it by far too slow to even try it.
>
> Regards
> Jürgen
>

Juergen, Mostly I am a happy PTGui/Enfuse user (for true and pseudo HDR sequences) but the other HDR programs give more snap sometimes I think. I didnt find HDR-Photostudio slow at all -- maybe they have improved it in the latest version.
I have been shooting a lot of HDR myself lately -- especially since PTGui handling of it is so smooth now - it seems to calibrate non-tripod bracket sequences really well now. The PTGui Enfuse HDR preview seemed slower than HDR-Photostudio on my PC.

Distant cliffs in the Blue Mountains are very hazy usually in photos
cf http://www.mediavr.com/threesisters.htm (hand exposure composite here). The HDR-Photostudio rendering of them looks crisper to my eye (5DMkII vs 5D is part of it though).



Peter M

[paul womack]

panovrx wrote:
> HDR Photostudio is a newish Photomatix-like HDR software
> http://www.unifiedcolor.com/ 
> which I have been trying out lately. (I keep track of these kinds of software with CGDigg btw -- http://www.cgdigg.com )

Sorry for the topic drift - whilst searching on the theme of HDR
a while ago,  I found a company proposing a product for "single exposure"
HDR, essentially offering careful management of highlights and shadows
(sometimes called pseudo-HDR). They also suggested that their algorithm
could be run in real time, on video, and showed an example
of a football match where there is a sun-cast shadow of the stadium
on the pitch.

I can no longer find (or remember) the company and/or site.

Does anyone happen to know it?

   BugBear

[irv-3]

Jurgen, thanks for these comments, in a previous post I raised the following question--no one cared to respond!
********************************************************************
Re: The New Pentax K7---Why HDR for well lit outdoor scenes?

Joesph, all of the HDR's in the gallery are created from well lit outdoor scenes, could you not have achieved the same hi graphic quality from a 'normally' exposed frame with post processing?
I create many stitched landscape panos under the same great light as your images. I do spend significant time invoking the various tools: levels, contrast, brightness, etc. in selected areas of the image to achieve my desired results. Do you have any examples comparing the results/differences for both paths taken?

For hi contrast scenes, sunsets,sunrises and night shoots I am keenly aware of the HDR advantage. However, many HDR images I have seen appear 'overcooked' but in an entirely different manner than I observe in 'overcooked' images exuberantly processed from a single frame properly exposed. This can be due to
the point on the learning curve many photogs are at.

Now, it may well be, that the time and effort using HDR to generate that final 'hi qual' image is significantly less than present 'Post Processing' and if so I (and others) would welcome it. I am checking this path out now.

Regards, Irv Weiner



--- In [hidden email], "Juergen Schrader" <panorama@...> wrote:

>
> Forgive me, Peter, but to me that looks more like the result of a tweaked single exposure then a decent HDR.
>
> And I'm not saying this to critisize your work (which is always much inspiring to me) but because I take processing HDRs very serious.
>
> Outdoor 'sceneries'  are usually very easy to handle in an HDR postprocess. The challenge (for the software and the operator as well) starts with interiors and extreme contrasts in very small areas such as windows and opened doors to unlit rooms.
>
> I tested HDR-Photostudio a while ago but found it by far too slow to even try it.
>
> Regards
> Jürgen
>

[Erik Krause]

iweiner3637 wrote:

> Jurgen, thanks for these comments, in a previous post I raised the
> following question--no one cared to respond!

Not on PTNG I suppose :-)

> Joesph, all of the HDR's in the gallery are created from well lit
> outdoor scenes, could you not have achieved the same hi graphic
> quality from a 'normally' exposed frame with post processing?

This is often true. It might be out of laziness and because it is an
exciting technology. If you auto expose with a current digital camera
you often get the sky or similar bright area overexposed. No help to use
levels etc. here, since there is nothing to recover.

Most of the time it would be sufficient to lower exposure a bit, such
that there is no overexposure and later increase levels mid slider and
boost contrast again using large radius USM.

However, it is most annoying if you come home and see that some detail
in dark shadow can only be revealed at the cost of high noise. If you
shot HDR in the first place you have plenty to choose from. And if HDR
compression and especially the decision of which part of the dynamic
range to show is done right the result might look like something that
could have been shot directly single exposure.

For the mass producer HDR is a convenient way to get good results. Shoot
any static scene HDR and have enfuse later pick the best exposed parts
gives a pleasant result without hassles from a workflow which can be
highly automatized.

> For hi contrast scenes, sunsets,sunrises and night shoots I am keenly
>  aware of the HDR advantage.

As soon as there are dark shadows from bright sunlight you have high
contrast - at least more than any digital camera can capture.

> However, many HDR images I have seen appear 'overcooked' but in an
> entirely different manner than I observe in 'overcooked' images
> exuberantly processed from a single frame properly exposed. This can
> be due to the point on the learning curve many photogs are at.

Only too true. The best use of HDR is if you don't see it in the result.

best regards
--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

[crane-2]

Someone told me that the histogram you see on the camera is of the jpg and what
looks overexposed may not be in the raw file.
I never bothered to check this.

regards

mick

----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

[robertsladeuk]

Hi Mick,

This is true, I have often recovered "blown" highlights by using the
"recovery" slider in RAW converter.

Regards,
Robert
--

[hidden email] wrote:

> Someone told me that the histogram you see on the camera is of the jpg and what
> looks overexposed may not be in the raw file.
> I never bothered to check this.
>
> regards
>
> mick
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
>

--
Robert Slade, Photographer
Manor Photography 07890 564889
http://www.manor-photography.com

[Erik Krause]

Robert Slade wrote:

> This is true, I have often recovered "blown" highlights by using the
> "recovery" slider in RAW converter.

Highlight recovery is something different. The problem is that not all
three color channels saturate at the same level. For the jpeg generated
in the camera clipping for all channels simply is lowered to the lowest
clipping level of the respective channel (may be sometimes lower,
especially if high contrast picture style is selected).

Highlight recovery tries to reconstruct the information of a clipped
channel from the other channels. See f.e.
http://tinyurl.com/dxo-highlight-recovery
But it must fail if all three channels are clipped.

However, there surely are differences between cameras in how much
highlights are clipped in jpeg output relative to RAW output. The Fuji
S5 is said to clip jpeg 2 f-stops below the real limit.

best regards
--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de