HDR software

[Liz]

Just wondering what was the most popular software here is for HDR processing.

I havent got PS.

I know there are a couple of freebies out there, but my laptop/Win7 doesnt like them. :mad2:

Tried to DL Picturenaut (doesnt seem to unzip properly) and FDRTools Basic (DL Ok but wont open, even using the compatibility option of XP) .

[gary]

Hi Liz,

I have used Photomatix by HDRsoft for many years -
http://www.hdrsoft.com/

[Liz]

Thanks Gary, yes, it seems pretty popular and not hugely priced at $99 therabouts. May purchase it.

[Octane]

Everytime someone makes an HDR picture, a baby kitten dies.

Please, think of the kittens.

This has been a PSA by the anti-HDR alliance.

:P

H

[troypiggo]

Maybe try Luminance HDR (http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/), used to be called QTFPSGUI or something like that. Free, cross platform (Win, Mac, Linux). Used it a while ago, but have steered away from using HDR.

If you end up paying for one, you might look at Oloneo (http://www.oloneo.com/). Looks like it has some very cool features, like the "re-light" option. Haven't used it but seen demos.

[troypiggo]

LOL I was going to post something like "H will be along shortly with a PSA", knowing that it would come. And you beat me to it. LOL.

[gary]

Hi Liz,

Highly recommended and it is very reasonably priced.
The graphical interface has plenty of sliders one can play with to create the effect that
you like the most.

One of my images attached.

[gary]

The call has gone out to the RSPCA, the judge has issued a court order and they will
be knocking on H's door some time in the early hours of the morning.

Exhibit A, your Honour.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=39151&highlight=HDR

[bahoogas]

Guilty!

[iceman]

I like Photomatix - the new version is tonnes better than the previous.

Exposure Fusion is much better than Tone Mapping in most circumstances, especially in low light.

[Liz]

thankyou all :thumbsup: Have DL the trail version of Photomatix - its the full version, but just has a watermark on the finished product.

Sorry H, I knoiw you dont like them, but I reckon there is a time and place for a HDR image. ;) Long live little kittens.

[AdrianF]

Go your hardest on HDR software ladies and gentlemen.
Baby kittens grow into native bird killers we have 11 in our street and they are killing off all off all of the native birds around us. Someone left the neighborhood and left a couple of cats behind. And they bred.

Adrian

[Octane]

Oh, yeah, Gary. Long time ago. I am reformed. :P

You could say I have climbed out of the HDR Hole. :P

H

[gary]

Hi H,

An artist has to be careful when they get that sense of reform. :lol:

There are a terrific couple of self-deprecating lines in the 1980 film,
Stardust Memories, where comedian Woody Allen has encountered some
highly intelligent aliens who are visiting Earth and from whom he now hopes
to seek the answers to the meaning of life.

Woody Allen asks, ""Look, here's my point, if nothing lasts, why am I bothering to
make films or do anything for that matter?"

And the aliens reply, "We enjoy your films - particularly the early funny ones".

:lol:

[Octane]

Haha, I like it. :)

More power to HDR people.

H

[supernova1965]

Please clarify something for me is HDR done from settings on the camera or is it created from the software being mentioned:question:

[iceman]

Either or both :)

You can do it from a single exposure, but it's better to take 3 bracketed exposures (-2/0/+2) and create a single HDR exposure using the software.

[Octane]

Troy...

H

[supernova1965]

Thanks Mike,

I must be learning about photography I actually understood what you meant:D. Would it be like combining images in layers using gimp:question:

[Octane]

Warren,

Yes, exactly. However, and, this is the penultimate point: you, as the processor, have complete control via masks, which layers you wish to show through, at varying opacities. With HDR software, there is no such control. That is, unless you mix your HDR image as a layer over your original data. But, then, what's the point?

H

[gary]

Hi Warren,

Technically speaking, all the images you ever see printed or displayed only have a
Low Dynamic Range (LDR). This is a limitation of the state-of-the art of current
output display devices.

This post I made in the Terrestrial Photography forum in 2009 attempts to explain
what is meant by that.
See http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=399343&postcount=20

Currently, as technology stands today, one can synthesize an HDR "image" file
using software to combine multiple bracketed shots. Internally, the file format
is representing each pixel, not as an integer representation, but as a floating
point number.

Unfortunately there is currently no display technology that can render the image
with that full dynamic range.

As a kludge, a process called "tone mapping" can be employed to filter out a
subset of the HDR file to create a conventional low resolution image that
can be shown on a display or printed on paper.

The tone mapping process can be set-up to produce images that depart
from how we normally see the world through our own eyes. This provides
for some artistic freedom, either for better or for worse depending upon taste.

The tone mapped output files are what are commonly referred to as "HDR images"
though this is strictly speaking a misnomer and technically incorrect. The tone
mapped image is an LDR image.

Alternatively, one can use some other technique, such as selective masks
to create a composite output image from a selection of bracketed exposures.

In the future, perhaps cameras and output display devices will be able
to directly capture an HDR image in a single exposure and then render
it in its full HDR glory.

[dannat]

Enfuse, freeware or enfuseGui if you like clicking things

[troypiggo]

Lol H. Just came back to this thread. Feel like you're all alone and need some help?

[Octane]

:rofl:

:help:

H

[Liz]

Interesting stuff, thank you Gary and all (mostly :D).

Had a bit of a play this arv, but didnt come up with anything dramatic. May take a bit to find out how to achieve those dramatic results.

Took me 2 hours today to find out how to get 100 ISO on my 450D, and fianlly worked out how to turn off ' highlight tone priority', then you can get 100 ISO. It seems its better to shoot at ISO 100 for HDR.

[troypiggo]

G'day Liz, can I offer some advice? If you are going to attempt HDR, you really need to shoot full manual, on a tripod using "best practice" such as shutter release, mirror lockup etc. Keep ISO and aperture constant, and change the exposures with shutter speed.

There are some really horrible HDR images around, as per the "I hate your HDR" link in H's sig there. Many are blurry/soft because hand-held. The software is not "magical" and perfectly align the different exposures, and it's impossible with moving subjects such as people, clouds, trees/leaves swaying in the breeze.

The other big mistake people make is to think that a crap photo to start with will magically become awesome if it's run through HDR software. Fact is, if it looks unappealing by itself, HDR won't help. It's not special effect software, although it is often abused in this way.

And finally, please don't attempt to make HDR from a single exposure. That is not HDR by definition, and the dark areas become noisy and horrible.

[avandonk]

I use EasyHDR for my astro images. Here is an animated gif showing crops of the exposure stacks and the final image the tone mapped 'HDR'.

1.4MB
http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.com.au/2011_05/hdr3.gif

The exposures are 7s, 15s, 30s, 60s, 120s and 240s at a FL of 300mm f/3.6 at 1600 ISO.

Notice how Eta Car. has the same size in the tone mapped image as the 7s exposure and the dim nebula the brightness of the 240s exposure.

Bert

[Spanrz]

There are masses of us H. ;)
I do admire your "resistance" though :D

Your critique has taught me a lot of respect, for HDR. And not every HDR works, as I have learnt.
So I use it wisely (I still take the HDR that when I get around to processing it, but not publish it, unless it's right.)

I have the newish Canon L lens (70-200 2.8 II IS) coming, hopefully I'll get it Monday, so things are going to get interesting.

Photomatix for me. I do use PS CS5 on the odd chance.

[bartman]

I like using HDR. Its an interesting and artistic way of playing around with your data. Used well, it works well.
I'm still very new to it , but playing around with the settings entertains me to no end ;)
I really like the idea of HDR timelapse. This link (http://vimeo.com/16575979) for me showed what potential HDR has when shooting scenes with a lot of contrast ( ie the bright doorway and low light interior.)
Its a long winded video ( but educational) and found that it is true that when looking with your eyes you can see the details in the dark areas as well as the bright areas. When the camera take a shot, you might not get the view your eyes see...... but with the HDR it "resembles" what you see with your eyes (thats my opinion), and that's what I like about HDR........Maybe I should start a web site " ilikeyourhdr"?:rofl:
The video is a step up from single shot HDR...and some, but ...well look for your self.
I use Photomatix, and it works for me.
Here are some pix I took just trying some bracketing and using Photomatix. They are really not the best, but I am just trying and having fun. I personally like some of them, but would not put them in a contest.:lol:
HDR an Non Hdr shots....sorry they are a bit mixed up...
Bartman

[Octane]

The last image there is the reason why HDR is made of fail.

If your eyes see halos and saturation artifacts, it's time to see a doctor, ASAP. :P

Shooting RAW, if you manually blended them in your post-processing software of choice, I guarantee you, they'd look better. :P

H

[bartman]

Must admit tis not the best pic....I was only trying to give examples of before and after..ie the blown out highlights and .......well yep it is bad.
I'll have a go at processing them in pse8 ( RAW). I'll post my results sometime after the Rapture, cause that will keep me occupied for some time..... you know ....bracketing several shots of the Rapture breaking through the clouds here in Perth:rofl:\

[Octane]

Brett,

If you look through the terrestrial photography forum and do a search on HDR and my username, you will see that I used to post lots and lots of HDR imagery.

I then realised the mistake I was making and climbed out of the novelty hole. I haven't looked back since.

It's the single greatest way to destroy hard earned, and hard thought out data capture.

Sooner or later, people realise that it doesn't do their photography any justice and move on. :P

Congratulations on the new lens. I have the first iteration of it. If that's anything to go by, and, the samples I've seen on the web of the Mark II, you are going to love it. It's sharper at f/2.8 than its older brother. And, that's saying something.

H

[Octane]

I'm like a reformed smoker -- really, really, /really/ annoying. :P

My heart is in the right place, though. :P

H

[Liz]

A girl from work last night downloded a HDR App onto her Iphone, and had fun paying around with that!!

You take an image then have to touch the screen in a dark area, it takes a pic, then a light area, and it takes a pic, then combines. It looked interesting to have a play around with.

There was an iPhone App, and an Android App for about $1.99 each. :thumbsup:

[Liz]

From someone who loooves taking images, it will be great to travel down this path, as you did H. Down the track I may also become enlightened, and terminate the practice, but in the meantime I am going to enjoy it. :D

[Octane]

lol, fair enough. :)

I'm not stopping anyone from indulging. :P

H

[bartman]

DITTO Liz.......
I am enjoying the HDR path ATM and I'm sure when I master Photoshop( before the end of days) i''ll convert ......maybe.......
Bartman

[OICURMT]

Come on guys... that was way back when H was young and foolish ;)

But I have to admit, the Opera House has never looked better !

[Liz]

;) No worries H, we do appreciate your input, you have taken some amazing HDR images. :thumbsup:

[Octane]

But, the non-HDR ones are even better. :P

H

[Spanrz]

H, just had a gander at some of your HDR stuff..Most impressive is the Colosseum one.
The only thing that realy stands out for me, in a HDR (if done well), is Churches or architecture with rough/pitted stonish type walls.
It's the shadows with the colours that I love.

I'm off to the States again in 3 odd weeks. Going to have a field day with the new lens. Most probably a day or 2 in NYC, but most will be spent in way Upstate NY.
Yes there will be some HDR. Mainly centred on old buildings with rough textures.

I want to better my HDR of the Rochester High Falls that was shot with a point and shoot. Well, was all I could do with it last time. This time, big guns. It is challenging, because it has moving water. Dunno if it's a lost cause, but I'll be in the area and worth another go, with proper gear.

[Liz]

Thats right the Colosseum was amazing!! I had it as my desktop pre heading to Europe/Italy 2 years ago. :thumbsup:

Good luck in the States with new lens Brett, look forward to seeing some HDR images. :)

[shelltree]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh H...



I agree. If you must, then exposure fusion is the way to go. It's what I use to use before I got my grad filters.

Having said that, natural is better ;) I'd prefer to nail the shot right then and there and not have to tweak it too much afterwards. It really does diminish the natural quality of the shot, which is what I'm trying to capture. I will not, however, say that I never use exposure fusion or try for a very very natural/can't-even-tell-it's-hdr combination if I think it could be beneficial :) It's all about experimenting sometimes.