# HDR software?



## Shug (Jul 13, 2007)

What do folks use to make HDR? I got a trial version of photoshop cs6, and at first it worked fine but has ceased to do anything now. Opens the files as layers, looks like its about to do something then it all disappears and leaves a blank photoshop screen. I know its a trial, but adobe cant seriously expect me to fork out over 600 quid based on its performance if its supposed to be limited like this. Merging panoramics still works. Plenty spare memory and cpu so its not short of resources.
So I'm wondering what other options are available.


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Photomatix is a popular choice, and the one I use http://www.hdrsoft.com/

You can download the trial version and have a good play, but it will watermark the results until you pay for it.

Oloneo http://www.oloneo.com/ was another I tried and it worked well too, much faster than Photomatix and the results of the trial aren't (or weren't) watermarked, the software just stopped working at the end of the trial.

But I've stuck with Photomatix as I've got to know it and there is a lot of info on the web about using it and so on.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I like photomatix, it lends itself well to subtle HDRs on ToneMapping.

- Bret


----------



## DW58 (Nov 27, 2010)

Tell us more - I'm toying with downloading the trial. I'm not convinced I even like HDR, but a trial version makes this a viable thing to have a look at.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

this is HDR. 









as is this:










And this:









I tend to shoot 9 or so exposures, with identical focus points and aperture settings and different shutter speeds, all the way from xs to 1/xxxxs. I then open them up in Photomatix, see what it looks like and then play with the sliders until it's what I'm looking for. 
Sometimes you'll get stuff like this (note sunstar!):









and other times like this: 









The key, as far as I'm concerned, is in the amount of compression you apply when tonemapping and then the brightness you use. That tends - IME - to overcook it or not, that combination.

Photomatix rocks on an i7, it's really nice and fast.

I tend to use align and crop, noise reduction on slow shots, but not much of the ghosting stuff as I've been shooting handheld and it gives more problems than it solves for me at the moment.

If you use Tonemapping not Detail Enhancer, you'll get no watermarks. Make sure you set the source Colourspace correctly. The Auto WB is pretty good, I have to say.

Hth.

- Bret


----------



## DW58 (Nov 27, 2010)

Thanks Bret, I'll download the trial and give it a go. I'm running an i7 quad-core Mac with 16Gb of RAM so speed/power isn't going to be an issue.

Which version of Photomatix are you using?


----------



## B2ONGO (May 5, 2011)

Another shout for Photomatix. 

When I first started using it I wasn't happy at all with the results. All my shots had that typical photomatix painterly look. 

I sat down for a night and stripped it right back to establish what was causing the effect and built up a series of slider presets that I'm happy with. 

I'll only use HDR if the conditions are such that it'll improve the shot (high dynamic range scenes where filters wont help). 

I've found that photomatix tries to do everything though and its just not as good as photoshop at some stuff like de noising etc.


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Still not gotten round to trying photomatix but thats what i would go for, when i do start doing HDR.

Vanilla Skies on talk photography did a book on HDR photography and his shots are stunning.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

DW58 said:


> Thanks Bret, I'll download the trial and give it a go. I'm running an i7 quad-core Mac with 16Gb of RAM so speed/power isn't going to be an issue.
> 
> Which version of Photomatix are you using?


The latest one, I've got two different ones installed on two different machines. 4.something, the 64-bit version on the big box.



B2ONGO said:


> Another shout for Photomatix.
> 
> When I first started using it I wasn't happy at all with the results. All my shots had that typical photomatix painterly look.
> 
> ...


I'll agree with all of this, but then I try to limit severely what I want it to do.

- Bret


----------



## DW58 (Nov 27, 2010)

bretti_kivi said:


> The latest one, I've got two different ones installed on two different machines. 4.something, the 64-bit version on the big box.
> 
> - Bret


Thanks for that Bret, but perhaps I should have made my question a tad more detailed - I meant which "version are you using - Photomax Essentials or Photomax Pro"?

I think you've sold it to me, I'm going to download the trial and gove it a go.


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

In my case I've got Photomatix Pro 3, but what the differences are I don't know, I've had it a few years now too, so don't know what updates and tweaks have been done since.

Something else maybe worth mentioning while I'm here, I've had decent results on many occasions triple processing a single RAW file at different exposures and bunging them into Photomatix instead of taking bracketed shots, seems to work well for when a tripod isn't available or whatever.


----------



## Shug (Jul 13, 2007)

Just downloaded photomatrix pro 4.2.
Initial impressions are its pretty easy and simple. $99 is certainly a lot better option than £600 odd!


----------

