Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
HDR image 1st try--HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Seedy" data-source="post: 1410504" data-attributes="member: 10694"><p>Very cool cars and images nanotech9</p><p></p><p>I've got a copy of photomatix pro 4.0 now and have been comparing my results from "local adaptation and tone mapping via curves in CS2 and the "auto-ish" tone mapping of photomatix...</p><p></p><p>Here's what I've noticed so far:</p><p></p><p>1) One can get almost the exact same results with either program...its going to be more intensive and take longer in CS2.</p><p></p><p>2) I still prefer to edit my raw images is CS2 (synch temperatures, contrast, saturation, etc) before using Photomatix to merge the RAW files to HDR.</p><p></p><p>3) if you really understand the concept of "high dynamic range" and the math and the way the RAW data is handled AND you are good at working the curves when downsampling from 32 to 16bit (via local adaptation in photoshop) then you will most likely prefer Photoshop for HDR.</p><p></p><p>4)Photomatix is really easy for the average person to create really stunning (but very "processed") looking images.</p><p></p><p>5) Depending on if I want a "more realistic" (ie what my eyes actually saw) or a "less subtle" more processed look (which can be more spectacular than what my eye saw) will determine if I merge and downsample via CS2 or via Photomatix.</p><p></p><p>I will post some comparision images from the same source photos merged and downsampled in each program to let y'all be the judge.</p><p></p><p>Disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer, I just play one on the internet...and YMMV.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Seedy, post: 1410504, member: 10694"] Very cool cars and images nanotech9 I've got a copy of photomatix pro 4.0 now and have been comparing my results from "local adaptation and tone mapping via curves in CS2 and the "auto-ish" tone mapping of photomatix... Here's what I've noticed so far: 1) One can get almost the exact same results with either program...its going to be more intensive and take longer in CS2. 2) I still prefer to edit my raw images is CS2 (synch temperatures, contrast, saturation, etc) before using Photomatix to merge the RAW files to HDR. 3) if you really understand the concept of "high dynamic range" and the math and the way the RAW data is handled AND you are good at working the curves when downsampling from 32 to 16bit (via local adaptation in photoshop) then you will most likely prefer Photoshop for HDR. 4)Photomatix is really easy for the average person to create really stunning (but very "processed") looking images. 5) Depending on if I want a "more realistic" (ie what my eyes actually saw) or a "less subtle" more processed look (which can be more spectacular than what my eye saw) will determine if I merge and downsample via CS2 or via Photomatix. I will post some comparision images from the same source photos merged and downsampled in each program to let y'all be the judge. Disclaimer: I am not a professional photographer, I just play one on the internet...and YMMV. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
Photo Album
HDR image 1st try--HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
