[HDR-photo] photomatix beta

[Royce Howland]

Bob Wise wrote:
> 
> My workflow is batch mode followed by the tonemapping plug-in for 
> photoshop CS2. No TIFF or JPG required at all.
> 
> Am I missing a better workflow option? Is it better to use the 
> standalone, go to Tiff, then go into PS from there?

Bob, this is a somewhat subjective call. The stand-alone Photomatix tool 
has a lot of other functionality besides the tone mapper. And different 
folks may prefer the way it does the merge to HDR vs. the way CS2 does 
it, especially now that Photomatix 2.4 has added some anti-ghosting 
features. (Of course CS3 will have some new image blending options too 
that may improve Photoshop's merge to HDR function, I haven't tried that 
yet.)

Personally, I work with a lot of really large files as well as large 
numbers of files, so the batch and large file processing options 
available with the stand-alone Photomatix Pro make it a mandatory tool 
in my workflow anyway. Easier for me to just standardize and handle all 
HDR portions of the work in the stand-alone application.

For simpler workflows with fewer and/or smaller image files, it's 
probably about 5.9 of one and 6.1 of the other whether you use the CS2 
plugin or stand-alone app.

> I do sometimes think that that preview I see in the tonemapping preview 
> doesn't very closely match the results I get after running it.

Most tone mapping tools will have this to a greater or lesser degree. 
Tone mappers like the Photomatix Details Enhancer, as well as any others 
that apply potentially powerful localized enhancements, are fairly 
compute intensive. Currently there isn't a reasonable way to show an 
accurate preview without going all the way and actually running the 
algorithm. (But then it wouldn't be a preview, it would be the real 
view, and take the same amount of time to generate. :) ) More 
global-oriented tone mappers will show a preview that is closer, but 
still not identical because it's only a simulation of the final output, 
not the actual final output.

> I am a bit concerned that the pace of releases seems much higher on the 
> standalone than on the plugin.
> Might be okay if they are using the same engine underneath and when I 
> download the latest standalone version the plugin uses
> upgraded engine. Can someone on the list say for sure?

I imagine only Geraldine can answer this definitively :), but I reckon 
the two installations are completely separate from & unaware of each 
other...

Royce Howland
Calgary, Alberta