[HDR-photo] photomatix beta

[Bob Wise]

Thanks very much, Royce. I think I'll play with the two workflows  
side-by-side for the same images and
be a bit more scientific about  analyzing the tradeoffs.

Here's a B&W HDR... taken from from my kayak so it isn't a multi- 
exposure HDR, but I did use the plugin on the single
RAW image.

http://www.bobsplanet.com/serendipity/archives/158-Kayaking-Abstract- 
Photo.html

-Bob

On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Royce Howland wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> HDR-photo mailing list
> HDR-photo at hdr-photography.com
> http://www.hdr-photography.com/mailman/listinfo/hdr-photo