The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Photomatix Blended Exposures

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Just for thread posterity, I found this recent article on Uwe Steinmueller's DOP site. Uwe is a friend of mine and somewhat of a pioneer in the digital blending field and teaches workshops on this technique. I have had this same discussion with him and we don't agree either, so perhaps it is me -- I'll post his images here and let you decide :)

Here are the three example images he used in photomatix for a final blend. To be perfectly frank, I do not see a significant enough improvement over the lone proper exposure in the blend trio -- at least not a difference I think couldn't be had from working the single proper frame a bit more -- other than lower exposure and perhaps some increased saturation the mid-tones. Moreover, I don't see where the over-exposed frame added any data to the blend... But maybe folks find this easier than working on a single image. Anyway, I thought it was a good example of the process including the images that get to the final product, and I'll let you be the judge of the overall benefit for your needs.

Here is the trio of originals for the blend:



Here is his final color result:



Interestingly, he ended up converting the color final to B&W anyway, which seems to me an even stronger argument for having just stuck with one image to begin with:



For those wanting more detail, Uwe's full article can be found on his site here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1646

Offered FWIW,
 

LJL

New member
I agree with you, Jack. I really do not see that much more in his final than he has in the first (0EV) shot. Maybe a bit more in the shadows for the window details, for example, but he could have just as easily burned that in a bit more.

Getting a good balanced exposure on a shot from a sensor that provides a fair bit of latitude, such as MF and the big Canons, will provide you with almost everything you need to enhance it to look HDR without the multiple exposures and stuff. For cameras not able to provide as much DR, then maybe HDR is a useful tool.

LJ
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
The kind of shot that I find good for this sort of blending is something with a LOT more DR.
Think of something like an internal shot of a Cathedral with sun lit stained-glass windows AND all you have for interior light is the typical dim church lighting.
In those kinds of shots, you are essentially stuck with choosing to expose for the interior or to expose for the stained glass. Under circumstances such as this, I have found HDR techniques to be useful to avoid the totally blown out stained glass when the interior gets reasonable exposure for a good amount of detail.
Although I like tools that do the right thing, I have usually resorted to CS3 and layers to do my HDR work. Maybe Photomatrix can help out here, but you can get by pretty well in PS. Exterior landscapes, except for sunrises, sunsets, and harsh noon-day sun, just doesn't have the DR usually to push me into HDR when I have exposed well.
On the other hand, this thread has me thinking that I should give Photomatrix another try just to satisfy my curiosity.
-bob
 

LJL

New member
Bob,
I can appreciate the setting you describe, and where more than one exposure may be required to capture things optimally. Like you, I think layers in PS are pretty effective, as are some of the newer plug-ins like Nik Software Viveza, where you can do some pretty detailed local adjustments in a layer. However, if the detail is not there, you cannot enhance it into existence, as is the case with blown stuff.

LJ
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I own a copy of Photomatix (received a hefty discount) and have tried it a few times. I think it probably does a fine job and certainly saves time as opposed to manually adjusting/blending layers in PS. However, I've dabbled a little bit with HDR but find the look distinctive in a way I'm not comfortable with.

I can't help but think that HDR is probably more useful for the smaller sensor cameras than it is for the larger ones. Certainly in a situation such as Bob describes.

Bottom line for me is I think it's a useful tool to have laying around should you A: find yourself shooting something beyond the normal DR of your camera and shoot with the software (or HDR) in mind; or B: Attempt to doctor up an exposure that has some problems by using two or three curve-adjusted exposures from the same RAW.

Of course if you really like the HDR look, you might actually seek out appropriate subject matter for it and for those folks, Photomatix can do a fine job. Especially when combining a bracket larger than 3 exposures. 5 or 6 exposures will get you closer to something that makes the whole process worthwhile.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Agree with all of you. It seems to be there is a sort of a movement to use HRD at all times. It's a new tool and maybe just like a new hammer, everything looks like a nail to the folks who have it :)
 

dfarkas

Workshop Member
Jack and Peter,

Have to agree with both of you wholeheartedly.

Some tools do get overused, just to use them. It happens with new lenses, new tripods, new PDAs, new GPSs, etc.

I've seen many HDR landscapes from noted, high-end fine art photographers that lack something. They look more like paintings than photographs, with no black and no white. They have no contrast and the gobs of midtones do nothing to fix that. Peronally, I love contrast. I like rich dark tones and snappy highlights. I want images that pop.

That's just me and everyone is, of course, entitled to his or her own tastes. That is one of the great things about photography. It is both and art and a science (and a business). We all approach things a bit differently and that is a good thing.

David
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
For the most part I agree with you both: I want a few crisp "whites," speculars are good, but not full blown paper whites -- would rather have them peak at around 250, so usually add an output curve to my files -- and some true, deep blacks, as dark as the medium will print. Don't need a lot of either in an image, but generally prefer to see some at each end :)
 
Top