Dynamic Photo HDR and 2 versions

[night86mare]

Just to give you HDR guys the heads-up on another program that someone pushed at me; Dynamic Photo HDR. He swears that it's good. I've downloaded the trial version to play with a few RAW files I have. It's worth a try, it's not as easy to use as Photomatix, but I guess it's an option.

This is an old photo I posted a while back, done with Photomatix and worked on in Photoshop:

And this is done using Dynamic Photo HDR and worked on in Photoshop:

Granted that a slightly different approach was taken, the colors out from this program seem slightly more natural than Photomatix when saturated to a certain degree. But they are by no means the same as what you would usually see/get.. And much harder to tweak than the Photomatix version, for some obscure reason unknown to me.

What do you think? I still think I prefer the old version. :dunno: Photomatix tends to saturate the green/yellow channel too much, I think. Sometimes blue. It depends on the scene.. But this one, for this photo, seems to overdo the pinkish/magenta tones. :/ Oh - and one more thing, this one doesn't seem to emphasize the vignetting from wide lenses. That's a good point to note.

 

[nyxx88]

hmm... kinda prefer the 2nd one actually. brings out the swan more than the 1st one.

guess need to try with more HDR shots to eval further.

 

[night86mare]

hmm... kinda prefer the 2nd one actually. brings out the swan more than the 1st one.

guess need to try with more HDR shots to eval further.

color is very unnatural though, end result. the first one has only one visible problem at that size for me.. the beak is too red.

actually i spent some time dodging the swan out for this try. :bsmilie: perhaps that's why

 

[munkey]

Too much detail loss in the trees along the marsh.

 

[nyxx88]

actually i spent some time dodging the swan out for this try. :bsmilie: perhaps that's why

Hey! That's cheating!! :think:

Hard to compare the output if they have been further tweaked .

 

[night86mare]

Hey! That's cheating!! :think:

Hard to compare the output if they have been further tweaked .

hahaha, just see how much i can do

never mind, i still have the raw file, the thing is due to the handling it will still be subject to my personal taste leh :dunno:

maybe i just post up the unedited versions from raw later to provide comparison.. both offer a whole range of control though - and the dynamic photo hdr program even allows you to manipulate curves, hue, etc.. pretty cool

 

[garou12]

so in your opinion which program is more user friendly to noobs who are the begining of the learning curve for hdr? and why?

 

[Yapster]

Hmm, the 2nd shot seems more noisy and greenish to me... Prefer the first one though. Err, i not so good with seeing colours yet la. haha.

 

[night86mare]

so in your opinion which program is more user friendly to noobs who are the begining of the learning curve for hdr? and why?

i think.. photomatix.

this new program is weird in that you can't rotate pictures either at least i have not found out how

but photomatix costs money, this one is free so you can try this one first i guess.. just different results. personally i find photomatix better still, but you could say i am very used to it and thus very comfortable with it.

 

[garou12]

i think.. photomatix.

this new program is weird in that you can't rotate pictures either at least i have not found out how

but photomatix costs money, this one is free so you can try this one first i guess.. just different results. personally i find photomatix better still, but you could say i am very used to it and thus very comfortable with it.

i guess what i wanna know and i think its beneficial for newbies looking at this is: since you've gone thru using both programs; which one has a steeper learning curve?

 

[night86mare]

i guess what i wanna know and i think its beneficial for newbies looking at this is: since you've gone thru using both programs; which one has a steeper learning curve?

wa, to be honest dude i can't really answer - because the control for both are roughly the same, i think, just under different terms. also, i have been more or less in touch with hdr for a significant period of time so i can probably say that i know roughly what it entails.

even then, dynamic photo hdr seems to be quite confusing because there are many, many different options.. photomatix (my version, 2.3.3) only has one option. straightforward. i would think photomatix is easier, if you would have me answer it. i got used to a lot faster than i got used to dynamic photo hdr.

 

[garou12]

wa, to be honest dude i can't really answer - because the control for both are roughly the same, i think, just under different terms. also, i have been more or less in touch with hdr for a significant period of time so i can probably say that i know roughly what it entails.

even then, dynamic photo hdr seems to be quite confusing because there are many, many different options.. photomatix (my version, 2.3.3) only has one option. straightforward. i would think photomatix is easier, if you would have me answer it. i got used to a lot faster than i got used to dynamic photo hdr.

yes that's the answer i was looking for.

 

[inckurei]

really like the tone mapping and hdr image created from dynamic photo hdr

 

[theRBK]

I prefer the first image as well... the clouds look softer and more serene and sets the mood better, gently illuminating the scene... the second one the clouds look very harsh and contrasty and distracts from the swan, like the Eye of Mordor...

 

[night86mare]

I prefer the first image as well... the clouds look softer and more serene and sets the mood better, gently illuminating the scene... the second one the clouds look very harsh and contrasty and distracts from the swan, like the Eye of Mordor...

yes, i personally feel that way too. the mood in the first is better, but this probably has nothing to do with the hdr program, i realise.

nyxx88 rightly pointed out that i shouldn't process the image after hdr so a fair comparison can be made, just did that

really like the tone mapping and hdr image created from dynamic photo hdr

haha, try it out then, i guess.. i'm thinking that more processing is done by dynamic photo hdr within the program itself compared to photomatix

 

[night86mare]

just for comparisons; output from hdr from single raw, resized only and rotation if applicable

this is photomatix:

as you can see the light rays are brought out pretty nicely already, but the scene is pretty washed out. this is the usual problem with photomatix outputs (with my style of processing anyways).. requires a lot of work in ps.

ultracontrast from dynamic:

i would avoid this method if possible. looks too graphic if you pump up the contrast - not a very high value was used here, but still, just wanted to demonstrate the characteristics

smooth compressor from dynamic:

no idea why the swan appears darker than the rest of the scene. in fact the whole foreground is very dark. not really what i'm thinking of.

autoadaptive from dynamic:

forget about this, don't know what it does but it just blows the picture out of the water. everything is so blown out!

photographic from dynamic:

i like this output the most. the color saturation is just right, the scene looks natural, and looks like there is a lot of room for processing in ps. can't be sure though, the highlights might be blown out.

(continued in the next post due to image limit cap)

 

[night86mare]

human eye from dynamic:

not too bad, but weird colors. maybe because of my settings though, did try to keep everything almost the same but can't be sure.

eye-catching from dynamic: (default option)

pretty good too!

 

[inckurei]

i use eye catching... it has more sliders to control the tone mapping

with dynamic photo hdr.. i realise that i need less photoshop work :thumbsup:

 

[inckurei]

if i have the time... i would write a guide to HDR
maybe one day when im dead bored at office

 

[andrewtansj]

:think: seems to be an interesting program as well... will try out as well...