johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Hi rfcoakle, please do not let some of the responses to your post concern you, your efforts in comparing the various HDR processors took you some time to complete and I admire what you have achieved.

dieseldave Loc: Davenport,IA

Question,a little off topic, but I noticed that one of the examples is using NIK HDR .I recently got NIK and when I select HDR it just uses the shot that is currently selected.No option for bracketed shots. It produces HDR pictures, probably by altering exposure behind the scene. Or am I missing something by using it with Affinity??

rfcoakley Loc: Auburn, NH

I'm not familiar with Affinity, but in Photoshop, I get to the HDR Pro 2 interface of the NIK plugin from the file menu/"automate"/"merge to HDR Efex Pro 2..." This brings up the NIK interface below.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I side with Bob once again. We use HDR techniques when the dynamic range of the scene is beyond the dynamic range of the sensor. That beautiful scene, to my eyes, does not fall in that category.
The chances are excellent that with proper metering for the exposure of the subject and using the polarizer filter the results would have been very pleasant to the viewer.
I agree with you, Photomatic Professional does an excellent job to HDR photography.

rfcoakley Loc: Auburn, NH

Thanks for all the comments and discussion. From the discussion and feedback, one clear conclusion that I reached is that this bracketed image set did not provide a good sample for experimenting with HDR apps based primarily on the lack on widely varying contrast in the scene. Some have suggested that a tripod is essential for any application of HDR. While clearly preferable, I believe that steady hand held shots at adequate shutter speeds can provide acceptable results. That was not the case here - some of the shutter speeds in the set were far too slow. In fact, since it was a static scene, the ghosting that came up in the NIK HDR version was unquestionably related to camera shake. For context, while seated in an outdoor restaurant, I noticed a scene that I liked from a nearby table overlooking the water. When customers left that table, I went over to shoot the scene. A tripod was clearly not viable and, in my rush to take the shot, I bracketed for 5 exposures thinking that that combination would surely give me a good combination to work with in post processing. In hindsight, I should have selected a larger aperture (I didn't need F/22.0 with its corresponding potential for added distortion to get sharp focus - F/8.0 or F/11.0 would have been better). I also could have spent more time trying for a single, correct exposure than depending on the bracketed set to get it right. So, maybe Aperture Priority @ F/11.0 with a lower ISO (e.g., 100), metered against brightest area of scene, and then shooting with EC to keep the histogram close to the right edge.

ecurb1105

I like this one, I don't see a need for HDR in this kind of scene, try a room interior with windows in the scene.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Choose a High contrast scene. Bracket 3 stops in two stop increments. Send to HDR program.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Also, another step, you are not done till you optimize it in post-processing (Photoshop), very important.

breck Loc: Derbyshire UK

Not too much movement in the scene unless the waves are moving the bridge and gard railings

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

Here's one definition of HDR that I like in it's simplicity.
"HDR, as its name implies, is a method that aims to add more "dynamic range" to photographs, where dynamic range is the ratio of light to dark in a photograph."
The key words being "ratio of light to dark". The OP's experiments were interesting but to me the basic subject wasn't the correct one for the experiment. The dark water/light sky shot was best fixed without HDR using more conventional techniques.
My suggestion is find a scene where the range of meter readings from light to dark areas are beyond the ability of the sensor to capture - then do this experiment.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I agree with you that the Photomatix image looks the best of the bunch. But I do think more could be done to each of the rest if you use the tools at your disposal after you render the HDR. For instance, you could take the LR finished image and tweak it more in LR and then use NIK to bring out the clouds and colors.

I really do like your comparisons though. If you like the Photomatix best, then I would purchase it and start using it on a regular basis. I usually bracket my images and then do it in Photoshop. Then I'll use the ACR filter to bring out more on the image and finish with NIK. Yes, I use a 3 step process. You might not want to do 3 steps and use Photomatix only. That's absolutely ok!

Good work.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Yes. Photomatix yields more colorful results and the interface is better and easier to use but it's not as sharp as Photoshop's HDR Pro. I've done tests.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That is exactly what I suspected.

Some people insist that unless you have extremes of brightness there's nothing to be gained from exposure bracketing. In my experience, files from HDR merges of bracketed images can take considerably more pushing and pulling in PP than a single exposure (probably because the merge files are more data-rich).

I frequently discard the brightest exposure from exposure bracketing, not just because of the slower shutter speed but also because the brightest exposure amplifies any haze and takes away at least as much as it adds. And the theoretical advantage of including the brightest image is that it would give you noise-free data in the dark areas of the shot. However, bracketing without the brightest image produces files that can be brightened with little in the way of noise (if any) emerging from the dark areas.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

This is an erroneous use of HDR, and the bracket margins much too small. Also, for quality HDR, a tripod is essential.

Your first shot, PP with use of contrast, dehaze, and saturation modifications would have done a better job by far than the so-called HDR.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

I like the photomatrix for the blue sky and blue/green water... the Nikon has green water and sky...I don't think I have ever seen a green sky over water...