HDR Images versus HDR Images Tone Mapped
Feb 13, 2014 23:00:26 #
Greetings all, I have added to my site examples of HDR images with and without tone mapping. I try and keep the images close to the real thing unless one wants a special effect for some specific purpose.
If you want to see the images please go to: http://www.shootinghdr.com
If you want to see the images please go to: http://www.shootinghdr.com
Feb 14, 2014 07:22:29 #
Your not-tone-mapped pictures are beautifull, HDR as it is ment to be. The tone mapping adds artficial cheap looking colors. I don't like them.
Feb 14, 2014 08:29:20 #
Feb 14, 2014 09:28:48 #
Feb 14, 2014 09:32:03 #
henk33 wrote:
Your not-tone-mapped pictures are beautifull, HDR as it is ment to be. The tone mapping adds artficial cheap looking colors. I don't like them.
I agree that the non-mapped pictures are really good. I am not sure of the terminology, though. I do quite a bit of HDR, but I don't have photomatix. I will be getting the NIK suite when funds allow, but currently I use HDR Pro within PS. I just use the sliders until the picture looks 'right' to me (see my threads in the gallery on rustic sheds). I don't like an image which screams "Look! I'm HDR!".
What is the difference between tone-mapping and 'ordinary' HDR?
Feb 14, 2014 09:53:12 #
Bloke wrote:
I agree that the non-mapped pictures are really good. I am not sure of the terminology, though. I do quite a bit of HDR, but I don't have photomatix. I will be getting the NIK suite when funds allow, but currently I use HDR Pro within PS. I just use the sliders until the picture looks 'right' to me (see my threads in the gallery on rustic sheds). I don't like an image which screams "Look! I'm HDR!".
What is the difference between tone-mapping and 'ordinary' HDR?
What is the difference between tone-mapping and 'ordinary' HDR?
Normal HDR is the end result of two or more exposures of the same subject. Tone-mapping can be applied to a single photo. Tone-mapping can be a very pleasing effect when properly applied. When done right there is nothing cheap looking about it. I have Photomatix and NIK HDR. I prefer to use Photomatix most of the time.
Feb 14, 2014 11:39:02 #
jpintn wrote:
It's moving away from the subject of this post, and I hate to do that, but I would really value your input on why you prefer Photomatix to Nik. I started out with Photomatix but am now a devoted Nik user. I may be missing something and would welcome your take on it. Maybe you could start a separate thread on that.Normal HDR is the end result of two or more exposures of the same subject. Tone-mapping can be applied to a single photo. Tone-mapping can be a very pleasing effect when properly applied. When done right there is nothing cheap looking about it. I have Photomatix and NIK HDR. I prefer to use Photomatix most of the time.
Feb 14, 2014 11:59:22 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
It's moving away from the subject of this post, and I hate to do that, but I would really value your input on why you prefer Photomatix to Nik. I started out with Photomatix but am now a devoted Nik user. I may be missing something and would welcome your take on it. Maybe you could start a separate thread on that.
Photomatix has a better selection of presets, it offer various sliders for fine tuning, and you can further fine tune the final image with more sliders. I only see 28 presets in NIK HDR Efex Pro and I think the adjustment panel is not as good as Photomatix. A matter of personal choice of course.
Feb 14, 2014 12:04:41 #
Mr.HDR wrote:
Greetings all, I have added to my site examples of HDR images with and without tone mapping. I try and keep the images close to the real thing unless one wants a special effect for some specific purpose.
If you want to see the images please go to: http://www.shootinghdr.com
If you want to see the images please go to: http://www.shootinghdr.com
Outstanding site, seems that the tone mapped images brings out the details a bit more than the straight HDR or perhaps you simply lightened up on the shadows. Either way great examples of the difference.
Feb 14, 2014 12:21:19 #
jpintn wrote:
Interesting! Maybe it's a matter of versions. I'll look into it. Thank you.Photomatix has a better selection of presets, it offer various sliders for fine tuning, and you can further fine tune the final image with more sliders. I only see 28 presets in NIK HDR Efex Pro and I think the adjustment panel is not as good as Photomatix. A matter of personal choice of course.
Feb 14, 2014 12:27:23 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
Interesting! Maybe it's a matter of versions. I'll look into it. Thank you.
I have Photomatix Pro 4.2.7
Feb 14, 2014 12:38:18 #
jpintn wrote:
I have Photomatix Pro 4.2.7
depending on when you bought Photomatix you may be eligible for a free upgrade to version 5
Feb 14, 2014 12:48:17 #
Mike Hardisty wrote:
depending on when you bought Photomatix you may be eligible for a free upgrade to version 5
I got a free upgrade from 3 to 4 so they won't let me upgrade for free.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.