Another LR6 HDR comparison.
May 2, 2015 10:38:11 #
Here's another set of normal/HDR shots done in Lightroom 6's HDR section.
The merging is very simple and I suspect the output is deliberately neutral because the assumption is that more PP work will be carried out on it. No additional editing has been carried out on these examples.
-
The merging is very simple and I suspect the output is deliberately neutral because the assumption is that more PP work will be carried out on it. No additional editing has been carried out on these examples.
-
Single shot neutral exposure.
(Download)
HDR merge with Auto Tone Mappng
(Download)
HDR merge with NO Auto Tone Mapping.
(Download)
May 2, 2015 11:30:42 #
I like Lr HDR.
I love the colors in the tone mapped HDR, I would like to see more density in the cloud cover though.
Very evocative image.
GT
I love the colors in the tone mapped HDR, I would like to see more density in the cloud cover though.
Very evocative image.
GT
R.G. wrote:
Here's another set of normal/HDR shots done in Lightroom 6's HDR section.
The merging is very simple and I suspect the output is deliberately neutral because the assumption is that more PP work will be carried out on it. No additional editing has been carried out on these examples.
-
The merging is very simple and I suspect the output is deliberately neutral because the assumption is that more PP work will be carried out on it. No additional editing has been carried out on these examples.
-
May 2, 2015 12:07:52 #
I've tested it versus the latest Photomatix Pro. Not bad for a first attempt, but I won't be leaving Photomatix anytime soon.
May 2, 2015 12:59:09 #
GTinSoCal wrote:
......I love the colors in the tone mapped HDR, I would like to see more density in the cloud cover though.......
I'm inclined to agree with your criticism, GT. I had several groups of bracketed shots to choose from and I chose the most photogenic, when I should have chosen the group that had the widest dynamic range. Unfortunately, that didn't occur to me until after I'd posted :? .
I believe it was a deliberate choice on Adobe's part to give a result which is neutral and therefore optimised for further PP work, rather than produce a shot that was intended to be a finished product. Thanks for the compliment and thanks for commenting.
May 2, 2015 13:05:27 #
Mr PC wrote:
I've tested it versus the latest Photomatix Pro. Not bad for a first attempt, but I won't be leaving Photomatix anytime soon.
Photomatrix seems to be the most respected of the alternative HDR suites. I don't have it, but from what I've seen and heard, it looks like it handles things like ghosting very well. When I was experimenting with LR6's HDR I tried different levels of ghosting correction on one of the merges and I was expecting it to pick up on the differences caused by the waves in the mid-foreground. However, when I checked out the option which reveals the processed area (or areas), it was the sky (and just the sky) that had received the attention, which I thought was a bit odd. Perhaps there are still a few wrinkles to iron out.
May 2, 2015 13:29:06 #
R.G. wrote:
.......I believe it was a deliberate choice on Adobe's part to give a result which is neutral and therefore optimised for further PP work......
As a further comment, the end products in my trial run were DNG files, which are the equivalent of RAW files. So the comment about needing further processing seems appropriate in the light of that fact.
Maybe it's inappropriate to compare LR6's HDR with an HDR editor that's designed to produce a finished product. If you wanted to compare cameras, you wouldn't compare a JPG from one and a RAW from the other.
May 2, 2015 15:16:54 #
I like the idea of be able to use a DNG for the final mapping.
If for no other reason than I am much more familiar with the controls :-)
I am not big on DOING HDR, but I love to look at it :-D
GT
If for no other reason than I am much more familiar with the controls :-)
I am not big on DOING HDR, but I love to look at it :-D
GT
R.G. wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with your criticism, GT. I ... (show quote)
May 2, 2015 15:47:10 #
GTinSoCal wrote:
I like the idea of be able to use a DNG for the final mapping.
If for no other reason than I am much more familiar with the controls :-)
If for no other reason than I am much more familiar with the controls :-)
I think that was another aspect of Adobe's intent - that the end result of the HDR merge process should fit in with most people's workflow. That and optimising the dynamic range of the final product.
May 3, 2015 15:34:02 #
Ive tried using phot shop and HDR, as far as im concerned nothing beats Photomatix
May 6, 2015 06:29:17 #
Merge to HDR Pro was included in Photoshop CS6 and maybe earlier versions as well? If I'm merging images but do not wish to tone map Adobe is fine but if the original images have movement in them the ghosting algorithm leaves much to be desired. For HDR Photomatix has it well and truly beaten. Not in the same league at all.
Including HDR Pro in LR is just another bit of a jack of all trades editor and master of none.
Including HDR Pro in LR is just another bit of a jack of all trades editor and master of none.
May 6, 2015 12:47:16 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.