Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: hdr, photomatix and photoshop

Expand Messages
  • maston67
    Hi Carel OK, Carel Ill have a look at those. Thanks Masten ... does it ... which I ... scene go ... This ... with a ... to ... their other ... Enfuse. ...
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Carel

      OK, Carel Ill have a look at those. Thanks

      Masten

      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > maston67 wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi
      > >
      > > Ive just started using hdr and am pretty amazed by the results.
      > >
      > > Some questions.
      > >
      > > - Been using photomatix trial and am thinking of buying. How
      does it
      > > compare with the utility in the lastest versions of photoshop
      which I
      > > havent got.
      > >
      > > - The windows in the images look fantastic but lights in the
      scene go
      > > very orangey which looks kind of OK, but Id prefer them white.
      This
      > > becomes worse when enhancing the image (to fix the flat renders)
      with a
      > > bit of levels and colour saturation. Is there a way to fix this?
      > >
      > > Many thanks
      > >
      > > Masten
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Hi Masten,
      >
      > Photomatix has (had..? I have not used it for a while) a tendency
      to
      > increase the saturation on the tonemapped result. Not so with
      their other
      > (non-tonemapping) algorithm.
      > You should also look at FDRTools and the open source project
      Enfuse.
      >
      > Carel Struycken
      >
      > --
      > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/hdr%2C-
      photomatix-and-photoshop-tp17589771p17589980.html
      > Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
      >
    • maston67
      Hi Erik Ok. Forget about Photoshop then. ... Wow, didn t realise there were so many products. What do you think produces the best results. Output for me is for
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Erik

        Ok. Forget about Photoshop then.

        >The "true" HDR tonemappers like in photomatix, FDRTools, picturenaut
        >and so on are ways better than photoshop tonemapping tool. For a
        >comparison an overview see
        >http://wiki.panotools.org/HDR_Software_overview
        >Additionally there is exposure fusion to mention, like implemented
        >in enfuse, tufuse and PTGui pro, which in many panographers' opinion
        >gives even better results than the HDR tonemappers:
        >http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse

        Wow, didn't realise there were so many products. What do you think
        produces the best results. Output for me is for web so I dont care
        about creating any hdr file, I just need the tonemapped results. Is
        it true, would you say then that exposure fusion is better as used
        by PTGUI pro. Manybe that would be the best option for me then as
        workflow with ptgui (3.7) and photomatix is terrible. Ill download
        the trial and see for myself.

        As regards the colour temperature thing it's not a white balance
        issue as the images I'm using all have correct white balances for
        outsides and insides on the original raw files. They only go orange
        after tonemapping. Ill try the desaturation thing. That's obvious
        isnt it.

        Thanks for the advice

        Masten



        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > On Sunday, June 01, 2008 at 20:27, maston67 wrote:
        >
        > > Ive just started using hdr and am pretty amazed by the results.
        > >
        > > Some questions.
        > >
        > > - Been using photomatix trial and am thinking of buying. How
        does it
        > > compare with the utility in the lastest versions of photoshop
        which I
        > > havent got.
        >
        > The "true" HDR tonemappers like in photomatix, FDRTools,
        picturenaut
        > and so on are ways better than photoshop tonemapping tool. For a
        > comparison an overview see
        > http://wiki.panotools.org/HDR_Software_overview
        >
        > Additionally there is exposure fusion to mention, like implemented
        in
        > enfuse, tufuse and PTGui pro, which in many panographers' opinion
        > gives even better results than the HDR tonemappers:
        > http://wiki.panotools.org/Enfuse
        >
        > > - The windows in the images look fantastic but lights in the
        scene go
        > > very orangey which looks kind of OK, but Id prefer them white.
        This
        > > becomes worse when enhancing the image (to fix the flat renders)
        with a
        > > bit of levels and colour saturation. Is there a way to fix this?
        >
        > This problem results from the different color temperature of the
        > respective light sources. You can either go for blue outside and
        > white tungsten lights or yellow tungsten interior and white
        outside.
        > As a compromise you could use a white balance that is somwhere
        > intermediate to get only slightly bluish outside and less intense
        > yellow inside. Or you do a selective desaturation of either blue-
        cyan
        > (if WB is for inside) or yellow-orange (if WB was for outside) in
        > photoshop. Perhaps you need to mask respective colored details
        which
        > should not be desaturated.
        >
        > With enfuse you can even try to use different WB for the different
        > exposure steps, but this often gives strange results, f.e. if a
        > reflection of window or interior that is lie from outside light is
        > blue but the window itself is white...
        >
        > best regtards
        > Erik Krause
        > http://www.erik-krause.de
        >
      • Erik Krause
        ... enfuse and tufuse used on the single image stacks. There is a GUI version of tufuse, called tufuse Pro: http://www.tawbaware.com/tufusepro.htm PTGui uses
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Monday, June 02, 2008 at 20:31, maston67 wrote:

          > What do you think produces the best results.

          enfuse and tufuse used on the single image stacks. There is a GUI
          version of tufuse, called tufuse Pro:
          http://www.tawbaware.com/tufusepro.htm
          PTGui uses exposure fusion on the result panoramas, which is time
          consuming and can give artifacts in Zenith and Nadir.

          > As regards the colour temperature thing it's not a white balance
          > issue as the images I'm using all have correct white balances for
          > outsides and insides on the original raw files. They only go orange
          > after tonemapping.

          Yes, as Carel wrote photomatix (and FDRTools to a lower extent) have
          the tendency to increase saturation (sometimes in a strange way).
          Exposure fusion won't do that, it is a very sophisticated way of
          exposure blending which uses the best exposed parts of each image.
          Hence there should be no change in saturation. But actually it is a
          white balance issue, intensified by tonemapping.

          best regards
          Erik Krause
          http://www.erik-krause.de
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.