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

Re: hdr, photomatix and photoshop

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.