Brian,

I like the HDR images ... in particular ... I like the way Photoshop interpreted your intent; it retained more shadows and highlights. The photomatrix settings seemed to over-equalize the brightness. However, photomatrix may have brought out the colors in the shadows better. (I think Photomatrix has other settings to come closer to the Photoshop result, too.)

- - - -

It would be interesting (to me) to see the original images. Did you processes the attic(?) image set in Picturenaut, too? It would be interesting to see how Picturenaut would processed the set. I would recommend that before you spend a bunch of money on Photomatrix, see if you can mimic it's results with either Photoshop or Picturenaut.

In regard to HDR, like you, I think "less is more", too. I like to bring out just a bit more detail in the shadows and bit more detail in the highlights without losing the apparent dynamic spread.

- - - -

Another experiment to try, is to use only one of the original images, adjust the EV in IDC and save new ARW files. Be sure to use the best original image that retains sufficient highlight detail - maybe the middle exposure. For example, if you use the original +0EV image, save a +2EV version and a -2EV version.

Then with these three ARW files, run that new set through the rest of the HDR process and compare the results. I wonder how close they would turn out. From my experience, they can come close; not exact, but close.

Hi Brian,

Interesting results. I don't normally like the way the the HDR feature of Photoshop works compared with Photomatix, although here I find the results more pleasing. I think the version processed in Photomatix looks the most obviously HDR- because of the way it has equalised the mid tones. I think the results from Photomatix could be made to look closer to those from Photoshop, so I guess it's just a case of playing with the settings.

Picturenaut seems like an interesting piece of software and from the sample show, appears to do a good job with regards to processing HDRs.

Finally, I would recommend trying what B Shaw has suggested and processing 1 image 3 times. I have found this can work wonders on a windy day when elements of the image are moving as it helps reveal more detail and stretches the tonal range. It's amazing the results you can get using it....

Thanks for sharing these images.

I am more knowledgeable of pshop than photomatrix. Really I have zero experience with photomatrix. Somebody who is better with it could get more out of it than I could. I did not process the old mirror picture in picturenaut, but I could try that later.

For my purposes, I see no reason to shell out $100 for photomatrix. Picturenaut and pshop will do an equally good job. If I were going to use picturenaut on a regular basis I would just shoot in xfine JPG to save myself the hassle of batch converting RAW files.

I don't like the sort of flat and unnatural appearance of most HDR photos. I believe some of these people are trying to create something very dramatic in appearance, but it often lacks visual punch because it's just too flat in appearance. Most people get overzealous with all the possible adjustments perhaps?

Brian, I totally agree the results you've got from picturenauut and photoshop are great. There is no need to shell out on photomatix as these do seem to be able to do a good job.

Interesting point on shooting JPG hadn't considered doing that and yes it would cut the workflow down a bit. Lastly I agree that most people do become a bit overzealous with the adjustments. There is an awful lot of overdone HDR work out there.

Here is how picturenaut handled the mirror photo. Contrast was bumped slightly in pshop.