Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 8, 2010, 9:32 PM   #1
Senior Member
vvcarpio's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524
Default Another go at DPHDR -- St. Raphael's Church

#1. Dynamic Photo HDR version.

#2. Photomatix version.

Thoughts? Comments?

The 3 bracketed shots (+/-0.7ev) are handheld. There's massive pitch, roll, and yaw throughout the combined images. With DPHDR manual pin-warping (albeit painstaking) took care of that. Photomatix did its best but I guess couldn't do any more when it came to the left side of the photo.
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 8, 2010, 11:45 PM   #2
Senior Member
simple's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193

i agree photomatix does look great on this one but like you say the left hand side is a bit bizzarre but the colours and detial are fantastic
Nikon D600 / Nikon 50 1.8 G / Nikon 85 1.8 G Always wanting more! MY FLICKR
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2010, 11:59 PM   #3
Senior Member
shoturtle's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348


Normally I really like your HDR work, but the second one to me I find it to be detail overload. It actually bugs out my eye when looking at it. It looks less like a photo, and more like a cgi of a high end graphic. It looses the realness to it.

The first one is more eye friendly and easier to view. And coveys details with a much better sense of reality. And it still looks like a photo. I like the first one.

Hope you don't mind.
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 4:17 AM   #4
Senior Member
Bynx's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Toronto
Posts: 8,800

Its for those reasons that shoturtle gives that I like #2. Too bad the pieces dont fit. Ive never had much problem like that when doing hand held. I find Photomatix does a pretty good job lining up the photos.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 10:23 AM   #5
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

i actually kind of like the darker exposure of the first one, which to me sets off the red and gold doors. the dphdr still retains plenty of fine detail in this darker exposure, just doesn't lighten it up as much as the photomatix.

i think you could probably tweak either software to produce something midway between the 2 that could give that good contrast to the door while bringing out a few more details.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2010, 11:17 AM   #6
Senior Member
vvcarpio's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524

It looks like we have a good split. I actually like both (hey, I made them ). But in different ways. To me, it's like picking between a banana and some grapes. I like both.

But to provide additional info, the Photomatix version is pretty much a one-step process -- I just feed the 3 exposures into PM, choose "grunge" tone map, and then sharpen the output with PSE.

The DPHDR version on the other hand consists of several steps. I feed the 3 exposures into DPHDR, select the "halo matix" tone map, adjust sliders to lessen saturation and contrast, then use PSE7 to increase saturation and contrast and sharpen.

Why do I go through all these? Because the point of my exercise is to see how close I can get to PM's grunge tone map which I believe wows everyone on the planet.

In the process, I end up liking DPHDR even more. Primarily because I take a lot of handheld shots and because PM has a distinctive style that makes it easier to identify which makes the viewer I think wonder if the author did anything else other than run it. (That's actually a compliment to PM.)

So, while PM creates a "finished" product, I think DPHDR's "halo-matix", "auto-adaptive", and "smooth compressor" tone maps (maybe its other tone maps, too) are ripe (and probably meant) for further processing.

Of course, with DPHDR, you can also use "eye-catching" or "ultra-contrast" and be done with it. And vice versa, you can if you want further enhance your PM output.

Thanks a lot for all your comments! The fact that some of you also liked the DPHDR version and made suggestion means a lot to me because it means I'm getting somewhere with it and so will continue to experiment with it. (Bynx, I think I picked a really badly misaligned example.)

Also, I post my edits on my website for friends and family to see. I sometimes go against what's discussed here but most of the time I simply obey. Either way, you all give me a nice solid backbone on which I can rest my ever-burgeoning (I hope) photography weight.

vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 9:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
Ancientritual's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Columbia, IL
Posts: 347

I use both HDR programs. Sometimes I like both versions, so I blend them both together.
Ancientritual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2010, 11:44 AM   #8
Senior Member
vvcarpio's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,524

Thanks for the input, Ancientritual. I'm just wondering what you meant by "blend".

On a side note, a friend of mine asked if this church -- St. Raphael's Church -- is the one used in the Daredevil movie. The movie is set in Hell's Kitchen where St. Raphael's Church is located. I said I don't know. Anyone?
vvcarpio is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:23 AM.