Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > HDR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2010, 7:55 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default Very wise words from a wise man!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
...This rabbits hole that has been created is going nowhere, never could, never will.


This is not science, where you can measure and weigh something and say, this example is closer to the tolerances than this.

This is perception of the human eye (of which there are probably as many ideas of the ideal picture as there are human beings around) and as such they are influenced by feelings and moods - how can one say this is better than this?

Impossible!

(But it was fun to follow this thread...)
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 7:58 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I never ran this shot through Photomatrix, but to my surprise I did a better job than Bynx...
Dave
Im glad to see this happen. Now I know how far off my everyday settings are for my Photomatix. Next job is to work on getting the colors right. Thanks.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:12 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggo85 View Post
Dave, your final version looks amazing - which software did you use for developing the RAW? And what did you do with the JPEG? Would be interesting to know
This was done in Photoshop. I ran Noise Ninja to get rid of chroma noise, then unsharp mask, then noise ninja again (although it didn't really need much) for luminense noise. Very simple processing, except that most people don't use my trick of getting rid of Just Chroma noise before sharpening, and luminence noise after.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:16 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_S View Post
This is not science, where you can measure and weigh something and say, this example is closer to the tolerances than this.

This is perception of the human eye (of which there are probably as many ideas of the ideal picture as there are human beings around) and as such they are influenced by feelings and moods - how can one say this is better than this?

Impossible!

(But it was fun to follow this thread...)
Err, you mean things are a "matter of taste."

Who can argue?

On the other hand, I made this little demonstration for a specific purpose - i.e. to demonstrate that HDR programs don't necessarily, either improve an image, or provide more detail. While the first part fits your parameters, the second is not a matter of taste at all.

Finally, this is a "Wildlife shot," and colors aside (After all, I'm the only one who was there to observe the color), detail is important to the shot.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:17 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
maggo85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arzl im Pitztal/Austria/Europe
Posts: 1,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
This was done in Photoshop. I ran Noise Ninja to get rid of chroma noise, then unsharp mask, then noise ninja again (although it didn't really need much) for luminense noise. Very simple processing, except that most people don't use my trick of getting rid of Just Chroma noise before sharpening, and luminence noise after.

Dave
Thank you Dave... I think I have to take a look at Noise Ninja
__________________
Markus Rimml Photography | Facebook | Twitter

2 x EOS 6D | 24/1.4 ART | 35/1.4 ART | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 135/2L
maggo85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:17 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
- Here is my Photomatrix version, and then my normal processing version.


- Still not as good as the normal processing...


How can you say that, Dave? - You want it to be, yes.

But you simply cannot compare the two edits.

It's like roasting a chicken in a woodfire stove and compare the taste of it to another chicken, grilled in an electric microwave-oven. It's just not possible to get a just comparison that way.


Photomatix is not a "box" where you put a file in and out comes the finnished product. The user has the biggest influence of what the end-product will look like, and not the software. Photomatix has a lot of sliders to slide (In which direction did you slide each of the sliders...?) and boxes to tick-off. Which did you tick-off...?

And if you still think your edit is superior to (your) Photomatix-edit, then all you have prooved to us, is that you are not a good Photomatix-user.

You are all obsessed by belive in that the opponent is wrong. Give it a rest - this is going nowhere and proofes nothing at all...

Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:23 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_S View Post
How can you say that, Dave? - You want it to be, yes.

But you simply cannot compare the two edits.

It's like roasting a chicken in a woodfire stove and compare the taste of it to another chicken, grilled in an electric microwave-oven. It's just not possible to get a just comparison that way.


Photomatix is not a "box" where you put a file in and out comes the finnished product. The user has the biggest influence of what the end-product will look like, and not the software. Photomatix has a lot of sliders to slide (In which direction did you slide each of the sliders...?) and boxes to tick-off. Which did you tick-off...?

And if you still think your edit is superior to (your) Photomatix-edit, then all you have prooved to us, is that you are not a good Photomatix-user.

You are all obsessed by belive in that the opponent is wrong. Give it a rest - this is going nowhere and proofes nothing at all...

Two things have been claimed for Photomatrix...

1. It provides more detail. Well, I proved that false (At least so far).

2. It will always improve or at least not make the shot worse. I believe I proved that false as well, although your point of things being a "matter of taste," (Your point but my quote) is a valid one. On the other hand this IS a wildlife shot, not a piece of art.

Dave

Edited in:

Quote:
And if you still think your edit is superior to (your) Photomatix-edit, then all you have prooved to us, is that you are not a good Photomatix-user.

You are all obsessed by belive in that the opponent is wrong. Give it a rest - this is going nowhere and proofes nothing at all...
Walter, are you are trying to give us the very definition of circular reasoning? If you feel that you can do a better job, please, feel free to download the original RAW file.

Last edited by Chato; Mar 11, 2010 at 8:37 AM.
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:41 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maggo85 View Post
Thank you Dave... I think I have to take a look at Noise Ninja
...or Neat Image, or Noiseware Professional. Any of them will do the same job.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 8:55 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
If you feel that you can do a better job, please, feel free to download the original RAW file.
I have never said I could or would. It's in vain - it cannot be done! Prooving what you are out to proove is a lost case. It's a fool's errand.

How can you compare a Photomatix-rendering (where you, yourself have been pulling all the sliders an stops) to another edit (also by yourself), and then say one is better that the other! You did both!! You only prooved that you cannot use Photomatix - nothing else.

As I said before, the Photomatix-user (in this case, yourself!) has the main-influence of how the end-result will look. The end-HDR will become as good as the user knows how to handle the software. So, you - yourself have been in charge of the Photomatix end-result - and then you say (triumphantly...) that it's not good enough - compared to the other one.

Where is the sense...?
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2010, 9:27 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter_S View Post
How can you compare a Photomatix-rendering (where you, yourself have been pulling all the sliders an stops) to another edit (also by yourself), and then say one is better that the other! You did both!! You only prooved that you cannot use Photomatix - nothing else.
While no doubt Bynx can do a better job than I can, I'm comparing my version to the one he has so far posted, and not mine. Even so, even so, while he can do better, I strongly doubt that anyone is going to get more detail out of this image then the version I posted.

And no offense Walter, but I've learned untold hundreds of programs, and Photomatrix is not rocket science to use (This by the way is a compliment to the program - not a put down). It's a well implemented program - Not exactly difficult to learn if you've learned many other programs. True, I haven't spent THAT much time with it - Which is why I believe Bynx, or You for that matter can do better. So?

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:39 AM.