Photomatix

[Chris71]

I love the shaddows on the hillsides, but the movement of the clouds between shots is an obvious issue. I wonder if there's anything you can do to mitigate that - could you get adequate quality shots with a faster shutter speed and automate the camera to take them back to back?

[leightonjames]

I really like that, as said before though the clouds are a distraction. i really like the bottom half of the image however!


what am i doing wrong with HDR. I have the full version but i end up with a high contrast mess :S Was a total waste of money 'cos i have never got anything i like. I have tried an exposure bracketing of 6 seperate shots and 3 seperate shots. So -2 + 0 + 2 and -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 but just rubbish. any tips?

cheers

Edited by leightonjames on Friday 11th April 11:38

[bulb763]

Nice subtle use of Photomatix there

leightonjames said:

i end up with a high contrast mess :S

Strange, I usually find the results of Photomatix to be very flat. Are you tonemapping after generating the HDR image?

Edited by bulb763 on Friday 11th April 12:17

[jonny_bravo]

I had a go with HDR recently. Didnt have my tripod with me at the time so it could have been sharper.
Maybe not the subtle effect I was after, but I quite like it

[Viper_Larry]

With regard to the clouds - choose the 'Align Images' option, this might help.

I have the full version, but haven't done much with it recently...

[Jenx]

I hate to be a miserable old fart, but why are you posting images at 1600 px wide?

Martin.

[CAB]

CivicMan said:

Popped out yesterday and did some shots intended for HDR, using Photomatix. Great fun and got what I thought were some nice results, viz:




Now, using the trial version, it comes with watermarks attached to your images, (which I've Photoshopped). Has anyone actually bought the full version online which appears to be $99, or are there better alternatives?

Edited by CivicMan on Friday 11th April 10:31

very nice - south downs i presume ????

[Chris71]

Viper_Larry said:

With regard to the clouds - choose the 'Align Images' option, this might help.

I have the full version, but haven't done much with it recently...

Would that help? I presume the hills being stationary and the clouds not only having moved, but possibly brought new shapes of cloud into the shot would be an issue?

(Genuinely don't know how clever photomatix is...)

[Viper_Larry]

Chris71 said:

Viper_Larry said:

With regard to the clouds - choose the 'Align Images' option, this might help.

I have the full version, but haven't done much with it recently...

Would that help? I presume the hills being stationary and the clouds not only having moved, but possibly brought new shapes of cloud into the shot would be an issue?

(Genuinely don't know how clever photomatix is...)

Certainly does, in this picture of my Alfa, the Rover(?) in the background is moving so on the 3 pictures taken with +2/0/-2 exposure, the Rover is in a different place whilst the rest of the image is stationary. The latest version does a good job (not quite perfect) of aligning the parts of the image that moved

[Bob_Defly]

My recent attempts with a D40 and photomatix:











You can make the effect as wild as you want... for true hdr a tripod is a must.

[crmcatee]

CivicMan said:

Jenx said:

I hate to be a miserable old fart, but why are you posting images at 1600 px wide?

Martin.

Nothing wrong with that, been one myself for years!!!

Answer is laziness I'm afraid.... will do better in future!!

I think the correct answer to that question would be to apologise and change the images that you've linked to so they are the correct size, especially when the ones that people have correctly sized are finished loading whilst yours are taking forever.

Edited by crmcatee on Saturday 12th April 21:16

[Simpo Two]

Jenx said:

I hate to be a miserable old fart, but why are you posting images at 1600 px wide?

Agreed. Like I said a few days ago, the stickies have been there so long nobody reads them. Still, by the time I've typed this maybe the photos will have downloaded.

Unfortunately I don't have any photos of Knockhill to add to the current Knockhill Photothreadfest.

ETA: No wonder - 1.2-1.8Gb. 100-200Kb is all you need for 750px.



Sorry. Yes, I'm being a grumpy old fart too! Bah!

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 12th April 22:05

[RobDickinson]

My 1st decent photomatix play, now have the full version... need to use it moye..

[crmcatee]

Is this really the thread about ignoring image sizes on the forum... Muppets.

[Simpo Two]

crmcatee said:

Is this really the thread about ignoring image sizes on the forum... Muppets.

I think not. If you want people to see your photos quickly and easily, you'll make it easy for them. Why fall at the final hurdle?

Also note that if you exceed 750px wide, the PH mangling machine will go into action and crunch them so your lovely diagonal lines go all jaggy. Now of course if you want your best images to been seen all jaggy, if you don't actually care that much, then sure, don't bother to resize, shove it up anyway.

This thread is about post-production. Photoshop doesn't get much more basic than 'resize', 'save as' etc.

If I'm a muppet for attending to detail and getting things as good as I can get them, then I'm happy to be a muppet. It works for me and you can read the testimonials.

[crmcatee]

Yes - but the arge image still has to be downloaded before the PH crunching machine can start it's work.

I would suggest as many have done on here previously - make the small image clickable to take you to the large image.

Just my tuppence worth..

[Simpo Two]

crmcatee said:

Yes - but the arge image still has to be downloaded before the PH crunching machine can start it's work.

Aye - the worst of both worlds

[stigmundfreud]

some of mine,hardly touch it now, compiled in Photomatix then processed in PS







This is a different way of doing HDR, rather than using photomatix this is several exposures blended as layers in PS

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 13th April 00:08

[CivicMan]

crmcatee said:

CivicMan said:

Jenx said:

I hate to be a miserable old fart, but why are you posting images at 1600 px wide?

Martin.

Nothing wrong with that, been one myself for years!!!

Answer is laziness I'm afraid.... will do better in future!!

I think the correct answer to that question would be to apologise and change the images that you've linked to so they are the correct size, especially when the ones that people have correctly sized are finished loading whilst yours are taking forever.

Edited by crmcatee on Saturday 12th April 21:16

Sincerest apologies. Pulled the whole lot off so as not to inconvenience anyone.

[john185k]

Some of mine