Bill wrote: >On 21/01/2014 7:10 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Well, if I can't succeed in getting Photoshop's HDR feature fixed I'll >> buy a copy of Photomatix, which seems to work very well indeed. >> >> In general it's faster and more versatile than Photoshop. With one >> image I haven't been able to get the tonality I want the way I did >> with Photoshop (when it worked) but that may just be part of the >> learning curve I'll have to aspire towards - I've only been using >> Photomatix for an afternoon, after all. For 99% of what I've tried >> Photomatix is clearly better. And it's *much* faster. Looks like I'll >> be spending the $99.00. >> >A friend of mine who is much into HDR has IIRC, three different HDR >programs. He says that not all images work the same in all programs.
I suppose that shouldn't be surprising given the nature of the beast (cramming 32 bits of color data into 16 or 8 bits) there are a lot of ways to do the mapping. With the particular image which I liked better in the Photoshop version I suspect it was because Photomatix did a *better* job or reconciling the multiple (hand-held) images than Photoshop: I didn't *want* the images perfectly matched up, dammit! My intentions and goals may be a bit different from the typical HDR user's... -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
