Try to reach the same look in any of this tools but this was not possible because of the differnt names and settings of them. Very interesting for me was to see how the deghosting funktions worked or not. Only the first 4 tools did it well ... please have a look at the ear and the back of the dog.
(handheld shot and the dogs heat and back has movement)
DO NOT VOTE ! ...it is only a test that i want to show you. Maybe we can share experiences about tonemapping-tools .
20 Jun 12:34
flipd1
WOW, I think think this is a great test. Nice comparison of them all. I used to use Luminance and can tell you the de-ghosting on that was simply BAD. I have had huge success with Photmatix
20 Jun 12:36
philk80
Agree , i use Photomatix 3.2 and i am happy with that ... the photoshop deghosting workes well to but i'm not happy with the tonemapping in it.
20 Jun 13:04
curtis
Cool... Photomatix 3.2 ^^
20 Jun 13:15
adrianay
Very interesting! thank you for posting the test! very cool! Is there a difference between Photomatix 4.1 and 4.2? I use 4.2
20 Jun 13:27
philk80
I don't test the 4.2.
20 Jun 15:11
digicam
Excellent Work Phil. I think the Photomatix 3.2 image is the Best of the Group....Great Post!
20 Jun 15:24
philk80
Thats my favorit too. I don't know if i can reproduce the same look with any other tool, if i get more practice with one of them.
20 Jun 17:00
dirk
I like the colors of PM 3.2 and the texture from PM 4.1.
20 Jun 17:04
rcuello
Any of the Photomatix is good for me, I think I like more the 4.1 by the texture as it says Dirk.
20 Jun 18:19
philk80
If you want to try HDR Efex Pro, it's from NIK Software , plug in for photoshop ... and the test version dit not generate a watermark.
20 Jun 18:26
banneduser__
Would be nice to see the original unprocessed image to give a baseline to compare from. Thanks for the effort of posting this.
20 Jun 18:27
bessi7
Great post Philk...Photomatrix 4.1 and HDR Efex Pro 2 is good for me.
20 Jun 18:33
philk80
Tomorrow, i post a link on this image here with my 3 original images ...so if you want have a look again
20 Jun 18:42
pandarino
i use pmatix 3.2 and pmatix 4.2, i prefer them
20 Jun 19:47
rrr
Interesting. Quite often I turn the image B/W and then re saturate, before using filters.
20 Jun 20:35
inkslinger
Thanks for all your hard work Phil. I am in dilemma at present what to use. Tried Photomatix again today & like it....
20 Jun 20:44
pixel_komando
You should read some tutorials about Luminance HDR :-)))
20 Jun 20:45
philk80
You'r welcome, my statemant is , don't use the last 4 and Picturenaut :)
20 Jun 20:48
philk80
I will read a tut ore see one on youtube tomorrow but a don't think it will fix the ghosting problems. I try ! And let u know.
Try to reach the same look in any of this tools but this was not possible because of the differnt names and settings of them. Very interesting for me was to see how the deghosting funktions worked or not. Only the first 4 tools did it well ... please have a look at the ear and the back of the dog. (handheld shot and the dogs heat and back has movement) DO NOT VOTE ! ...it is only a test that i want to show you. Maybe we can share experiences about tonemapping-tools .
WOW, I think think this is a great test. Nice comparison of them all. I used to use Luminance and can tell you the de-ghosting on that was simply BAD. I have had huge success with Photmatix
Agree , i use Photomatix 3.2 and i am happy with that ... the photoshop deghosting workes well to but i'm not happy with the tonemapping in it.
Cool... Photomatix 3.2 ^^
Very interesting! thank you for posting the test! very cool! Is there a difference between Photomatix 4.1 and 4.2? I use 4.2
I don't test the 4.2.
Excellent Work Phil. I think the Photomatix 3.2 image is the Best of the Group....Great Post!
Thats my favorit too. I don't know if i can reproduce the same look with any other tool, if i get more practice with one of them.
I like the colors of PM 3.2 and the texture from PM 4.1.
Any of the Photomatix is good for me, I think I like more the 4.1 by the texture as it says Dirk.
If you want to try HDR Efex Pro, it's from NIK Software , plug in for photoshop ... and the test version dit not generate a watermark.
Would be nice to see the original unprocessed image to give a baseline to compare from. Thanks for the effort of posting this.
Great post Philk...Photomatrix 4.1 and HDR Efex Pro 2 is good for me.
Tomorrow, i post a link on this image here with my 3 original images ...so if you want have a look again
i use pmatix 3.2 and pmatix 4.2, i prefer them
Interesting. Quite often I turn the image B/W and then re saturate, before using filters.
Thanks for all your hard work Phil. I am in dilemma at present what to use. Tried Photomatix again today & like it....
You should read some tutorials about Luminance HDR :-)))
You'r welcome, my statemant is , don't use the last 4 and Picturenaut :)
I will read a tut ore see one on youtube tomorrow but a don't think it will fix the ghosting problems. I try ! And let u know.
Photomaatix 3.2 is to my liking Phil