HDR

[den]

I have picked up a copy of Photomax Pro 3, HDR software that can blend numerous RAW photos of different exposures into a single image. Photomax is about $100, as opposed to nearly $700 for Photoshop.

I think HDR might be a Good Thing.



Something simple: A cloud just after sunset. I set the camera to take 3 bracketed photos at f50 (auto speed) The longest exposure was 1/50



So using Photomax to bash 3 exposures together...



Raw output, no post processing apart from reducing the image to 8 bits per channel so I could save it as a jpg.

Comments

[weibchenwolf.livejournal.com]

Cool. I've been wondering what to use for HDR. Where did you get Photomax? The few google responses I have so far point me to cracks for it!

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

Go to http://www.hdrsoft.com/ I could have used a crack, but I want money to go to guys like this so they will keep developing it.

[weibchenwolf.livejournal.com]

*grins*That's why I wanted to find the real one. I refuse to use cracks.

Thank you!

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

I'm sort of unconvinced about HDR, except in very specialised situations e.g. church stained-glass windows. (I'm fully convinced about not blowing highlights and wish cameras had greater dynamic range, mind - but that's mostly for a convenience so I wouldn't have to keep re-shooting things. The situations where you really run out of range, and really need the highlights, are moderately rare IMO.)

Using HDR to an extreme you can make extremely cool-looking photos but the problem is they look kind of like all the other cool-looking HDR photos that people have made. :) So, when used in that way, it looks sort of like a gimmick to me.

Still good luck with it :) I look forward to seeing what you do with it.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

The best HDR photos I've seen are by DMM in his flickr gallery http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmmaus/page4/ A lot of HDR photos don't look real, and I don't like that.

[annvole.livejournal.com]

That cloud looks like a bunny