Comparing HDR Programs

I posted this also on the NAPP forums.  I got interested in the different results you get from different programs. I've done these comparisons before, trying to decide which program I like better but I've concluded that it depends on the image.

That said, up to now Photomatix has been my first choice but these results may change that.

The goal here was to produce the image that I liked best in all three programs. I did not look at the other images while working in any program, with the exception that I knew I really wanted colourful skies when I got to the third one (P'matix). And I was not trying to MATCH the images.

Workflow:
was to select all 5 source images (bracketed burst, 1 stop apart, RAW. I open them in the HDR program, then look through the thumbnail presets for the one closest to what I want, then I modify it with sliders until I had done the best I could. I then saved the files and exported them to CS5 for further tweaking.

Once open in CS5 I created a new layer and ran a hi-pass filter. I adjusted the image with curves, then I ran DFine 2.0, sky preset which I masked back in. Next I ran Viveza 2 to increase the saturation in the sky (except the CS5 one where I had to REDUCE the saturation overall).

Back to Lightroom where I tweaked a little and synced the cropping and metadata. I then exported each one as a 720 px-wide jpg for posting here.
Here are the images:

1. Processed in Photoshop CS5 HDR Pro

2. Processed with Nik HDR Efex Pro

3. Processed with Photomatix HDR Pro 4

Now remember, I was not trying to MATCH the images, just to do the best I could with a pleasant image.

Comments:
1. On first look, CS5 HDR Pro produced a very pleasing image with lots of detail and saturation, with the least amount of effort and fiddling. But the saturation came in way too high and there's very visible chromatic aberration.

2. Nik HDR Efex Pro gave me a really clean image but there was almost no colour in the clouds until i ran Viveza. Again there was some evidence of chromatic aberration but I thought the image was much smoother overall. This program gave me much more range doing details than the other two. I should take out a little colour bias from this image but didn't notice until I was posting this.

3. I maxed out almost all the controls in Photomatix and still couldn't get the kind of detail and sharpness I liked and again, there was no colour in the clouds. A small hue/saturation adjustment in Photoshop gave me all the colour I wanted but really bad artifacting so I backed it out. Microsmoothing helped a lot with the noise in the sky. There was NO evidence of chromatic aberration even when I viewed the image at 200%. I ended up with lots of Halo around the trees, though.

Conclusion:
Until I actually looked at all 3 images together, I didn't know which one I preferred. I'm not going to tell you, though, because that's subjective (well this whole thing is subjective!) and you may have a different preference. CS5 was the easiest one to use. Nik had the broadest range and lots of room left to play. Photomatix was maxed out but gave the cleanest result.

I know this is a silly comparison, using just one image and subjective rather than objective adjustments and inconsistent treatment. So please file it under "For What it's Worth".

— 30 —

Two Superb Lenses

This week I'm babysitting my friend's lens. We're heading up to Lake Superior for the Gales of November workshop, I'm driving up with a couple of other photographers and Ron is flying up, so I offered to take his extra stuff in the car. He cautiously gave me his "baby", his Nikon 600mm f/4 lens and told me I could 'play' with it if I wanted to.

What he didn't give me was the Wimberley mount and tripod... so I was a bit limited in what I could do. That lens is heavy! And of course, with the 600mm super telephoto focal length, handholding it is a challenge. I've held a lot of rifles that weigh about the same or more (the lens is 10 lbs by itself, without the body attached) but with rifles you have a shoulder stock to help steady it to counteract the muzzle-heaviness. I have read that some people (Moose Peterson comes to mind) regularly handhold this lens. I guess I have to start lifting weights again if I were going to.

So the old "1/focal length = slowest shutter speed" rule goes by the board. I cranked the ISO up enough so I was shooting at 1/1000 sec or faster, which met with some success. Most of the time, I rested the lens on top of a soft suitcase.

Anyway, this is a superb piece of optics. It's not meant for shooting landscapes, it's for birds and for long distance reach-out-and-touch shots of dangerous game. So I looked for a dangerous animal to shoot and sure enough, I found one.

This wild beast had to be 1/4 mile away. This image has been post-processed, I did everything I could to sharpen and enhance it. Then I cropped it slightly just for positioning, so you're not really looking at what I saw exactly through the lens.

This next image hasn't been touched, though. Well not really: I cloned out the head of a calf on the right edge and ran Nik Sharpener (pre-sharpen RAW) but that's all. It's not even cropped. This is exactly what it looked like through the lens. I didn't even level the horizon.

My title says "TWO superb lenses". The other one is my old standby, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR. It was like holding a helium balloon in my hands after the big guy! No weight at all! Anyway, I took a couple of comparison shots of the same scene. Here's one:

Shot at 200mm, 1/500 second at f/8, ISO 400. Nik Sharpener RAW pre-sharpening, clone out a couple of ugly houses in the background and straighten the horizon.

The same tree, shot with the 600mm, 1/1600 second at f/4 handheld, ISO 400. This one has not been sharpened: I ran presharpen on it but didn't see any discernable difference, so I'm showing the original here.

So the 600 shows outstanding sharpness and contrast. You know how we say, "you can't take a bad shot with the 70-200"? That's partly because of the quality and partly because of the beautiful isolation you get with the shallow depth of field and great bokeh. I want to say the same thing about the 600: look how the tree jumps out with the shallow DOF!

Here's a direct comparison:

What you have to understand is that the shot on the left is only 250 px wide after cropping. Incredible sharpness given the huge enlargement. The contrast on the 600mm shot is excellent. And look how it jumps out with the small DOF! As indicated, they're both shot at f/8.

So two wonderful lenses. It was fun comparing them.