A Different GDR Tool

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:23:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 03:08:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:49:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 00:29:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/4/2015 2:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
In the April edition of Photoshop User magazine, which was focused on an
editorial theme I am not particularly intrested in, wedding photography,
I found in the "Product Review" section, a review on Unified Color's
"HDR Express 3".
HDR Express 3 is a trimmed version of their top of the line "HDR Expose
3" and the review was enough to bait me into visiting their web site.

To cut to the chase, I have dowloaded the 30 day trial. It installs as a
stand-alone, and PS, & LR plug-ins. I have run a few tests of some old 5
exposure bracket sets, and I am impressed.
I deliberately picked sets which had major ghosting issues due to
movement of people in the background. This was an issue neither NIK HDR
Efex Pro 2, nor PS HDR Pro have not been able to solve completely. HDR
Express dealt with the ghost movement & image alignment easily.

Then for those not favoring the surreal look of much HDR rendering this
seems to aim at producing realistically rendered images, and does so
quite succesfully.

They have a fair number of video tutorials available and I think this is
going to be my future go-to HDR tool

Just as another image processing tool to play with, give the trial a test.
http://www.unifiedcolor.com/products/hdr-express-3

While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?

If you are actually doing this sort of thing and are looking for, dare
I say it, a degree of subtlety then it could be considered worth it.
Particularly for those folks who haven't bought the NIK collection, or
might be prepared to shell out $99 for Photomatix Pro 5, which is one
of the programs widely used for HDR, and tends to produce the sort of
HDR images you don't particularly like.
Even the 32-bit HDR rendering with HDR Pro + ACR which is part of PS is
iffy when it comes to dealing with artifacts and ghosts, and can &
does produce some of the haloed saturation none of us are too fond of.

I know you say you are reluctant to even look at an HDR image, but just
this once, break your rule and let me know what you think of this one.
I actually think HDR Express 3 has a lot of promis, and I will probably
spend that $79.
http://adobe.ly/18kdrTj
https://db.tt/SveGaRIl

They both look good. There must have been some ****ed off people,
though. It looks like there are at least a few cars with open windows
in the rain.

On 2015-03-07 06:22:29 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:23:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-07 03:08:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:49:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-03-07 00:29:12 +0000, PeterN said:
On 3/4/2015 2:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:

In the April edition of Photoshop User magazine, which was focused on an
editorial theme I am not particularly intrested in, wedding photography,
I found in the "Product Review" section, a review on Unified Color's
"HDR Express 3".
HDR Express 3 is a trimmed version of their top of the line "HDR Expose
3" and the review was enough to bait me into visiting their web site.

To cut to the chase, I have dowloaded the 30 day trial. It installs as a
stand-alone, and PS, & LR plug-ins. I have run a few tests of some old 5
exposure bracket sets, and I am impressed.
I deliberately picked sets which had major ghosting issues due to
movement of people in the background. This was an issue neither NIK HDR
Efex Pro 2, nor PS HDR Pro have not been able to solve completely. HDR
Express dealt with the ghost movement & image alignment easily.

Then for those not favoring the surreal look of much HDR rendering this
seems to aim at producing realistically rendered images, and does so
quite succesfully.

They have a fair number of video tutorials available and I think this is
going to be my future go-to HDR tool

Just as another image processing tool to play with, give the trial a test.
http://www.unifiedcolor.com/products/hdr-express-3

While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?

If you are actually doing this sort of thing and are looking for, dare
I say it, a degree of subtlety then it could be considered worth it.
Particularly for those folks who haven't bought the NIK collection, or
might be prepared to shell out $99 for Photomatix Pro 5, which is one
of the programs widely used for HDR, and tends to produce the sort of
HDR images you don't particularly like.
Even the 32-bit HDR rendering with HDR Pro + ACR which is part of PS is
iffy when it comes to dealing with artifacts and ghosts, and can &
does produce some of the haloed saturation none of us are too fond of.

I know you say you are reluctant to even look at an HDR image, but just
this once, break your rule and let me know what you think of this one.
I actually think HDR Express 3 has a lot of promis, and I will probably
spend that $79.
http://adobe.ly/18kdrTj
https://db.tt/SveGaRIl

Neither of the two shots have that glow-in-the-dark look that most HDR
seems to have. In fact, the only knock I have on these images is that
the image looks flat, and I expect HDRs to be anything but flat. The
front foreground fender has some life to it, but the front background
fender is flat. Either an odd paint job or something in the
processing.

OK! First, thank you for taking the time to look with a critical eye.

Without making excuses, this was the first exposure set I had processed
with HDR Express and you might say I still had my training wheels on,
and I had only just fired it up. Also along with deliberately trying
to not over cook it, I wanted to see how it handled the ghosting issue
with a background which was in full motion.

The flatness is surprising, too, since it seems the cars should be wet
from the rain. The black car is streaked with rain. Note how the
black car's door is so shiny that there's a grass green reflection in
it, but the blue car's door and rear wheel cover is dead flat.
Strange.

Even with some of my other shots, some HDR, some not, the pale blue of
the Bugatti seens to absorb reflection rather than show it the way the
car in the background does. I have some other single exposure shots
which emphasize that sort of detail, that day much better.
http://adobe.ly/1BhPDKd

The grass is kind of weird looking, but that's California grass so it
might be different than what I expect grass to look like. The color's
OK, but the texture is strange.

Who knows? That is a West coast, coastal golf club, so it might wel be
some grass exotic to both of us.

To properly compare the effect, I'd have to see your best version
using normal PS processing (levels or curves included) along with this
version.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/T35SC-Comp.jpg

From a composition standpoint, that's a tough shot. The white
sidewall of the black car is an eye magnet because it lines up with
the headlights. You've got some nice sharp edges to work with, so a
little layer mask magic and a blur filter would only take a minute or
two.

That was a full scene capture to get a record of the entire car &
setting. Composition was the last thing on my mind for that image. So a
rework, and some additional tweaking in PS might be needed.

Anyway I tried something from a different angle and used the *Field
Blur* from the *Blur gallery* to come up with this:
http://adobe.ly/1BXWWdy

I admit to bias here. I do shoot car shows, but I hate 'em. Love the
cars, but hate the setting. Always too much background clutter and
too many things to look at any way you compose the image. For this
reason, I end up shooting parts and not the whole car.

Yup! I totally agree. It is a pure crap shoot when it comes to how the
organizers position the cars, It is certainly not done with any thought
toward photography, or photographers. Even so, I just love the cars,
old & new. As a result I also find myself making compositional
decisions on parts of the vehicle.

....and that is what I did he
http://adobe.ly/1BhLZA0

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...2-07-01-XL.jpg

Interesting, I would, as usual probably have gone about that a little
differently. ;-)

or even less:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...04-011B-XL.jpg


Now that is perhaps a bit too severe.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-07 07:44:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 01:22:29 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?

To properly compare the effect, I'd have to see your best version
using normal PS processing (levels or curves included) along with this
version.


I'm not sure if I explained my point well enough because I included
too much extra commentary on the image.

My main point is that to agree that the program is worth $79, or even
$7.90, I would have to see the image processed in Photoshop - only -
to the best of your ability and compare it to the version processed in
HDR Express 3. If the version processed in HDR Express 3 is not
significantly better, then I'd suggest you save your money.

You're good enough with Photoshop that you may not need HDR E3.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy HDR E3. If you enjoy working with
it, and think it adds something, then go for it. Whether or not you
need it is another question.

Toys, toys, toys! What are you going to do when you don't hang out in bars.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-07 11:04:34 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:23:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 03:08:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:49:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 00:29:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/4/2015 2:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
In the April edition of Photoshop User magazine, which was focused on an
editorial theme I am not particularly intrested in, wedding photography,
I found in the "Product Review" section, a review on Unified Color's
"HDR Express 3".
HDR Express 3 is a trimmed version of their top of the line "HDR Expose
3" and the review was enough to bait me into visiting their web site.

To cut to the chase, I have dowloaded the 30 day trial. It installs as a
stand-alone, and PS, & LR plug-ins. I have run a few tests of some old 5
exposure bracket sets, and I am impressed.
I deliberately picked sets which had major ghosting issues due to
movement of people in the background. This was an issue neither NIK HDR
Efex Pro 2, nor PS HDR Pro have not been able to solve completely. HDR
Express dealt with the ghost movement & image alignment easily.

Then for those not favoring the surreal look of much HDR rendering this
seems to aim at producing realistically rendered images, and does so
quite succesfully.

They have a fair number of video tutorials available and I think this is
going to be my future go-to HDR tool

Just as another image processing tool to play with, give the trial a test.
http://www.unifiedcolor.com/products/hdr-express-3

While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?

If you are actually doing this sort of thing and are looking for, dare
I say it, a degree of subtlety then it could be considered worth it.
Particularly for those folks who haven't bought the NIK collection, or
might be prepared to shell out $99 for Photomatix Pro 5, which is one
of the programs widely used for HDR, and tends to produce the sort of
HDR images you don't particularly like.
Even the 32-bit HDR rendering with HDR Pro + ACR which is part of PS is
iffy when it comes to dealing with artifacts and ghosts, and can &
does produce some of the haloed saturation none of us are too fond of.

I know you say you are reluctant to even look at an HDR image, but just
this once, break your rule and let me know what you think of this one.
I actually think HDR Express 3 has a lot of promis, and I will probably
spend that $79.
http://adobe.ly/18kdrTj
https://db.tt/SveGaRIl

They both look good. There must have been some ****ed off people,
though. It looks like there are at least a few cars with open windows
in the rain.

That day they were trying not to have the inside glass mist up.
Fortunately it wasn't a downpour, just an annoying soak.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-07 16:10:55 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 07:26:38 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

To properly compare the effect, I'd have to see your best version
using normal PS processing (levels or curves included) along with this
version.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/T35SC-Comp.jpg

The HDR version improves the color of the car and makes the color a
bit deeper and richer (especially on the hood and top), brings out the
detail in the wheel spokes, unmuddies the area around the front wheel,
and opens up the interior view a bit. At the same time, it makes the
grass look like green steel wool.

I do wonder if you couldn't do the same in PS with the color, though.
Not that you *should* stick with PS. I'd be the last to tell you that
any experimentation or extra effort in post is not both worthwhile and
enjoyable.

I use all sorts of stuff together with PS & LR; The NIK plug-ins,
sometimes the OnOne Suite (though they have relabelled to "On1"), I
have played with the Mac only plug-ins, Intensify Pro & Tonality Pro. I
have tried the Topaz & Photomatix offerings and I don't particularly
like what they bring to the table.
Now I am laying with the HDR E3 trial, I have my Fed & State tax
refunds safely in the bank, so I will probably add it to my image
editing tool box.

Anyway I tried something from a different angle and used the *Field
Blur* from the *Blur gallery* to come up with this:
http://adobe.ly/1BXWWdy

Now I'm really confused. The color of the car has changed
dramatically. Is this a result of your position and the sun or
something in the post processing?

Different angle, different incident light, different result.

The photograph isn't intended as an accurate representation of the
color, and this is allowed because this is "art", not "commerce".
Still, seeing it in different photographs in different colors is a bit
strange.

Different angle, different incident light, different result.

In this image there are marks on the surface that are probably caused
by a recent shower, but nonetheless odd looking. The marks are
parallel on the top, trunk, and rear sides as would be expected, but
almost cross-hatching on the hood.

All rain drops. The "cross-hatching" effect is from the reflection of
background trees.

There are three bubble-like defects on the rear fender behind the
wheel cover. These appear to be defects in the paint job and not the
result of rain. Not expected for a car like this.

Those "bubbles" are the subdued reflection of vehicles in the row
behind the Bugatti. Part of that row can be seen in the first shot.

The background is well done in this image. No distractions from the
primary subject.

Sometimes the PS filters can be useful, and there is some powerful
stuff in the *Blur gallery*.

....but most importantly those are HDR images and they are without the
glowing halo, or nauseating over-saturation, and you have been able to
tolerate them. HDR is just another tool to use when needed, and
sometimes just for fun.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-03-07 16:13:11 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 07:26:38 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

...and that is what I did he
http://adobe.ly/1BhLZA0

I much prefer this type of shot to a shot of the whole car.

Note: that is also an HDR via HDR E3.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...2-07-01-XL.jpg

Interesting, I would, as usual probably have gone about that a little
differently. ;-)

Duck, if you were there when God created Adam, you would have told him
"I would have done it a little differently".

Perhaps not god because I didn't have a hand in his/her/its creation,
but I might have had a thing or two to say to Michael Angelo while he
was working in the Sistine Chapel.

or even less:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...04-011B-XL.jpg


Now that is perhaps a bit too severe.

Yeah...I have many better examples, but I picked that because it was a
Studebaker.

That much I had worked out.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/4/2015 7:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

After posting the chart
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...#D70,D300,D750 it
occurred to me to wonder about HDR. More to the point, in the few
shots I have edited from the D750 I noticed that the histogram is
rarely clipped and always is very well positioned within the camera
range.

edited

You can afford a Nikon "D750" camera?

John

On 3/6/2015 10:08 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?



If the results from a program do not interest me, I wouldn't bother
installing it, even if it was free.
OTOH a price-value analysis will vary with the individual user's interests.
I like Corel Painter, I submit that many here probably don't, and
would't even consider Painter Essentials for $39.



--
PeterN

On 3/7/2015 1:22 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:23:17 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 03:08:42 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:49:44 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-03-07 00:29:12 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/4/2015 2:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
In the April edition of Photoshop User magazine, which was focused on an
editorial theme I am not particularly intrested in, wedding photography,
I found in the "Product Review" section, a review on Unified Color's
"HDR Express 3".
HDR Express 3 is a trimmed version of their top of the line "HDR Expose
3" and the review was enough to bait me into visiting their web site.

To cut to the chase, I have dowloaded the 30 day trial. It installs as a
stand-alone, and PS, & LR plug-ins. I have run a few tests of some old 5
exposure bracket sets, and I am impressed.
I deliberately picked sets which had major ghosting issues due to
movement of people in the background. This was an issue neither NIK HDR
Efex Pro 2, nor PS HDR Pro have not been able to solve completely. HDR
Express dealt with the ghost movement & image alignment easily.

Then for those not favoring the surreal look of much HDR rendering this
seems to aim at producing realistically rendered images, and does so
quite succesfully.

They have a fair number of video tutorials available and I think this is
going to be my future go-to HDR tool

Just as another image processing tool to play with, give the trial a test.
http://www.unifiedcolor.com/products/hdr-express-3

While the program doesn't interest me personally, is it worth $79?
That much better?

If you are actually doing this sort of thing and are looking for, dare
I say it, a degree of subtlety then it could be considered worth it.
Particularly for those folks who haven't bought the NIK collection, or
might be prepared to shell out $99 for Photomatix Pro 5, which is one
of the programs widely used for HDR, and tends to produce the sort of
HDR images you don't particularly like.
Even the 32-bit HDR rendering with HDR Pro + ACR which is part of PS is
iffy when it comes to dealing with artifacts and ghosts, and can &
does produce some of the haloed saturation none of us are too fond of.

I know you say you are reluctant to even look at an HDR image, but just
this once, break your rule and let me know what you think of this one.
I actually think HDR Express 3 has a lot of promis, and I will probably
spend that $79.
http://adobe.ly/18kdrTj
https://db.tt/SveGaRIl

Neither of the two shots have that glow-in-the-dark look that most HDR
seems to have. In fact, the only knock I have on these images is that
the image looks flat, and I expect HDRs to be anything but flat. The
front foreground fender has some life to it, but the front background
fender is flat. Either an odd paint job or something in the
processing.

The flatness is surprising, too, since it seems the cars should be wet
from the rain. The black car is streaked with rain. Note how the
black car's door is so shiny that there's a grass green reflection in
it, but the blue car's door and rear wheel cover is dead flat.
Strange.

The grass is kind of weird looking, but that's California grass so it
might be different than what I expect grass to look like. The color's
OK, but the texture is strange.

To properly compare the effect, I'd have to see your best version
using normal PS processing (levels or curves included) along with this
version.

From a composition standpoint, that's a tough shot. The white
sidewall of the black car is an eye magnet because it lines up with
the headlights. You've got some nice sharp edges to work with, so a
little layer mask magic and a blur filter would only take a minute or
two.

I admit to bias here. I do shoot car shows, but I hate 'em. Love the
cars, but hate the setting. Always too much background clutter and
too many things to look at any way you compose the image. For this
reason, I end up shooting parts and not the whole car.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...2-07-01-XL.jpg

or even less:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Rusty-...04-011B-XL.jpg


On that I agree.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:32:42 -0600, John Turco
wrote:

On 3/4/2015 7:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

heavily edited for brevity

After posting the chart
http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...#D70,D300,D750 it
occurred to me to wonder about HDR. More to the point, in the few
shots I have edited from the D750 I noticed that the histogram is
rarely clipped and always is very well positioned within the camera
range.

edited

You can afford a Nikon "D750" camera?

Nope, but what's that got to do with it? :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens