Photomatix Vs Photoshop CS2

[GB1]

This image was taken this morning in Tucson Az, then tone-mapped in Photomatix trial version, which imprints their name on the image, and in PS CS2.

What a difference!. PM's is artful, whereas PS' is just terrible looking.

Am I doing something wrong? The difference between PS' and PM's output is substantial.

G

[mjs1973]

I think you found the reason that almost everyone who wants to do serious, or even not so serious, HDR uses Photomatix. The HDR feature of Photoshop has been lagging way behind. I have CS4 and I don't even give it a thought when it comes to HDR. I go straight for Photomatix. I do have the Photomatix Tone Mapping plug in that I use as a filter through PS but for HDR's, Photomatix is light years ahead of PS.

[Medley]

I'm in full agreement (for a change! ) Honestly GB, I would've been surprised if your experiment HADN'T yielded these results. When I considered buying Photomatix, I had seven or eight HDR's that I had compiled in PS. Every one of them came out better.

I chalk it up to the "do one thing, and do it better than anyone else" mentality.

- Joe U.

[Frog]

Thank you for posting the results.
Confirms my suspicon.

[GB1]

Yeah fellows, Photomatix is definitely the way to go. I guess you're right Joe, the small companies can focus on one thing, whereas Adobe has to put together the entire program and architecture. I also own Fluid Mask and it does an incredible job at masking, PS doesn't even come close.

Frog, I went ahead and bought PM standalone. I fished around and found a 15% discount coupon on the internet, so the price wasn't too bad.

G

[Frog]

I've had it for over a year and really need to start going out and getting more shots to use it with. I guess most of what I see doesn't need it but it is great to know it is there when and if I do.

[BlueRob]

Just for the fun of it......
I have never used Photomatix but I assume you can get similar results with a little tweaking.
I took the image made in PS that is why the sun has the same "spread".
For a more side to side comparison I assume we should start with the base file(s).

[Singletracklovr]

Hi GB1,
Beautiful picture.
I am a novice to PP so If this is a really dumb statement please just ignore it.
Could you not get the same effect by cranking the Shadow Protect when you are PP in RAW?

[GB1]

Frog, it could be that since you get a lot more clouds and general haze in WA that the environmental contrast is lower than in the semi-desert of the southwest (actually - more like real desert!). Try some night shots. You will see a lot of ops then.

Rob, seems a little extreme there dontcha think? But it's all part of learning. I can post the original 5 images at 800 pix if you would like to try an expt or two. Let me know.

Bob, and I am a novice to PS. I mostly use Corel products, really need to sit down and learn PS instead of just messing with it (there's plenty of tutorials out there), so I really don't know about Shadow Protect. But I assume that you can only go so far with that since the latitude of digital is small. However - you may be OK with RAW which supposedly has a lot more info stored (smaller increments in color and brightness, since it has many more bits). I can post the originals and you can try it and let us know!?

G

[Singletracklovr]

I can post the originals and you can try it and let us know!? -G

I can only adjust shadow protect in RAW NEF format (using nikons ViewNX) once it's a jpeg I don't think you can make this adjustment.

I see in your EXIF data you used a nikon camera.

You can get ViewNX free from the nikon website if you would like to try the shadow protect.
I believe it will give you the same mid tone bump as your photomatix and it's free.

It just kinda dawned on me you were comparing Photomatix Vs Photoshop CS2. Sorry about getting off topic with another program.

[GB1]

I can only adjust shadow protect in RAW NEF format (using nikons ViewNX) once it's a jpeg I don't think you can make this adjustment.

I see in your EXIF data you used a nikon camera.

You can get ViewNX free from the nikon website if you would like to try the shadow protect.
I believe it will give you the same mid tone bump as your photomatix and it's free.

It just kinda dawned on me you were comparing Photomatix Vs Photoshop CS2. Sorry about getting off topic with another program.

No problem on any "off topic" discussions Bob, I'm guilty of that all the time. But I think it's a good thing sometimes, as we're all learning and there are many related areas of discussion.

I didn't shoot in RAW this trip. Doubtlessly I will regret it one day, but right now, I really don't know how to post process RAW images to take advantage of their higher bit capture. I have a lot to learn with PP (hence why I'm here).

I think I might DL that free app and try it on some RAW images that I do have...

G

Thanks too, April

[Singletracklovr]

No problem on any "off topic" discussions Bob, I'm guilty of that all the time. But I think it's a good thing sometimes, as we're all learning and there are many related areas of discussion.

I didn't shoot in RAW this trip. Doubtlessly I will regret it one day, but right now, I really don't know how to post process RAW images to take advantage of their higher bit capture. I have a lot to learn with PP (hence why I'm here).

I think I might DL that free app and try it on some RAW images that I do have...

G

Thanks too, April

Well thanks, I try to stay on topic. Your desert photo is so awesome I just got excited and started typing. haha

BAck off topic a little,
I started shooting in RAW from the advice I received here on PR and truly love it.

Basic RAW PP was not hard to learn at all. What I like about RAW PP that you can't do easily in jpeg is correcting WB, Exposure, adding d-light if required, adding shadow or highlight protection if required. I have saved/ improved many of my photos with these adjustments. My final out is always jpeg for printing or posting but I don't mind the extra steps in RAW at all. They improve the photos that much and the free nikon software makes it painless to try.