HDR in Lightroom CC vs Photomatix

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

So, I've been holding off buying Photomatix until Lightroom CC came out with the built-in HDR merge. Played with it over the weekend. I was able to still get good results, but it seems to me that photomatix is still better. Granted I'm only using the free trial, but it still seems to start off with better initial quality than Lightroom. I don't do a ton of HDR, but I when I do I want to get some good results out of the processing. Any others I should consider?

 

[afb28]

Photomatix is pretty good because it has a ton of sliders to play with, but at the same time that can be overwhelming and some times cause unrealistic looks.

Merge to 32Bit HDR plugin is a pretty solid plugin, but lately I've just used photoshop's merge to HDR which is built in and change it to 32bit so it essentially does what that plugin does without paying for it.

Sometimes I also mask in things. Like when shooting Rapunzel's tower at night, it's super dark there and regardless of the # of brackets no plugin ever gets her tower not blown out, so I end up just masking it in.

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

I don't know what masking is. I'm still a newb at photography and processing. Trying to watch tutorials of things on youtube. Nowinc's videos he posts here are awesome.

 

[afb28]

It's in photoshop. He does it in some of his videos after using Nik software.

It essentially lets you paint. So in this case I paint over the blown out tower and on the other layer is the properly exposed tower and it just paints right in.

But you're right on track by using youtube, I've learned everything I know from youtube.

Start with Steve Perry's channel, he is a really good teacher https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChUi5Gm8w-S_d6dS31cFCnQ

 

[NowInc]

Adobe has never been good with the merge to HDR functions in their programs. Lightroom CC is no exception. I have been giving it a go for the past week and I just can't get good enough results. (I'll be recording a video about this either tonight or wednesday)

Photomatix is king, but has a steep learning curve.

Nik HDR efex is great, and much easier. You only forfeit a little bit of customization at a photomatix level...but very acceptable results.

 

[afb28]

Adobe has never been good with the merge to HDR functions in their programs.

I disagree with this if you use photoshop's version and change it to 32 bit, it's as good and contains more data than what photomatix does so you have more dynamic range than what photomatix would offer. You don't get the amount of sliders that photomatix has but sometimes that stuff becomes too much regardless.

I know you like the more stylized stuff with photomatix which is fine but I would try this method out for a little bit and see how you like the results.

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

NIK HDR is also more expensive. I had kinda ruled it out just because of the price if photomatix can give me good results for $50 less. Was really hoping Lightroom would work because my PC still doesn't like to have multiple editing programs open at once. Even the Lightroom merge takes several minutes even for just 3 exposures.

 

[NowInc]

NIK HDR is also more expensive. I had kinda ruled it out just because of the price if photomatix can give me good results for $50 less. Was really hoping Lightroom would work because my PC still doesn't like to have multiple editing programs open at once. Even the Lightroom merge takes several minutes even for just 3 exposures.

Well yes and no. With the Nik Complete bundle ($150), you get a LOT of useful plugins in addition to HDR Efex (I am personally a huge fan of Color Efex Pro, as it saves me a tonof time by automating what takes much longer to do manually). And hey...it used to be a LOT more expensive before google bought em out

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

Well, that does make a difference. I didn't realize you got the whole bundle for that price.

 

[thomas998]

So, I've been holding off buying Photomatix until Lightroom CC came out with the built-in HDR merge. Played with it over the weekend. I was able to still get good results, but it seems to me that photomatix is still better. Granted I'm only using the free trial, but it still seems to start off with better initial quality than Lightroom. I don't do a ton of HDR, but I when I do I want to get some good results out of the processing. Any others I should consider?

Personally I prefer Capture One Pro's version if I'm trying for realistic looking photos. If I wanted over the top cartoonish looks then Photomatix is great... Kind of depends on what you are trying for. If you want to go olds school you can do the same thing with any photo editing software by simply merging several photos together and masking out the over exposed or under exposed bits of each photo. The earliest HDR photos were done that way and produce some of the best results because it never approached the cartoon overkill that happens all too often.

 

[afb28]

I will say if you use Photomatix you can still get natural results by using Exposure Fusion then selecting Fusion Natural. You'll still have some sliders to play with if it's not perfect, but for me that has worked best when using Photomatix.

 

[lvnative]

I will throw in my two cents. I was not happy with the built in adobe software, and i went with nik software. In addition to the hdr, the color efex as well as the black and white software you get in the bundle are extremely helpful. It really makes for easier processing.

I should also add the noise package is also useful and can be helpful for restoring old photos.