Tonemapping large images in photomatix without glow and with detail

[Garbz]

Hey all,

I've made the occasional HDR for several years now, but one thing that bugs me is that I can not successfully tonemap a large panorama (60mpx) in Photomatix if there's lots of detail involved, say skyscrapers with lights on.

The result always seems very glowy clobbering a lot of fine contrast. I also can't control this on larger panoramas. The previews often look fine till I hit the process button then the result looks like crap. In the end I usually give up, save as an iradiance file and then tonemap it in Photoshop. Lots of suggestions seem to be to use exposure fusion, but that's not always possible and doesn't always look right.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to handle really large pictures? This is an example of the type of detail and dynamic range I'm talking about: http://www.garbz.com/ref-sunset-p.jpg, done in Photoshop, and completely unable to be replicated by Photomatix.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Sounds like you'll have to take your exposures, and mask things in by hand. The good old fashioned way and truth be told, usually the better way too.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Sounds like a software feature request to the Photomatix team, support for extra large files. In the meantime, you could individually process each AEB stack of your panorama with the same settings. Process an image to your liking, save the settings directly into your presets, and apply them to the remaining images. Then stitch them in photoshop. That's what I would do. Really will kill your workflow if you do a lot of this type of photography and your software is getting in the way. But I agree with Sw1tch, if you do this occasionally just do the manual and tedious type of work yourself. Cs5, as you mentioned, should be much better with larger files if what you are saying about Photomatix is true (I use both but have not done panoramas in Photomatix).Nice image by the way.

 

[SlickSalmon]

Hey all,

I've made the occasional HDR for several years now, but one thing that bugs me is that I can not successfully tonemap a large panorama (60mpx) in Photomatix if there's lots of detail involved, say skyscrapers with lights on.

The result always seems very glowy clobbering a lot of fine contrast. I also can't control this on larger panoramas. The previews often look fine till I hit the process button then the result looks like crap. In the end I usually give up, save as an iradiance file and then tonemap it in Photoshop. Lots of suggestions seem to be to use exposure fusion, but that's not always possible and doesn't always look right.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to handle really large pictures? This is an example of the type of detail and dynamic range I'm talking about: http://www.garbz.com/ref-sunset-p.jpg, done in Photoshop, and completely unable to be replicated by Photomatix.

Could you post one of your failures, please? It's hard to diagnose the problem without an example.

 

[mistermonday]

Hey all,

I've made the occasional HDR for several years now, but one thing that bugs me is that I can not successfully tonemap a large panorama (60mpx) in Photomatix if there's lots of detail involved, say skyscrapers with lights on.

The result always seems very glowy clobbering a lot of fine contrast. I also can't control this on larger panoramas. The previews often look fine till I hit the process button then the result looks like crap. In the end I usually give up, save as an iradiance file and then tonemap it in Photoshop. Lots of suggestions seem to be to use exposure fusion, but that's not always possible and doesn't always look right.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to handle really large pictures? This is an example of the type of detail and dynamic range I'm talking about: http://www.garbz.com/ref-sunset-p.jpg, done in Photoshop, and completely unable to be replicated by Photomatix.

I do lots of these types of scenes and I can relate to the exact phenomenon you are experiencing with Photomatix. It has some challenges with certain light sources and the results when processed can look significantly different than the preview in those specific areas. I highly suggest that you try Photoengine from Oloneo. It works quite differently on these types of images plus your preview is real time and it is extremely fast. The product was officially released this past June, In certain respects it is the best HDR s/w out there. At the moment it does have a couple of weak spots - specifically Ghost Removal and Alignment which are not as advanced as Photomatix. But if you are using a tripod or those features are not critical to you, you should be quite pleased.
Regards, Murray

 

[ann]

Would second the above suggestion for looking at Photoengine, in fact when I read your issue that was to be my suggestion and i see it has been mentioned.

Usually, i cringe when people just keep repeating the same info; however, this is a time if feel strongly about this suggestion.

There are a lot of programs available for HDR and it seems more everyday, as it is the big "thing". I have tested quite a few, and each have their strengths, and weakness and each gives a different "look" before moving to PS or whatever to stylize the finish image.

Download the trial version, which is 30 days and no watermark, so it you want to print out a test image to view in hand that is helpful.

 

[889Media]

Thank you, Murray! I have not been using any software for a while because of a dead computer, and I have been waiting for the hardware for my next build to be released...resulting in that I have not bothered to pay attention to any news out there.

After reading your post, I had to give the PhotoEnginge a try. I have have only tested a couple of shots I shot a few months ago, and at first glance I really liked it! And omg, the real time preview is so fast! Even on my old useless laptop, any changes I make shows immediately and the picture updates instantly. The results are very good too. Had to torture the image to get halos that appeared much earlier in photomatix. Have to test a lot more though before I make up my mind, but so far so good

 

[Garbz]

That Photoengine software looks pretty sweet, though after playing around with it for about half an hour I naturally ended up back at a very similar result that I got with Photoshop, a good result mind you.

SlickSalmon:
http://www.garbz.com/hdrfail.jpg

These images are the same, with the exception that the one on the left is the preview from the tonemapping settings, and the one on the right is the processed result. The effect isn't quite as pronounced as it was when editing a larger panorama but the effect is still visible. When you process you clobber the sharp details and in my opinion this ruins the photo.

 

[mistermonday]

That Photoengine software looks pretty sweet, though after playing around with it for about half an hour I naturally ended up back at a very similar result that I got with Photoshop, a good result mind you.

SlickSalmon:
http://www.garbz.com/hdrfail.jpg

These images are the same, with the exception that the one on the left is the preview from the tonemapping settings, and the one on the right is the processed result. The effect isn't quite as pronounced as it was when editing a larger panorama but the effect is still visible. When you process you clobber the sharp details and in my opinion this ruins the photo.

If I understand correctly, you are processing a single image. The greatest control, wideset range, and best results will usually be obtained when you merge bracketed images and then tonemap. While you can tonemap a single image to create what is usually termed "Faux HDR", you get a very different result. I find that Photomatix does not do a great job with a single image.
Regards, Murray

 

[Garbz]

You understand incorrectly. I sure as hell wouldn't bother tonemapping an image I could fit all relevant dynamic range into

No the problems are definitely a case of the preview in Photomatix does not process the same was as the process button.

 

[Bynx]

What version of Photomatix are you using?

 

[Garbz]

4.0.1 x64

 

[Bynx]

Id suggest an upgrade to version 4.1 I think with the newer version that the presets are viewed differently. You can see your picture in all the various presets visually in thumbnail instead of just by name.