madisonhaa.blogg.se

1. #Photomatix vs hdr efex pro for mac os
2. #Photomatix vs hdr efex pro manual
3. #Photomatix vs hdr efex pro pro
4. #Photomatix vs hdr efex pro software

#Photomatix vs hdr efex pro manual

That happens to be manual blending in Photoshop. Despite all this amazing technology, and it is amazing what can be done with these programs, I still rely on the old faithful more than anything else. I’ve tried a number of different HDR programs over the years Lightroom’s Merge to HDR, Nik’s HDR Efex Pro, Aurora HDR, and Photomatix among them. The process finishes by combining properly exposed, overexposed and underexposed.

#Photomatix vs hdr efex pro for mac os

Here are just a few examples that require the use of Photoshop Layers & Masks: The most natural-looking HDR Photomatix free is a program for Mac OS and Windows that allows creating HDR photos combining images with different exposure into one picture, preserving shadows and light sources. While Lightroom has ability to create masks using local adjustment tools these masks lack pixel level contorol that is build into Photoshop. I can easily accomplish this in Photoshop with masks which have both a sharp edge as well smooth tonal gradation. Additionally I often time requires precise control over their local adjustments to guide how these images are blended together. On the downside, the Nik product is more expensive and is apparently less useful if you have a.

#Photomatix vs hdr efex pro pro

My non-destructive landscape photography workflow will often invoke blending different images together to accomplish my vision. In my experience it is easier to get 'natural' looking HDR results in HDR Efex Pro than in Photomatix. Sort of a drag.While Lightroom does have a non-destructive workflow build into it, it does not have ability to layer images. I just wish that they'd give you a trial version that did not watermark everything for at least a short period of time (Nik gives 15 days).

#Photomatix vs hdr efex pro software

But I love the tweakability that the Control Points give you in all of Nik's software (if you've used Capture NX2 then you know) and it would be hard for me to part with it now that I've used it. Obviously they both do a great job, and I need to try Photomatix one of these days to see what the fuss is all about because it has many fans. My take is were you to take the latter and bump the contrast and saturation a bit you would be fairly close, and then with a single control point, or perhaps a series of them (do one and clone it where necessary) you could have the depth of color found in the Photomatix image and reduce some of the darkness in the shadowy areas in the center, particularly around the pool just below the sun. To Moab Man's point, with it you could have optimized the image globally for either the sky or foreground and then used control points to adjust any over/under effect on the other half of the image. For quite some time, I’ve felt like I’ve fallen into the HDR rut and wanted to challenge myself to break out of the box of my routine HDR workflow. To be able to control most of the same settings you have for the entire image in a localized, content aware section is extremely powerful. Breaking Out of the HDR Rut with Lightroom 5: Photomatix Pro vs. Though I haven't messed with Photomatix, the Control Point technology is what I find to be the biggest differentiator with the Nik software. I like each of the last two for their own reasons, but have to ask how much of the Control Point feature you used in HDR Efex Pro because I suspect you could have matched the detail and saturation of the sunset in the latter. HDR Efex Pro 2: Zabriskie Point, Death Valley I have often troubled by, although the histogram show that I have all the information in the RAW file, how can I actually get the image I want without extensive adjustment using Photoshop or Capture NX2, which sometimes is beyond my ability. You can immediately see the advantages of the HDR-specific software over Photoshop alone, so this is a great comparison.