HDR Photography

134 Responses to “Top 10 Best HDR Software Review 2012”

1. Praveen Money says:

   December 16, 2010 at 1:18 pm

   There are new hdr softs released. Nik HDR efex pro and HDR photo pro. I tested hdr photo pro, there is no treatment for chromatic abbretion in it. All most all hdr’s have the same problem. in your test, i really like the dynamic hdr’s. I don’t like un-natural image efex.
2. Captain Kimo says:

   December 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm

   @Gordon – I don’t think I get many purists visiting my website… lol. Unfortunately I live in South Florida so winter scenes aren’t as exciting as up north. I feel that winter scenes are best when removing warm colors. That’s why so many black and white and IR winter scenes look good. But until I get a big opportunity to shoot and process more winter photos, I won’t be able to completely figure out what will look good.
3. Captain Kimo says:

   December 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm

   @Praveen – I do agree that Nik does seem to produce a synthetic look… but I guess it’s all depends on how you use it. I like dynamic images also, but after producing so many dynamic photos, I’m beginning to like the less dynamic images more.
4. Gordon says:

   December 16, 2010 at 6:44 pm

   Hi Kim,

   I used to live in Sarasota myself. Now I am in Texas. I mentioned winter because it is very monotone and either very clean (fresh snow)or very dirty (dirty old snow) compared to other times of the year. That kind of environment seems to do much better either in black and white, IR (like you said), or using more dynamic treatment. That seems to be a job for Luminance… my reason for commenting.
5. dave says:

   December 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm

   I think the results depend on use for all of them, really. My early images with Qtpfsgui (Luminance) all seemed to have that surreal look to them until I tamed myself and came to be more comfortable with how the tools operate. Example of a more natural look from Luminance:
   http://www.flickr.com/photos/4.....2/sizes/o/
6. Gordon says:

   December 16, 2010 at 8:28 pm

   Hey Dave,

   I checked out your example photo and that was a really a good application of Luminance. Very nice HDR panorama photo. You seem to have captured the very essence of what Luminance can do.

   You are so right about not overusing its controls. What makes Luminace great is that it can create that slightly grainy defining detail without causing noise in the rest of the image. Would you be so kind as to share the settings you used in Luminance as this would help stear potential users in a good direction toward its better application. Thanks.

   Gordon
7. Gordon says:

   December 18, 2010 at 11:59 am

   Dave,

   I did some experimenting with Luminance and found that the following settings appear to come the closest to what your example shows.

   Profile: 1
   Operator: Mantiuk ’06
   Contrast Factor: 0.371
   Saturation Factor: 1.760
   Detail Factor: 25.6
   Adjust Levels: (as required)

   Also, I suspect that you reduced your native image size by around 50%-60%. Since I could not get the exact same results I must assume that you are using a high end DSLR with a great lens, a weighted tripod, and a remote shutter release.

   One thing that did puzzle me was the sky. It seems somewhat evident from the cloud formation that a bit of a front coming in over the landscape. This would have indicated some kind of a breeze. However, your vegetation is crystal clear indicating that there was no wind movement between exposures.

   Perhaps you could comment. Thanks.

   Gordon
8. dave says:

   December 20, 2010 at 6:53 pm

   Sorry for the delay, I got to live for the weekend without ‘net access (it’s ok, I survived…).

   Gordon is mostly right, I usually start with the Mantiuk algorithm and drift to others if needed. I have also noticed that there is a big difference between Qtpfsgui and Luminance with regards settings and the final image. In Qtpfsgui, I use Mantiuk with contrast factor at minimum (.001), saturation generally between 1.1 and 1.2, and detail at 1.0. I have yet to find the “sweet spot” for Luminance (and the review is spot-on about Luminance not being particularly user-friendly… it is not at all intuitive) so I keep them both installed, as luminance can output to exr while qtpfsgui crashes. I’ll try the settings Gordon suggested and see how it goes, though.

   As far as the image goes, I chased the rain to the canyon so the cloud formations you see are the results of a receding thunderstorm. The ground is still wet, and if you look closely you can see water standing in the cups left by the blooms on the cactus on the left. There was some breeze, and there are a few duplicate branches floating about in various places. Reducing the image size did make them less apparent, and the image I linked to is about 15% of original size. The image is a composite of 8 bracketed shots, for 24 total exposures. Final dimension was about 15k x 5k pixels. I used a rather stout Bogen tripod set low to the ground for stability and a remote shutter release on a Canon 5D MKII with a 24-105mm L-series lens and stitched the images after a pass through qtpfsgui in Hugin’s Panorama Tools.

   At the time I was limited to a 32 bit OS (and hence just over 3G ram) and the 16bit tiffs were huge (120meg each), so it simply crushed my system and I had to combine and tonemap into LDR before stitching. This image is the reason I’m now running a 64bit OS with 16G or ram.

   dave
9. Gordon says:

   December 20, 2010 at 9:27 pm

   Thanks Dave… That was an awesome rendition of procedures. Very interesting and fascinating. I will have to get a download version of Qtpfsgui and try out your settings. I sense that your comments may be saying that the sweet spot may not exist in the current version of Luminance. I wasn’t able to find it either.

   The current version of Luminance has an almost useless anti-ghosting function. Whereas, Photomatix’s automatic anti-ghosting eliminates virtually all the ghosting throughout the entire image. That alone is worth its price. It is not possible to get the quality of your image detail if there is too much ghosting going on. Fortunately, your vegetation was mostly low lying desert weeds that are not easily disturbed by a slight breeze.

   Regarding your image. Am I to understand that your composite was 8 bracketed images at three panoramic angles for a total of 24 images? If so, why did you choose eight exposures per angle instead of seven? When looking at a standard -2/+2 exposure spread on a Canon camera, there is a total of 13 manual exposure positions, 1/3rd stop apart. Starting at one end of the spread, there are seven positions available, each 2/3 of a stop apart. Eight just doesn’t work out evenly. Or did you use a different manual method for setting your exposures?

   Also, since your image wasn’t a night time lapse, why use so many gradient exposures? I would have thought five would have been enough. Is there really that much of a difference in the end result? If so, this may also have something to do with the detail quality you achieved.

   I will be interested to see the results of your image using a rendition of the settings I referenced for Luminance. I bet Luminance takes an age and a half to process your image at 5k x 15k!:)

   Gordon
10. dave says:

    December 20, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    Luminance is actually faster, as it’s a true multi-core app. I’m not sure what they’ve done that makes the results so wonky, though.

    My RAWs for the image were 8 bracketed shots, so 8 shots each at -2,0 and +2 stops. Four across the top and four across the bottom of the panorama. +/-2 is the max for auto-bracketing on the 5DII (I sure wish I could double that) and with the clouds and the breeze I really didn’t think I could bracket manually without getting a lot of drift in the clouds and shadows so I had to settle for 9 stops… which in the end seems to have been enough although I still have some saturation in the clouds nearer the sun on the left.

    Oh, the image covers about 220 degrees horizontally… I wanted to get both sides of the ledge I was set up on.

    dave
11. Gordon says:

    December 21, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Apparently, the developers over at SourceForge integrated or rewrote the algorithms in a more efficient way, in order to speed them up. In doing so they may have adversely altered the programs ability to provide the sweet spot, as you say. Unless the programmers were even aware of that sweet spot, they would not have known of the need to preserve that aspect.

    You might want to contact them and show them your results and indicate that the changes in Luminance no longer give the same favored results. This way, they might included the older version in later releases of Luminance. Or they might have another solution.

    Ok, I now understand the 8 angels… four above and four below, each with three exposures. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just use a wider angle lens? Or were you able to get better detail definition by using a telephoto setup with a greater panoramic array and then reduce the size of the image after processing? I perceive that you are using a whole lot of technique to get your affect. Very interesting.

    Yes, unless the air is absolutely still and there is no movement whatsoever in your composition, you must use the auto bracketing function in order to execute the shots quickly enough between exposures. Otherwise, if conditions are still enough, you could get away with all manual settings with unlimited exposure range and just shoot each exposure off one at a time. Pretty iffy at best but still possible. Your tripod will need to be on a hard surface.

    Gordon
12. Gordon says:

    December 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Ok, I downloaded qtpfsgui Ver. 1.9.3 in order to try out Dave’s (your) settings compared to my own. I found that the relative detail was about equal to my own settings. However, I like the contrast turned up a bit more since that tends to enhance details, similar to what sharpening does. I don’t know if that would really improve your canyon image because it is so open, with no overhead shadows to work with.

    One thing I noted is that the very fine detail in your image comes from using some zoom with a low telephoto lens, rather than a wideangle lens. Nevertheless, you substitute more panorama frames to get back the wideangle loss, with a corresponding huge increase in image size and detail definition. Size is resolved simply by sizing down the image after processing. However, the fine detail, captured by your zoom lens doesn’t disappear, it just gets smaller. What an excellent technique Dave.

    How did my settings work out for you? I think you should be able to come very close to duplicating your results simply by turning down my contrast setting. However, in the latest version of Luminance, turning down the contrast seems to also turn down (remove) definition more than what I believe it should. You may need more contrast in order to get closer to your intended result. This may be why the sweet spot has alluded you in the latest version. Let me (us) know.

    Also, the Windows Qtpfsgui 1.9.3 doesn’t crash like the Windows Luminance 2.0.1 does. Processing time seems about the same to me.
13. Gordon says:

    December 24, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Correction… I don’t turn up the Contrast slider… only the Detail slider.
14. dave says:

    December 25, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    I took the shots with print in mind, and was aiming for a 4′ image at 300dpi. I got close, and it did print up very nicely at 36″. My wife had me frame it, and I wound up making prints for friends and cow-orkers. I was a bit surprised at all the attention the image drew in, to be honest. I’m more of a technician and less of an artist, so I really don’t feel that I have much of an eye for composition. I was happy with the results on this one, though.

    As far as shooting/processing goes, my subs were shot at 24mm @f22 so I could keep the foreground in focus and I shot with a pretty substantial overlap between frames. 24mm is the low end of the 24-105mm kit lens on the 5DII, so the individual subs are fairly wide angle. Someday I need to go out and shoot a test series just to find a good compromise between DOF and detail (diffraction at f22 hurts a bit). Anyways, I lost some detail to high f-ratio so the final went through a slight unsharp mask (note to self: always apply unsharp in 16bit/channel depth), then I cloned out the tiny bits of yuckus that I missed cleaning off the glass. The final image is 1:1 with the camera’s native rez. Unsharp plays hell with thermal noise in the clouds, so you can’t be heavy with it.

    My basic processing flow (for anyone interested):

    Batch convert RAW to 16bit/channel TIFF.
    Make major corrections to levels/curves. Final corrections
    come later, and I use the same settings for each image if
    it’s part of a pano. This really should be done in 16
    bit/channel depth if at all possible, as well as the
    next step.
    Pass TIFFs to software for HDR compositing.
    Tonemap. Output to LDR.
    Clone out dust, etc (cleanup for final)
    Small levels, curves adjustments.

    Do anything that moves pixel values around in 16 bits per channel. This includes levels, curves and white balance in addition to tonemapping. If you’re using any of the above-reviewed software with 8bit images, you’re limiting yourself. Obviously, if you’re using a camera that outputs only to 8bit (ie most point/shoot cameras) you don’t have any choice, and you’re still able to do some pretty amazing HDR with 8bits/channel, but the added color depth of RAW files helps delay the onset of that surrealistic look that so many HDR packages can generate and allows you to be more aggressive with the tools without fear of posterizing the image.

    Transformations (ie changing pixels’ locations or distorting for stitching) can be done after converting to standard 8-bit images. Keep in mind that some stitchers can also adjust exposure to make subframes match in contrast/brightness. This is an issue if your camera doesn’t have manual shooting options (shooting all your subs manually negates this issue, and it’s only relevant to panoramas). The basic rule of thumb is to delay conversion to LDR for as long as possible.

    The final worked out to about 75mp. I’d love to do a much larger image, and I’ll try to as soon as I find a worthy scene I guess. It’s going to have to be static conditions (like a cityscape or rocky desert on a clear day); since if I shoot for a 6X4 grid it’ll take some time to kick off 72 exposures. Yikes. That’s 8.6G of image data to combine…

    Gordon, in answer to your questions, etc (I know, this is turning into a tl;dr lol):

    Auto bracketing is definitely a must. Although I can easily do it manually (I really like Canon’s UI and context-aware control wheels), auto is soooo much faster. It’s a bit of a shame that it’s limited to +/-2.

    Thank you for the compliment regarding details, detail is practically a fetish for me lol… as soon as I finish getting all my tools rebuilt (running linux, and I’m barely at “Tinkerer” status yet) I’m going to play with some options on the RAW development side of things to try to squeeze some more out. I may play around some today and see if what I’m wondering about has any advantages.

    I have not managed to try your settings yet, due both to trying to get my system finalized and my work schedule. What you said about contrast makes sense; turning it down tends to mute the tonemapping somewhat and it’s always a trade-off between detail and surrealism.

    Going the open source route can sometimes be a craps shoot, but being free (and free of the badware that ships with so many of the free, pre-packaged windows apps) makes it worth checking out. Keep in mind that one of my goals is to do all my processing with no-cost software, so I can only show examples without making a direct comparison between the free and commercial packages and that in many cases the tools I use can be less than intuitive. If you have a budget to blow, you can trade expertise for convenience with a commercial package.
15. Gordon says:

    December 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Thanks for all the details Dave. What you shared about the advantages of working with RAW at 16bit to start, in order to help delay and avoid the posterizing effects of over processing, is very interesting and I can understand that. Kim indcated that it was more of a preference, but it goes deeper than than the more you are looking for a very designer specific effect.

    Frankly, I don’t care for using the unsharp tool for the same reasons you gave. If the image is good enough quality, I find that I can use about a 50% sharpening to get what I am looking for without getting any thermal noise. There may be reasons why you use unsharp instead of sharp, in spite of the limitations.

    Regarding the use of operating systems on very large images. In your opinion, does Linux handle memory mapping issues better than Windows? In other words, does Linux still use the same basic method of memory page mapping as Windows, or is it handled differently? Also, is processing time reduced with Linux over Windows for such graphics handling? I am under the impression that Linux does not have the same operating system overhead as Windows.

    Regarding stitchers, in your opinion is the Hugin Stitcher the best for these size images? Or is it just part of your preference for working with open source tools?

    Regarding my settings. It wasn’t the contrast factor slider that I used as much as the detail factor slider. Adding some contrast factor in the initial tone mapping stage allows faster (and more) contrast without pushing the Adjust Levels on the post adjust histogram stage. As soon as you push the histogram contrast by pulling the right slider in to the left, the whole color map gets saturated. That gives contrast but not the kind you want for realism. To avoid stretching the color contrast, just use more contrast factor in the tone mapping stage. This also helps minimize the potential posterization effects, which you require.

    In order to get closer to the high detail you have in your 16bit RAW images, I have to use a detail factor of about 10 when tone mapping my original 8bit Jpeg to 16bit TIFF HDR images. The problem with adding detail factor is that it details any slight ghosting, making the image in those areas appear fuzzy. However, the areas that are static look really good.

    You may not need to do this in your images because they were 16bit RAW to begin with. It is hard to know since we aren’t dealing with apples and apples here… I am working with native 8bit Jpegs and you are working with native 16bit RAW.

    Another thing about Luminance/Qtpfsgui. The resulting 16bit HDR TIFF to LDR Jpegs, always look bleached out of color and required some color enhancement in either GIMP, Paintshop, or Photoshop in order to come alive. That is not so much the case with Photomatix.
16. dave says:

    December 25, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Great points, Gordon.

    OSs: Purely a matter of choice. Choose an OS based on how easy it does what you expect and how much support for the unusual you require.

    I use Hugin for their sourceforge presence, but that’s a self-imposed limitation. The best tools are those that one chooses to understand, so I have no doubt that others are doing admirable things with tools that I have not used. I’m a tech-geek, and I tend to prefer a technician’s interface (I prefer 3DSMAX over Maya, for instance) over a sometimes more sensible artistic UI. I’m not in the least afraid of software that utilises a command line interface. Less than half of my processing requires graphical feedback, and a CLI gets me through the rote processing via a line of text with minimal fuss.

    Detail factor: I just don’t use it and keep it at minimum.

    8bit vs 16bit: There are two things stacked against you with 8bit originals: color depth and compression. It’s not at all a trashbasket case tho. I’ve stacked JPGs in astrophotography into 16b/c composites and it’s useful. If it’s what you have, make use of it. 16bit originals allow aggressive stretching of levels; far more than you can get away with when using 8bit images. It’s preferable to have 16bit originals, but not a requirement. As for compression, that speaks directly to detail levels. You really don’t want to have JPG artifacts interfering with sharpening/unsharp masking. Again, though, it’s a preference and not a requirement. I suppose the big difference is that it really affects the need to reduce rez, RAW files are noticeably superior if you look closely and far more tolerant to manipulation… I can tear into a 16bit in ways that destroy 8 bit images. 8 bit doesn’t care much about noise, but posterizes easily. 16 stays smooth while you stretch up the low end of the histogram but shows that noise (and hot pixels).

    Color levels in qtpf…/Luminance: I run the tonemapper normally at 1.2 saturation for exactly that reason.

    General thoughts on 16 vs 8: You need a LOT of 8 bit subs (not really practical) to equal the range of sensitivity you get with 16, which makes it much easier to shoot below the right of the histogram so things don’t saturate and still recover contrast in the shadows, even with a bright background. It’s useful, and worth it in my opinion if you’re gonna geek with photography (no complaints here), but it’s not gonna fit in your shirt pocket.

    If you’re going to feed any of the above HDR programs, you’ll get better results with better feeds… so getting the best exposures you can (whether 8 or 16 bit) is the most important step.
17. Gordon says:

    December 26, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Great commentary Dave. Yes, I can see how color depth would allow more aggressive stretching of levels… more depth to stretch before it blows out and bleeds. DOS CLP allows for more batch processing flesibility… understood. I got away from that years ago… but if you are a C++ language programmer, you never ever get away from it. If you don’t use it you loose it.

    Sounds like you don’t use the detail factor because your native images already have enough detail.

    Yes, you can get away with 8bit, ‘if’ you don’t need to stretch them too far. If you do, then 16bit native RAW is required, from what I hear you saying. That is very helpful to know.

    Yes, depending upon the original quality, detail levels tend to bring out background noise defects at full resolution. However, that tends to be mostly a hardware sensor/internal processor software/lens issue. That should not be much of an issue with a Canon 5DII. I haven’t checked out the lab reports on the 24-105mm kit lens yet. Most Canon kit lenses are pretty good in order to sell the camera body. However, I was rather surprised at the spread in quality of Canon EOS lenses for cropped frame sensors. One needs to be very careful to use the better quality lenses otherwise native quality for post processing just isn’t there, resulting in a waste of time and effort. However, in the shadows things can tend to get iffy, even with great equipment.

    Regarding RAW files compared to JPEG. RAW files do look smoother from what I have seen where as JPEG’s tend to look sharper for the same resolution and camera settings. I believe this is because the internal camera processor may be programmed to do some preprocessing of JPEG’s, including some color enhancement and sharpening. The whole idea of RAW’s is to give it to you raw without any preprocessing that can create or enhance defects in the preprocess.

    Even running the tonemapper at a 1.2 saturation factor requires additional saturation enhancement.

    Definitely not going to fit in your shirt pocket.

    Native exposure quality is absolutely the issue. First in terms of equipment and the built in options for using that equipment. And secondly the photographic conditions and subject matter being photographed. HDR is all about the depth and the stretch. Without higher dynamic native quality, all you may get is a tear in the digital fabric. Cheap material vs. high quality material to work from.

    I have posed this question on another one of Kim’s message boards. Wouldn’t it be possible to take one neutral exposure of a single frame and then create additional images from that original at various f-stop settings in Photoshop, without taking a bunch of bracketed exposures. Photoshop has a function that is able to change the relative f-stop exposure setting and save it to file as a new image. I believe it will do it for both JPEG as well as RAW. If that is possible, it would save allot of time and effort and eliminate all the issues with ghosting and alignment when creating HDR TIFF’s. Just a thought.
18. Hamish Tear says:

    December 29, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    I am a VR Pano photographer – mostly real estate and commercial real estate. I do not care for ‘effects’ but really want true colors. Photomatix is the way to go.
19. Mat says:

    December 31, 2010 at 10:23 am

    It’s a pity HDR Efex Pro was not mentioned. It is very powerful tool
20. Captain Kimo says:

    January 1, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    This HDR Software Review was published before HDR Efex, another review will be up soon with HDR Efex Pro also.
21. Steve says:

    January 6, 2011 at 8:08 am

    I already own Photoshop CS5, so not considering price how would you rate CS5. I have been considering either HDR Efex Pro or Photomatix. Other than ease of use, it appears that the choice might come down to a comparison of the various images you produced and selecting the one that provides the look that appeals to the user.
22. Captain Kimo says:

    January 6, 2011 at 10:43 am

    I highly recommend HDR Efex or Photomatix over CS5. CS5 is still limited.
23. Gordon says:

    January 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Steve,

    To be honest, there isn’t really one HDR app that fits all situations. I find that Photomatix does a great job on realistic images with some degree of stylized performance. However, Luminance/Qtpfsgui does more specific stylized performance for other requirements that Photomatix can not touch. I am sure the same can be said for HDR Efex. You will need to work with each using the 30 day trial to determine what you want to invest in.
24. marc-andre says:

    January 11, 2011 at 7:07 am

    I have done some HDR photo this week with nik hdr… and to my photographer eye it look damn good, and the setting / preset is perfect. have a look : http://notreaventure.com/suisse-419/av.html

    * the one with a with the white frame around is from nik hdr.. other is photoshop only tweek
25. Gord Marshall says:

    February 4, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Have a look at SNS-HDR Pro I think all of you will be quite surprised at how natural the HDR look.

    http://www.sns-hdr.com/
26. William Collins says:

    February 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    Thank you very much for these reviews….I too use Photomatix 4. However, I have just run on to an HDR app that looks promising….that being Unified Color Express. Have you had time to evaluate this one? They also have one called Unfied Color Expose. If you do take a look at these I surely would like to hear you comments…..Thanks, William

    Here is the site: http://unifiedcolor.com
27. Matteo Bertino says:

    February 8, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Luminance is suitable for linux too.
28. Gordon says:

    February 9, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Matteo,

    Luminance was written for Linux with a Windows adaptation.
29. annie says:

    February 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    I recently acquired a used Mac G5 without the Intel Processor. I used to use a program called Topaz Adjust when I had a PC and it does not operate on the older Macs.

    http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/

    I was wondering if you knew or could suggest any other HDR programs that does photo enhancements and dramatic effects. I used to use it in conjunction with Photomatrix.

    Thanks for any suggestions.
30. Captain Kimo says:

    February 11, 2011 at 4:45 am

    The only plugin I can think of that might be available is called LucisArts.
31. annie says:

    February 11, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Thanks. I have heard of it but it comes with a $600. price tag and much more than I wanted to spend as I am not a professional photographer. Topaz Adjust was only $50. and as I said, just a fun program.

    Again, thanks for your response.
32. William Collins says:

    February 11, 2011 at 8:53 am

    I got a message from you about my comment….$600…where did you get that Unified Color Express is $99.00, and Expose is $199…Maybe you misread my comment, but $600???

    I am surprised you haven’t looked at the software…I have downloaded the trial version….It is quite good…

    Unified Color’s HDR PhotoStudio is quite old…I don’t ever see it on their website….

    There must be a misunderstanding….UNIFIED COLOR.com is the website…..
33. William Collins says:

    February 11, 2011 at 8:59 am

    Are you sure you have the right person…Lucas Arts? I don’t remember any questions that would have that answer.

    I am confused with your answers….

    I am ordering your ebook today……
34. Captain Kimo says:

    February 11, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    Annie was talking about Topaz Adjust, a detail enhancement program that is used to help boost contrast and detail. LucisArt is a similar program, only I forgot it was a super expensive program.
35. William Collins says:

    February 14, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Thanks for the info…now I’m on the same page….

    What is your eval of the Unified Color Express HDR app.? and the Expose version?

    Thanks, William
36. Captain Kimo says:

    February 15, 2011 at 9:21 am

    William, downloaded it and will try it out while I’m in Thailand, I should have a brand new HDR software review for 2011 before I get back.
37. Phil Morse says:

    February 24, 2011 at 7:47 am

    Capt.,

    Great review! Would you check out Oloneo PhotoEngine next time around? Still in free beta and (to me)easy to use for quick results.

    Phil
38. jlgomezlinares says:

    February 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    I use a lot of the EasyHDR Pro and I’m happy with it, for some photos that I like but also use Photomatic that, at the next review will not stop making a Pro version of EasyHDR, now in the V.2.02.02. Is also very well that ends PhotoPro HDR out and still lacks some things.
39. Surriya says:

    March 22, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Hi,

    First of all your reivews are very helpful. I am starting with HDR images, never done it before and looking of something for bignners. I saw your recommendations for bignners, however I heard about some free software of Photomatrix… do you how can I get that.. I definitly want to try something for free before I buy anything and with trial versions my experience is not good. I have photoshop element 7, is there a way to create HDR in PSE 7, don’t want to buy CS4.. does other softwares like photomatrix talk with PSE ?

    I will appreciate your help
40. annie says:

    March 24, 2011 at 8:01 pm

    If you try Photomatrix, it is a stand alone program and you can try a free trial with them. It is an easy program to use and produces some great results.

    Here is a link, you just need to choose whether it is for a Mac or a PC:

    http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html

    Hope this helps.

    Anne
41. Gord says:

    March 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Captain Kimo, got a challenge for you! Those 3 exposers that you used to test each of the HDR programs, can you put them in a zip file and allow the public to use them. I believe you are missing at the very least one that as far as I’m concerned beats all of these hands down
42. Jewell BunchIII says:

    March 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Hello My name is Jewell Bunch III i am a photographer working on a macbookpro laptop and using Adoble Ligh Room 2 and loving HDR features in light room i was wondering in your opinion on a mac platform what is the best if you ready want the best results
43. samer says:

    March 29, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    hi i i have a problem that i know how to do a hdr image on photoshop but i do not know how to save it as a hdr file
    thank you for helping
44. Captain Kimo says:

    April 3, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    Gord – the exposure I used are the 3 that can be downloaded at the top of this page… these are the actually exposures that I used.

    Jewell – I don’t own a MAC so my opinion on HDR software for MAC is limited.

    Samer – you can only save a HDR file as a 32bit file!
45. Gord says:

    April 4, 2011 at 6:01 am

    Captain Kimo, I can click on the thumb nail and they open up to a slide show. They are protected and unless I use a capture program you can not download them. Am I missing a different link on your page to them?

    Thanks Gord
46. Captain Kimo says:

    April 7, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Gord, the image is not protected, you can right click on the image and save image as or copy each link and paste it into the url browser bar.
47. Gord says:

    April 7, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Thank you!Sir….tried the copy link and it worked. Windows 7 along with the new Firefox has changed a few things when it comes to viewing pictures on the internet and the way they are displayed. Tried them out on a fully Licensed copy of HDR-SNS Pro. Was really pleased with the results I got back. A lot more realistic then most HDR Programs out there. Looking forward to your review on this peace of software. Thanks again for your help
48. Daniel says:

    April 19, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    What would be your best pick for interior real estate pictures?
49. Gord Marshall says:

    April 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Daniel, check out SNS-HDR Pro! You will find the results that you get from this software is a lot closer to the reality for Real Estate!

    http://www.sns-hdr.com/

    Example:

    http://digitalcoastimage.com/c.....index.html

    Just my choice at the moment
50. Bob Batten says:

    April 21, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    Great site. I’m a super-true beginner in HDR. Appreciate your work.