tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post6575536819066569734..comments2024-02-12T03:21:03.402-08:00Comments on Ron Martinsen's Photography Blog: UPDATE REVIEW: HDRSoft Photomatix 4.1ronmartblog.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-59475890934616059102012-03-30T14:57:06.977-07:002012-03-30T14:57:06.977-07:00The tool supports both and you are free to do what...The tool supports both and you are free to do what works best for your workflow. Generally speaking I prefer to work with 16-bit RAW files, but I just haven't seen any measuarble improvement in the dynamic range of sending Photomatix RAW or big TIFF files over sending it JPEG's. While in theory there should be a difference, I don't think its underlying code is taking advantage that extra bit depth. <br /><br />I'll admit that I'm not a HDR fanatic (i.e., you won't see any in my portfolio), but I appreciate that many people are (as evidence by the fact that has a following bigger than some religons) and generally speaking people don't print their images big. With the reality of what people do with their images (at best case it becomes wallpaper) then there aren't going to be a ton of benefits to warrant the slower performance. However, if you think you have benefits - then go for it - nobody is saying that you can't. <br /><br />Ronronmartblog.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-87799334988204285642012-03-30T07:28:53.493-07:002012-03-30T07:28:53.493-07:00Ron, I'm with Bob on this one. I’m not one to ...Ron, I'm with Bob on this one. I’m not one to obsess over pixels and details (many of the best photos do not show the full tonal range and all the details in the shadows) but I don't understand Trey's and your recommendation. The whole point of why an individual should be doing HDR is for as the name implies more dynamic range. You're crushing that dynamic range by only working on the 8bit jpg files. <br /><br />Why even shoot/work from RAW files to begin with if in the end you are only going to use 8bit images? (Although I will acknowledge that I have been known to do this, because honestly, you can get a better and sharper image with more accurate color if you process the jpg from the raw shot through for example DPP as opposed to relying on the jpg’s the camera produces – but a lot of people probably don’t realize this or never viewed the images at 100% in comparison to one another to see the difference.)<br /><br />Even if like you said, it’s just a web image (well if it’s purely web then it probably doesn’t matter at all – but what a waste of time if it’s just for that imo) or a smaller print (say smaller than 12x18). They should still work with the 16bit files and then just delete the tiff(s) in the end if they don’t want to deal with it or hold onto the larger images. They would still get better dynamic range, the whole point of HDR. I tried this recently and the jpg produced HDR had less detail and range than the Tiff produced one then saved to a jpg.<br /><br />At the end of the day, I don’t really care what people do with their images, but it’s just silly imo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-45314892287220090642011-08-20T13:33:40.021-07:002011-08-20T13:33:40.021-07:00It depends on your target output Bob. If you are j...It depends on your target output Bob. If you are just posting to the web, which in reality is all that most will ever do, then even full size 8-bit JPEG's have more data than you'll ever end up using on the target output destination. <br /><br />Now if your intent is to do a 13x19 or larger print for fine art then your recommendation makes perfect sense. Perhaps that is your workflows so I can understand your advice. <br /><br />It seems you get that point by your second paragraph, so I think we are on the same page. <br /><br />I would also agree with the theory that if you have the time, computing horsepower, and disk space, then it is worthwhile to use the largest source images that you can to get the best results. Of course, in that workflow I'd also advise working on the exposures in Photoshop before sending them to Photomatix and do things like noise reduction and dust spot removal (but not too much as that will wreak havoc in Photomatix). <br /><br />Ronronmartblog.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-35086650180044448892011-08-18T05:32:18.089-07:002011-08-18T05:32:18.089-07:00Passing JPEGs to PM as a recommended workflow? No...Passing JPEGs to PM as a recommended workflow? No. 16 bit TIFF files? Yes. It's true that the RAW conversion engine in PM isn't as good as ACR or others. But why give up all that quality by converting to JPEGs? That really makes no sense.<br /><br />For things like HDR timelapse I'll shoot and merge JPEG files but for those the higher quality isn't necessary since the end product is, at most, a 3MP equivalent video clip.<br /><br />For other purposes, give the HDR merge as much information as you can to get the best possible result. Sorry, but sending JPEGs to the HDR cooker as a matter of course isn't the best approach.Bob Fisherhttp://rf-photography.canoreply@blogger.com