Here is the final rendition of the Photomatix image:

The following adjustments were made to the converted image:

• brightness increased slightly via an adjustment layer
• black point increased slightly via a levels layer
• midtones punched up slightly via a curves layer
• brightness of trees increased slightly via a masked layer
• snowy / icy parts brightened (white point dropped slightly), via a masked levels layer
• whites of selected small areas of snow and ice increased further via a masked saturation adjustment layer
• a bit more snap added via a high pass overlay layer at 20% opacity
• noise reduction and selective sharpening on the base layer

Having gone through both workflows with the same example image, we can look at a head-to-head comparison of the results.

Comparison of Workflow Results

Here are the final images from each workflow once more:

CS2 version	Photomatix version

Certainly it is possible that either image could be improved further. However, I feel those improvements would be small increments, and not favor either version of the image over the other. This would leave the Photomatix version with the advantage. Having worked through numerous HDR images over the past six months, as well as reading a lot of commentary on the Internet, in my opinion the tone mapper in Photomatix simply produces more interesting results with less work. Here are some general critiques between the two versions:

• The Photomatix version has more drama in the sky. The CS2 version has possibly more natural tonal range (less black), but seems washed out, gray and a touch plastic in comparison.
• The Photomatix version contains better detail in the trees, especially visible from the center to the right. The CS2 version is more blocked up.
• The Photomatix version shows better contrast, color tone and detail across the ice surface. Again, the CS2 version is dull, gray and generally lacking in sharp, punchy details.
• The CS2 version has a smoother tonal appearance over-all but this comes at the cost of contrast, where the Photomatix version is better.

There is one notable downside with the Photomatix version of this image that I had to deal with during processing, remnants of which will be seen below in the 100% crops. That downside is emphasis of noise and other fine grained artifacts in the source images (such as JPEG compression or Bayer mask anti-aliasing artifacts). The Photomatix algorithms which emphasize microcontrast in desirable image detail can also really bring up the less desirable details. The CS2 version of the image does not exhibit this condition.

MultimediaPhoto is aware of this situation and the support FAQ for Photomatix mentions some potential work-arounds in addition to simply post-processing the tone mapped image with your favorite noise reduction tool. A pending release of the application is slated to include a new option for the microcontrast setting that reportedly will minimize the effects of noise. This functionality was not available in time for this article.

Here are some 100% crops from the two versions of the image:

CS2 version	Photomatix version

Actual image data looks very comparable between the two versions. The Photomatix version has more drama (darker tone and a bit more contrast), while some remaining artifacts are visible. The CS2 version is flatter in tone and a bit washed out; more work might improve it.

CS2 version	Photomatix version

The CS2 version has a bit less detail, and the trees have blocked up. Some artifacts are evident around the top edges of the up-slope groups of trees, which look like registration errors. Some whites are a bit too strong, probably clumsiness on my part. Color tone in the trees is better in the Photomatix version, but here the noise-like artifacts are again visible.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Feel free to send your comments on this article to the at NatureScapes.Net.

All content on this site is copyrighted material as indicated. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited.