Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DR: Getting maximum information from a single exposure  (Read 4286 times)
BigBadWolfie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2012, 07:30:43 AM »
ReplyReply

The reason I ask is that I have HDR Efex Pro 2 but I haven't played with it.  I've had limited experience playing with HDR Efex Pro 1.  I have quite a few bracketed photos that I intend to develop using HDR but I haven't gotten around to it.  I'm not into the hyperprocessed HDR look, which was the primary reason I didn't end up buying the more popular photomatrix.  From my limited experienced, it's pretty easy to achieve a non-hyperprocessed HDR look with HDR Efex.

With that said, I'm all for buying up software that adds another tool in my toolbox.  How will SNS compliment HDR Efex Pro 2?
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2012, 09:22:52 AM »
ReplyReply

That, again, is a subjective issue.  Personally, I don't like HDR Efex Pro.  But I'm not a fan of ny Nik products.  When I reviwed it, it seemed more geared to the grunge/surreal look and I never was able to achieve a 'natural' result that I was happy with.  Speed wasn't great either.  I haven't tried v2, but from what I've seen, the tonemapping isn't really any better.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3758


« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2012, 10:16:18 AM »
ReplyReply

That, again, is a subjective issue.  Personally, I don't like HDR Efex Pro.  But I'm not a fan of ny Nik products.  When I reviwed it, it seemed more geared to the grunge/surreal look and I never was able to achieve a 'natural' result that I was happy with.  Speed wasn't great either.  I haven't tried v2, but from what I've seen, the tonemapping isn't really any better.

I agree with Bob's observations. From what I've seen from others, HDR Efex Pro is indeed more suited for producing the grungy look than natural looking tonemapping. Based on that I never tried it in depth myself, also because of its price. A photographer firiend of mine did test it in more depth, and didn't like the overprocessed look, and it also produced halo artifacts that were very hard to avoid. He also reached the same conclusion, and stayed with SNS-HDR.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2012, 07:36:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I tested SNS-HDR (and bought a license) but I'm not really into HDR and find PV 2012 in Lightroom mostly good enough for my humble needs.

Best regards
Erik




I agree with Bob's observations. From what I've seen from others, HDR Efex Pro is indeed more suited for producing the grungy look than natural looking tonemapping. Based on that I never tried it in depth myself, also because of its price. A photographer firiend of mine did test it in more depth, and didn't like the overprocessed look, and it also produced halo artifacts that were very hard to avoid. He also reached the same conclusion, and stayed with SNS-HDR.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged

BigBadWolfie
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2012, 08:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

That, again, is a subjective issue.  Personally, I don't like HDR Efex Pro.  But I'm not a fan of ny Nik products.  When I reviwed it, it seemed more geared to the grunge/surreal look and I never was able to achieve a 'natural' result that I was happy with.  Speed wasn't great either.  I haven't tried v2, but from what I've seen, the tonemapping isn't really any better.

I guess that's where we differ.  I'm a fan of Nik's products.  I do agree with you that the first version seemed more geared to the grunge/surreal look and that's probably because they want to be an alternative to photomatrix.  The newest version still retains that capability, but I find the tonemapping to be better and I'm basing it on the results I was able to achieve trying out HDR Efex Pro2 after I upgraded.  I think you'll find that color and contrast is better processing your photos with the second version. Give it a try and tell me what you think.  There are also plenty of samples online that I felt looks pretty natural.  I thought achieving a natural look was pretty easy by simply going easy on the sliders to the point where one might not notice the added resolution and the opening up of shadows if not viewed side by side with the original.


I agree with Bob's observations. From what I've seen from others, HDR Efex Pro is indeed more suited for producing the grungy look than natural looking tonemapping. Based on that I never tried it in depth myself, also because of its price. A photographer firiend of mine did test it in more depth, and didn't like the overprocessed look, and it also produced halo artifacts that were very hard to avoid. He also reached the same conclusion, and stayed with SNS-HDR.

Cheers,
Bart
The newest version has new ghost reduction algorithms for what it's worth.  As for the price, I guess it depends on the version you buy. I see that SNS' pro version is more expensive than HDR Efex, while the home version is cheaper.

Maybe I'll try out the SNS after testing the HDR Efex Pro2 more thoroughly to see if it fulfill my needs.  Am I correct in saying that SNS doesn't offer a full trial version? The trial version is their free version without the graphical interface right?
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3758


« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2012, 10:28:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Am I correct in saying that SNS doesn't offer a full trial version? The trial version is their free version without the graphical interface right?

Hi,

No, the full version with the GUI you can download from the website is the trial version and it is fully functional (including batch mode), but its output size was limited (maybe that has changed) until you purchase a licence. With the licence key came a different download location (maybe that has changed, dunno).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad