Why Photomatrix?

[Mike LeBlanc]

While I am certainly familiar with Photoshop and use the CS series, I am not familiar with Photomatrix. I am interested in knowing what are the advantages to Photomatrix over Photoshop? Thanks.

[bigrobo89]

Mike, Photomatix is a dedicated HDR processing program which allows for multiple exposures to be blended in various ways. If you visit their websiteHDR photo software & plugin for Lightroom, Aperture & Photoshop - Tone Mapping, Exposure Fusion & HDR Imaging for photography you should get a greater understanding of what the software offers.

It's certainly a very capable piece of software, if you'd like some examples all the HDR images on my flickr were processed in photomatix.

Hope this helps clear a couple of things up.

Paul

[LeeR]

With the tremendous success of Photoshop and similar programs, some companies have found success in producing solutions for very specific problems within those programs. There are programs that specifically deal with noise and sharpness issues, for instance, that tend to do a better job than the tools that come with Photoshop. (This is not always the case, however. There are times when you could save yourself a great deal of money just learning to use PS better.)

Photomatix is available as both a standalone program and a PS plug-in made specifically to help people with HDR images. Unlike PS which has an almost endless range of tools and settings, its is designed to help with one specific issue. The program is relatively inexpensive so they have sold tons of copies and thereby helped millions of people do something that is somewhat difficult in PS alone. (I can do the same thing in PS so I have never felt the need to buy Photomatix, but it is an extremely popular tool so I have to assume that many people have found value in it.)

With this information, let me give you a warning. HDR is something that needs to be done with great subtlety though it rarely is. Those who do it well use a deft hand and only leave the faintest of hints that HDR has been applied. Some others push the boundaries to produce images beyond what we see in nature, but again, they do it with tremendous sensitivity. However, the people who exercise this kind of subtlety seem to be exceedingly rare. The rest leave the Internet littered with child-like attempts at art that are just awful. My own advice would be to stay away from it; it's a fade that will soon pass much like selective coloring did a few years ago.

[navcom]

Lee...I'm not so sure HDR is a fad. I agree with you pretty much completely. I'm a traditionalist as well and get really annoyed at those who try to pass off overly processed images as photography. Don't get me wrong, I think some of them are fantastic! But it's really not photography any more than taking a picture and applying a PS filter that makes it look like it was oil painted, charcoal drawn, or embossed. After this, it's left photography and entered the graphic arts realm.

But a passing fad? I'm not so sure. It's been around for quite awhile now. And there was never a "selective color" setting on my camera. The newer cameras are coming out with HDR options built in. Granted...they are intended to be used to overcome a camera limitation...limited dynamic range...but we all know what they will be used for...HDR art. And quite honestly I have no problem with that whatsoever...as long as we don't pass it off as pure photography. It's art, but graphic art in my mind.

The good thing about HDR is it's got a whole new generation of folks interested in photographic art. They get out, experiment, and learn things. The problem is many are so new that they never really become "photographers" and think that being able to move a couple sliders to "full max" makes them an accomplished artist. Neat art? Yes! Accomplished artist? Ahhh...no.

I've used HDR very subtly for years to increase DR where a ND grad won't work, But lately I've been experimenting with more processed HDR...trying a bit more "edgy" material to see what the customer thinks. Interestingly enough, when I post them online, I get tons of folks just crooning over the HDR versions versus the traditional versions of the same scene. I posted one on a forum and got more positive responses in 2 hours than on any photo I've ever posted!

But when I put them for sale, the customers (you know, the one's with the money?), they still buy the traditional ones. Their honest feedback says what I've suspected all along...too cartoonish and unrealistic. They want my work to be traditional and resemble what their eyes see. I had one guy tell me that if he wanted this type of image, he can buy a velvet Elvis print. I about died laughing!

I can't argue with them. They have the money. But it could be my market niche too...local landscape photographer, local customers and tourists. People expect realistic representations of the area in a photograph. If they want impressionist, they'll just buy a painting.

My two cents.

[sk66]

HDR is not a fad...it will be around from now on...hell some camera's even do HDR in camera..
HDR can be "truer" to the real experience (if not overcooked)..And even when completely overdoe and not "photography" as much as "photographic art", it will remain viable.

To answer the question, because it's "easy"....tends to be overdone in typical use..

[Jim Bryant]

How true! Just another way to make things easier to do.

[Aleix]

Something it hasn't been mentioned: faux HDR. I don't know if Photoshop has such a function which produces it automatically like Photomatix. Photomatix allows you to produce a HDR image out from a single RAW file (instead of the normal HDR approach which is by using differently exposed RAWs). However I find that if the base image for the faux HDR is not 'perfectly' exposed, or the HDR settings used in excess, then many imperfections appear in the output image.

[viking-Martin]

I've done a lot of tests with Photomatix Pro, PS CS5 HDR Pro and NIK Software HDR Efex Pro. It depends on what you have for expectations.
If you already have Photoshop, then you have a very good tool with HDR Pro in CS5.
If you only want to have your images out of e.g. Lightroom or Aperture, then Photomatix Pro or the new NIK HDR Efex Pro will be your best friend.

I most like the HDR Pro of PS CS5. Or if I work with Lightroom, I prefer to use Photomatix Pro. NIK HDR Efex Pro is not as good as the both CS5 and Photomatix for my taste and images. But you get good results if you like their style.

If you only take a look on the result of the noise it's first PS CS5, then Photomatic and then NIK Software. But there is not such a big difference between them.