PDA

View Full Version : Post Processing HDR Program - A Beginner Test



EasyEd
January 16th, 2010, 20:14
Hey All,

I bought this program called Artizen HDR about 9 months ago and it worked briefly (couple days IIRC) and then the HDR part simply quit functioning as I would get an error 380 - whatever that is - which would either lock the program or quit (I don't recall which). After a couple rounds of emails doing the usual reinstalls and such no luck so I figured $46 down the drain.

I bought the program for 3 reasons:
- first it is a very full featured image/photo editor (all the standards like redeye, white and black points, gamma, contrast, saturation, noise, sharpening and curves and orton filters, etc and it supports layers, masks, lasso tool, brushes, cloning, etc and it reads a lot of RAW files just to name a few things it offers) so it offers a lot of post processing capability
- it gave me some HDR processing capability with the ability to combine images, a couple tone mapping operators the abilty to remove ghosting and rotate images.
- it was very reasonably (read inexpensive) priced

(I've seen no programs other than this one that offer post processing capability and HDR in one)

In short sort of a poor man's Photoshop or Aperture or Lightroom or Elements or any of the $100+ (up to $500-$600) image/photo processing programs for only $46 (still the current price).

Well since starting to participate in this photography forum I went back and checked and there is a new version out (the developers are actively continuing development and welcome user inut) and it supports full editing in 8, 16, 32 bit formats, handles big files and has a bunch of other stuff (like panorama stuff) updated that I've never used. Here is a link to the features it offers.

http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Artizen.htm

The support was very good and in fact I've come to learn is outstanding in most peoples experience. I had no complaints about the support I got several months ago I just figured for $46 it wasn't worth the hassle so I let it go even though the company was willing to continue trying to help me. The problem I had while not resolved because of me is now no longer a problem with the new version.

Well I've been playing with a very blah (but with a fair bit potential for experimenting with post processing) image a lot today in Artizen and am impressed with all I can do even though I don't know how to use most of it. I'm now very happy with the program.

I would recommend that anybody looking for an inexpensive photo editor with a lot of powerful post processing and HDR features take a serious look at artizen. It seems to me like you get a lot of capability for the cost of a high end FS model. Those of you here who know more than I about the kind of features one would want for photo post processing should go ahead and comment on what Artizen has to offer.

Now getting to the attached images. I took a picture from a hilltop near my house on an overcast day. Like I said it is a very blah image but I wanted to see what I could get out of it as I know there was detail in there that the camera image was not showing. So I processed it as a pseudo HDR (from one image not several). The first is what the camera delivered (Canon G9 I think not my Panny G1). Second is my first attempt at processing an overblown HDR in Artizen using the dramatic tone mapping algorithm. The third is an attempt at just manipulating the image using - I think - the simplest tone mapping algorithm called display in the program. I was trying to get something that looked like what I saw that day - it's still not right as the close colours are a bit over saturated while I have more haze in the mid ground than there was. It's not the fault of the program it's my inability showing through.

Please do not judge the program by my results. Have a look at this page to see more of what people who know what they are doing get.

http://www.supportingcomputers.net/Applications/Artizen/Gallery.htm

-Ed-

PS I've no financial interest in Artizen - it just seems to be a pretty powerful program for a low cost.

PSS I'm going to have to experiment with others images a bit - just for fun.

JorisVandenBerghe
January 17th, 2010, 02:34
For the moment Aperture does everything I need, a real full HDR-plugin (preferably made by Apple itself) would be appreciated though. I'm looking at getting Photomatix (either the Aperture plug-in or the stand-alone, full version) for now...

Looks really tempting though!

Kiwikat
January 17th, 2010, 07:01
I've also heard good things about Photomatix. Photoshop is good enough for dabbling with HDR for now. Photomatix produces much nicer images, but it isn't a cheap addon/plugin.

On another note, is anyone using any noise reduction plugins? I've been messing with neat image and it works way better than I ever thought possible. Depending on the image and attained noise profile, you can completely eliminate noise from an ISO 400 or 800 shot, while not hurting the detail one bit. On average I'd say it reduces ISO noise 1.5-2 stops. So like from 400 to 100 or so. They've got a free Photoshop plugin and standalone program that work on 1024 x 1024 files or smaller. The paid version has no size limit and has more features. Here's the link to their site: http://www.neatimage.com/. I'm no longer worried about noise when shooting in ISO 800. :salute:

JorisVandenBerghe
January 17th, 2010, 07:31
Photomatix produces much nicer images, but it isn't a cheap addon/plugin.
Fully agreed, it's about $ 100 (with VAT $ 129)...about 83 euro. You get what you pay for I, I hope...hundred bucks...:mixedsmi:

Too bad it (Artizen) is Windows-only :mixedsmi:. I think Artizen is (nearly ?) on par with Photomatix. And way cheaper...

I can't tell you much on the noise reduction software since I'm a simple planespotter and rarely shoot in low-light or indoors :kilroy:. I don't think I have ever used that ISO 800, 1600 or 3200 option...

The latest generation of cameras seems to have less problems with noise at higher ISO values than our generation of cameras...whereas the 450D and A350 could use ISO 1600 and 3200 respectively, nowadays most of them go to ISO 12800 or beyond (5D Mark II 25600, 1D Mark IV 102.400, Nikon D3S 102.400).

This one for instance has been made with Photomatix by a Dutch friend of mine, he really takes great photos (he's a real master of panning by the way (http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x14/xidewinder/gewoon%20mooi/_MG_43702.jpg)...:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45390301@N06/4219043923/in/set-72157623081025418/

EasyEd
January 17th, 2010, 09:13
Hey All,

I brought up Artizen primarily for anyone who hasn't already invested in high-end post processing software. Both Aperture and Lightroom cost near $200 US, Photoshop is more, Elements is about $100 but less powerful. Then you add on the cost (about $40 to around $150) of an HDR program which generally has very little post processing capability.

My thinking was why not have most of the power of high-end post-processing and some HDR ability for only $46? Seems like a perfect program for those getting into photography on a limited budget - spend your money on good glass first a good body second and then DO invest in post processing and you don't need to spend a small fortune for good software. A solid half the game in digital photography is in post processing - you won't find a good to great photographer today who doesn't post process unless still in film in which you have no choice.

About HDR programs. Photomatix is the standard however there are lots of them out there and they all give varying results. See this link

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14800199@N08/

and look at the top 3 pictures of the same scene processed with Photoshop, Photomatix and Picturenaut. Photomatix and Picturenaut are HDR programs. Some real differences. So you can easily end up with 2, 3 even 5 or 6 programs depending on what your subject matter is and the effect you want. Right now I lean toward the philosophy expressed in this thread

http://www.flickr.com/groups/artizenhdr/discuss/72157622708511127/

as I agree most tonemapping algorithms do have a distinct signature on the results you get and this may or may not be good... depending. I have Artizen and have used the trial versions of dynamic photo HDR, Photomatix and FDR tools and right now like Dynamic Photo HDR for effect and FDR Tools for capturing detail. I had a hard time with Photomatix and there are more out there I haven't tried yet. So I don't know what is best - I just know you can spend a lot of money in a hurry trying to find what your after.

That Neat Image program looks interesting as noise is definitely a problem.

-Ed-

Panther_99FS
January 17th, 2010, 11:27
Ah HDR....
I've seen some heated discussions about HDR around the 'net...

EasyEd,
Looks like you're off to a good start! :applause:

grumpos
January 19th, 2010, 20:24
I use photomatix and think that it is pretty good. Some subtle use of hdr below...

Cratermaker
January 20th, 2010, 07:39
It's hard to argue, IMHO, that HDR doesn't at the very least have usefulness in difficult shots where your subject is heavily back lit.

Cazzie
January 20th, 2010, 15:45
I haven't tried any HDE, but I do like to ply my hand at removing noise and making an over-exposed photo look better. Here's grumpos' shot after running it through Photoshop, Neat Image, and Virtual Photographer.

I'm gonna give that program a look see Ed, price is reasonable. That's a good start you have.

Caz

EasyEd
January 20th, 2010, 16:58
Hey All,

I took a run at Grumpos Pic as well. Just experimenting...

-Ed-

PS now that I look at it here I probably should have darkened it a bit.

grumpos
January 22nd, 2010, 03:19
Mmm, nothing wrong with the original exposure on my computer. Cazzie's is way too dark on my machine. Ed's is better but still looks too processed for my tastes.

I'm by no means anti-HDR, but I don't think that this subject benefits from the full blown treatment.