Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Photomatix Pro 4

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    TonyBrooks
    7 Feb 2013 - 2:43 PM

    Hi All

    Is it me? or has anyone else have a problem as I believe that Photomatix Pro 4 is not as good as version 3 with all the additions the images all look over cooked as I put it and poor quality.

    I would be interested if others have any thoughts

    Regards

    Tony

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    7 Feb 2013 - 2:43 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    MartinBrown
    MartinBrown e2 Member 4124 forum postsMartinBrown vcard England
    7 Feb 2013 - 3:01 PM

    I find 4 a lot better than 3 - less halos etc. Although i do export the raw images from CS6 camera raw after a few tweaks and keep most of the sliders very low. HOw many brackets and what ev spacing are you using?

    Dave_Canon
    7 Feb 2013 - 5:30 PM

    I find serious problems with Photomatix 4. Parts of the final image seem hazy. This has been indentified and reported by many.

    I have compared PM 4 with Oloneo and Lightroom 4 and Oloneo is excellent and very easy to use. LR4 can now edit 32 bit files directly. You can take your set of exposures and produce a 32 bit file using Photoshop and then edit this file in LR4. If you are already used to editing single Raw files in LR4 then you will find this easy. The exposure slider can normally be adjusted to + and - 5 stops but for a 32 bit file it is + and - 10 stops. When comparing the three alternatives mentioned LR4 was better for one example only and Olonepo was better for all the other examples with PM4 last in every case.

    Dave

    cameracat
    cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
    7 Feb 2013 - 5:48 PM

    It seems that ver 4 Pro has gone down hill in many ways.

    So much so that I rarely use it these days.

    Nik HDR eFex 2 is my weapon of choice for HDR pixel mangling, It is a much better software in all areas.

    keithh
    keithh e2 Member 1022898 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna31 Constructive Critique Points
    7 Feb 2013 - 6:56 PM

    Agree that PM Pro 4 is just edging towards being what might be termed crap. Pains me to say it as I was a Beta Tester for the the very first version and was a member of the now defunct HDR Group emerged from the Beta Testers of various HDR/Mapping software.

    seahawk
    seahawk e2 Member 7533 forum postsseahawk vcard United Kingdom
    7 Feb 2013 - 7:57 PM

    I agree - version 4 is not as good as 3.

    Nick_w
    Nick_w e2 Member 73840 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
    7 Feb 2013 - 10:24 PM

    I've looked at a couple of HDR's recently. But contrary to most of the findings I've found PM 4 to be OK. I have noticed you can't push the strength slider as far without it looking overdone. If I get an image I'm happy with I save the result as a preset - then when you get a bank of them its a lot easier to scroll down the thumbs till you get one thats near. I'm not keen on the obvious tone mapped image I tend to stick to the realistic / realistic+ settings to start. Also I have always either made a couple of conversions (for different parts of the image), and blended in photoshop - often layered with one or more of the originals.

    One thing I have noticed in some images the luminosity slider doesn't work correctly - increasing luminosity sometimes makes the image darker!!

    PM has always had that hazy appearance (check out the Scott Kelby books / articles on it), its easily corrected in PS.

    Also HDR in Photoshop has come on a long way since the early incarnations

    wasper
    wasper e2 Member 8532 forum postswasper vcard Ireland1 Constructive Critique Points
    8 Feb 2013 - 2:44 PM

    I think photomatix 3.1 was the probably the best version. I still use it but not with same enthusiasm.

    digicammad
    digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
    8 Feb 2013 - 4:41 PM

    I think 4 has the potential to make HDR images as good as 3 but it is harder work and involves more sliders.

    Nick_w
    Nick_w e2 Member 73840 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
    8 Feb 2013 - 8:41 PM

    Well after the debate, I thought I would process a HDR landscape (the first in about 4 years - I've uploaded it today) - and no I dont give a jot about votes etc just wanted to show whats possible.

    So 7 images prepared in Lightroom - then Photomatix - back to lightroom - finished in Photoshop (only contrail removed, resized & sharpened for web)

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.