Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
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
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I agree - version 4 is not as good as 3.
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
I think photomatix 3.1 was the probably the best version. I still use it but not with same enthusiasm.
I think 4 has the potential to make HDR images as good as 3 but it is harder work and involves more sliders.
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)
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar