|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:Well, for that matter photoshop is expensive. But I've played around with the merge to HDR on CS3 and I can't find a way to tone map. And 99 dollars seems like a lot to spend when I've not done much HDR and it has fairly limited use for me. The Qtpfsgui incorporates 8-9 published algorithms - you'd think that unless Photomatix uses a secret, proprietary one that you could recreate what they've done on the open source platform. Does anyone know? I use qtpfsgui, however, there's no way for me to help you out here. I have no idea what the results you're looking for look like. I've gotten some very "surreal" results out of qtp, using the Fattal algo- the kind of effect that the "20 HDR images that will BLOWYOURFUCKINGMIND" top reddits look like. Is that what you're going for, or are you looking for a well balanced image, something that doesn't scream HDR? Have you spent much time working with QTPFSGUI yet? It's a heck of a beast to wrangle, and there are a lot of things to tweak, but I've gotten good results from it. Have you read up on HDR processes, or watched a tutorial? There are a couple of good youtube tutorials on how to do it in CS3, and there are good results to be found there, have you tried any? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVuDbcAfN_I is one that was very helpful to me. There's a pile of links with this video as well, for photoshop HDR merging, tweaking, you name it. There are also a few good books for HDRI. $100 for an app isn't a lot of money in the pro photo world (actually, it's dirt cheap). That being said, if you're only loving around in HDR, I can see the cost being prohibitive. QTPFSGUI to Photomatix is as Gimp is to Photoshop, more or less. You've got to be prepared to work a lot harder to get not quite as tight results unless you're willing to pay for software. fake edit: the last paragraph is in no way shape or form meant to provoke Gimp badasses who can do anything that's done in photoshop in Gimp, nor to start a PS vs. Gimp debate.
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2009 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:A good photojournalist sets white-balance on the scene :P (Or shoots RAW anyway and gets yelled at by editors with slow computers later) This is what the raw+jpg is for, but it's truly a bitch because unless you have the tits-fast CF you can spend too much time waiting for your media to write. Most of what I shot during the campaign I shot in .raw, but when I was shooting specific assignments (mostly rich white people) I'd shoot raw+jpg because the new media guys wanted the shots now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 09:35
|
|