# New HDR Software - Machinery 2.0 HDR Effects.



## daarksun (Jan 3, 2012)

Found this new hdr software that does the same effects using a single photo without having to bracket images. Planning 
to download my copy tomorrow hopefully. 

The website is Program do HDR MACHINERY. HDR Effects, Natural HDR 

I was really impressed with the software and have ordered my copy of this cool software. These are processed images 
from their website. The website shows the original images then the processed work. 

It could easily make my Topaz software nearly obsolete if it works as good as it looks. Oh! If you live in the US it's just 
$44. I will post some pix when I've got a few done.


----------



## TheBiles (Jan 3, 2012)

That's tone mapping software. Not HDR.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 3, 2012)

As far as I know, all the current HDR software out there will let you make faux-HDRs by tone-mapping single images.


----------



## TheBiles (Jan 3, 2012)

From the OP's description, I was under the impression that this was only tone mapping software.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 3, 2012)

Very cool I'll check it out thanks


----------



## Garbz (Jan 4, 2012)

For the record and for the benefit of those who are new to this, using a single image to get that HDR look does not achieve any additional dynamic range. The HDR part comes in when you combine multiple exposures. Tonemapping is a dynamic range compression method to convert HDR files to weird looking files with normal dynamic range. 

Put simply, you won't get perfect exposure from a single file where normally you need multiple files regardless of what software you use.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 4, 2012)

It's better to tonemap most photos, most monitors are not good enough to display the real dynamic range in all pictures.


----------



## ann (Jan 4, 2012)

hm, recently I was looking at some software from a fellow from Poland and is suppose to be basically a tone mapping program. It had interesting result, i wonder if this is the same? Off the top of my head I don't remember the other site name, need to double check.

However, i must agree with the others hdr and tonemapping aren't the same thing and as an instructor i have tested lots of hdr programs and as Buster indicates they all will tone map a singe file doesn't mean they all will look alike, just as every hdr program produces a different look, these do as well.


----------



## ann (Jan 4, 2012)

Here is the site that recommended the program I referred to in the above comment.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/sns-hdr-easy-natural-hdr-images.html

You may or may not find it useful.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 4, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> It's better to tonemap most photos, most monitors are not good enough to display the real dynamic range in all pictures.



I lolled. Thanks for the laugh, Michael.


----------



## daarksun (Jan 4, 2012)

Ordered my Copy today.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 5, 2012)

I just noticed it is only for windows. No Mac version.


----------



## daarksun (Jan 6, 2012)

Downloaded the software. I really like the software. easy to figure out and simple to use.  The original is right out of the camera from a few months ago. 

Here the original shot unprocessed = mostly a garbage shot. 





Here the same shot run through Machinery 2.0. Image took around 5 minutes to run it through. The presets are nice and you can adjust after the presets are used. I don't like the tools on the right side, takes a bit getting use to scrolling upand down. Still playing with that part. I like how you can fine tune the settings you need. This is the area that is so much nicer than the Topaz. Each area broken down to different parts with fine tuning adjustments.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jan 6, 2012)

daarksun said:


> Downloaded the software. I really like the software. easy to figure out and simple to use. The original is right out of the camera from a few months ago.
> 
> Here the original shot unprocessed = mostly a garbage shot.
> 
> ...



This is pretty cool, a great edit. 

But how is Machinery any different from Nik, OnOne, Photomatix, and CS5 HDR?


----------



## daarksun (Jan 6, 2012)

Here's another image. This one also was ran through in about five minutes.  The softare was easy and I was able do this with just one image. I could do it with the 
Topaz software but it's difficult to fine tune the Topaz and the mid-tones have to be handled with Elements. Using the Machinery 2.0 I was able to do it all in the one package.  


This is the original image... 





This image is processed...


----------



## daarksun (Jan 6, 2012)

one more. Another five minutes or so. Able to remove the glare from the window behind the tire and bring out the details in the paint scheme while controling the details, lighting and sharpness. the original image is a decent image, but after the Machinery 2.0 the it's definitely a better piece of imagary. The product is definitely worth the $44 price tag. 

It also processes the image must faster than my Topaz does. The selection is made directly to the image you are working on. You don't have to make the change like topaz in the software and then wait for it to process the full size image that's open in Photoshop.  


original image







Processed Image:


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 6, 2012)

daarksun said:


> one more. Another five minutes or so. Able to remove the glare from the window behind the tire and bring out the details in the paint scheme while controling the details, lighting and sharpness. the original image is a decent image, but after the Machinery 2.0 the it's definitely a better piece of imagary. The product is definitely worth the $44 price tag.
> 
> It also processes the image must faster than my Topaz does. The selection is made directly to the image you are working on. You don't have to make the change like topaz in the software and then wait for it to process the full size image that's open in Photoshop.
> 
> ...



Looks nice... but all it does is increase local contrast. I would be happier if it does tonal compression while increasing contrast.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 6, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > It's better to tonemap most photos, most monitors are not good enough to display the real dynamic range in all pictures.
> ...



It's pretty true, to show the full dynamic range of photos, you might need to discard the highlight/shadow information or tone map. But not everyone would tone map things cause' pictures are not only shown in monitors.


----------



## daarksun (Jan 18, 2012)

Just a quick note on the technical side of the software.  I bought two station software - one station would not work properly.  The tech support area was super nice and attempted to assist as much as possible with questions and attempts going back and forth.  I finally got the odd station working, so I have the full version on both units.  

Still enjoying the software and the features it brings.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 14, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > EchoingWhisper said:
> ...



It's not "pretty true." It's ENTIRELY OPINION. 

I think 90%+ of photographers would disagree with you.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 21, 2012)

Have you considered paying the folks who own/operate this forum to advertise?

I ask because, frankly, this is coming off like spam, IMHO.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 24, 2012)

does this program do anything different than what Photomatix does when you click tonemap instead of doing a 3 pic HDR import?
From what little I understand about HDR, I was under the impression that a HDR pic required more than one picture at different exposures. 
If you only use one picture isnt that just tonemapping and/or saturating?


----------



## x.Hazem.x (Jun 25, 2012)

that's all nice, so keep it up


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 25, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> It's better to tonemap most photos, most monitors are not good enough to display the real dynamic range in all pictures.



I don't take photos to only view them on a LCD screen.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jun 26, 2012)

prodigy2k7 said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you print? Tell me what paper and what ink could have the dynamic range (20EV+-) of your eye?


----------



## that1guy (Aug 3, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> I just noticed it is only for windows. No Mac version.



this sucks i looked too... doesnt look like a mac version will be out... photomatix all the way still


----------



## KmH (Nov 5, 2012)

Closed to deter spammers.


----------

