# Photomatix vs. HDR Expose



## rexbobcat (Jan 11, 2013)

So I've gotten tired of the HDR function in PS. It's tedious and difficult to maneuver to get the pleasing results that I want (its HDRs look more like exposure fusion images). And I've been asked to photograph the interiors of some campus buildings and I think I want to employ a little bit of HDR in poorly lit areas because it's kind of difficult to light a ginormous college space. lol

So I guess I'm just wondering a few things about these two programs if anybody has any experience with them.

Photomatix is the big name in HDR, but I've noticed that a lot of its effects are very stylized, hence the surge in "overcooked" images.

HDR Expose, however, uses some proprietary color software that keeps the colors more authentic from the get-go than Photomatix, making the images much more realistic. And it's easy to get them that way.

How difficult is it to get a realistic HDR out of Photomatix? And vice versa; is it possible to get that stylized look with HDR Expose? I love the stylized look, but I would like the option of making it truer to the scene without having to load up two very similar, programs onto my computer. Does anyone have any good examples of realistic HDRs that they've done with Photomatix (or HDR Expose). I just want to hear the verdict from people who have more experience with this.


----------



## KmH (Jan 11, 2013)

Using Photomatix, you have 2 tone mapping choices

&#8226; Detals Enhancer - the stylized look
&#8226; Tone Compressor - truer to the scene


----------



## amolitor (Jan 11, 2013)

For the kinds of things you're interested in, you might just do it by hand. A couple of exposures (or even just the raw) onto a couple of layers, some masking and blending. It's pretty easy if there's just a couple of well defined areas you want to push some detail into.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 11, 2013)

What about the color though? From my previous trials with older versions of Photomatix, the colors kind of warp, like green becomes reallllyyy green and kind of neon as opposed to pastel-ly


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> For the kinds of things you're interested in, you might just do it by hand. A couple of exposures (or even just the raw) onto a couple of layers, some masking and blending. It's pretty easy if there's just a couple of well defined areas you want to push some detail into.



I've thought about that...but it's sooooo tedious...especially when you have to go around the edge of an irregular shape. Then I get halos from not being precise enough. lol


----------



## ann (Jan 11, 2013)

You might also check out Photo engine by Oleno it gives very realistic images with little in any tweaking.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 11, 2013)

ann said:
			
		

> You might also check out Photo engine by Oleno it gives very realistic images with little in any tweaking.



Lol yeah I just found that one too. There are so many options. 

I'm sure they all do basically the same thing but it's the nuances that add up after a while.


----------



## dmunsie (Jan 15, 2013)

Seems alot of users just use the presets in Photomatix and click save.  You 100% can go from natural to crazy surreal (glow/pastel/etc) with any level in between. Fast & super easy to use.


----------

