Strengths and weeknesses of all HDR programs

Welcome to Strictly HDR!

This site is dedicated to High Dynamic Range Photography.

There are several categories that you cannot view as a guest, so please take a moment to register!

[kevyo]

I am trying to get a better feeling for the different HDR programs out there and would like to hear everyone's opinions.  

So... for each of the specific programs that you have used what do you have to say about the following:

1. likes
2. dislikes
3. features that you think are essential
4. features that are unique and worthwhile to that program

(Please reference the specific program for the trait you are talking about)

Thanks!!

[DAVE RHUBERG]

I think Photoshop CS3 is essential for me, as a starting place and RAW merger.  I really like the purist approach more, and the CS3 32bit conversion process has almost everything I want.

Photomatix is excellent also, but needs Photoshop support.  I prefer the Detail Enhancer plugin for Photoshop.  If I want to have more control over the local operator/detail enhancer, Photomatix is the best for "HDR look".  The best "Creationist" for most people.

FDRtools is an excellent alternative to Photomatix, with a less intuitive interface, but more control, at least over what I want to control. More like an old DOS program, but with modern utility.

[ravenhawk82]

Personally, I use a collection of programs for my images. First, I use QtpfsGUI for combining and tonemapping the images I work with. Then, I use Noiseware (the community edition) to get rid of noise in the image, and finally Gimp 2 for all other post processing, such as color curves, saturation, contrast, and brightness adjustments.

I find all of the programs to be more than adequate for my uses. They get the job done, and are generally easy to use. They have most, if not all, of the necessary features in their more costly brethren. Granted, the costly equivalents of these programs have more features in total, but these do everything I need to do, at no cost.