Well, I finally got Photomatix. Upon playing around with it, I've found where it excels and falls behind my other program-of-choice, QtpfsGUI. They both have their strengths and weaknesses in different situations, which I will discuss here. Bear in mind, both are excellent programs. Also, remember that I do not know these programs inside and out like some who review software do. Everything I do is self taught, so differences in images are dependent not only on the programs capabilities, but also on how easy it is to learn and use each. I didn't read any guides, I just played with dials until I got an idea of what they do.
First off, I will post an image made with each program. These are made with the same set of pictures, and are made ONLY with these programs, to the best of my ability. Everything I would normally do in Gimp or Noiseware is left out. Since there is no definitive way to use the same settings on each program, as they process things quite differently. I could have spent more time making them look the same, but that would have defeated the purpose of this comparison. Instead, I just focused on making them look good.
First, the image from Photomatix:
http://i25.tinypic.com/b97vw3.jpgAnd the image from QtpfsGUI:
http://i27.tinypic.com/343hy1h.jpgSorry about the links... they're still full size, so posting the image would have been overkill. Use tabs to flick between them.
These were both made from five handheld images taken with a D300/18-200mmVR setup. Right off the bat, I notice how much bluer the sky is in Photomatix, and how much more detail is preserved in the shadows with QtpfsGUI. Photomatix also has more saturation (which I like a lot), where as QtpfsGUI has less halos on the horizon line. So far, it's an even run depending on what you need the program to do.
However, Photomatx blows QtpfsGUI out of the water when it comes to aligning the images, because it does it automatically, and corrects for rotation as well as shifting, then crops out parts that aren't used. Too see this, blow up the images and look at the bottom left corner. Photomatix is nice and sharp, while QtpfsGUI is a little smudged and has a black border. The smudges were caused by the program not correcting for rotation (my hands aren't as steady as a tripod), and the border is because it did not crop out parts that were not used after the images had been aligned. If I had taken this properly with a tripod, this wouldn't even be a problem. If you plan on doing handheld HDRs, photomatix is almost a necessity.
Now, onto the practicality part of things. Nobody would leave these images how they are. I just did that to show what can be done strait out of the program. Here, I put the images through some post processing (Gimp, Noisware, Picasa) to get them to a point where I might actually show them off somewhere.
Photomatix:
http://i32.tinypic.com/x1k5zs.jpgQtpfsGUI:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2rr8kz9.jpgIn my opinion, both are infinitely better (And free too! I use the community version of Noiseware). The QtpfsGUI is still a little blurry, but remember, this is art. If someone is busy obsessing on technical quality, they're not paying attention to making things look appealing, like they should. One of my
favorite HDRs that I've made came from three shots that weren't made to go together in the first place.
Now, down to business. Which one is better? Neither. If you're willing to take the time needed, you can get just as good of a photo with either. As of now (July 26, 2009), all of
my HDR photos are made with QtpfsGUI.
Also, QtpfsGUI is free, which is much less than the $100 for Photomatix Pro.
Depending on what you do and need, either is useful. If you're on a budget, or prefer the more creationist HDR look, QtpfsGUI is your best bet. However, if you shoot handheld, or want things to look smoother and more realistic, you'll probably need Photomatix.
I hope this helps at least one person!
-Raven
Registered users can change the theme to whatever they want!
