Why Use That POS Photomatix When There's Better Software?
Unbelievable
Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"? It makes
Photomatix look like MS Paint.
http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
herd following sheep that you are?
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.
Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and UGLY
effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software. The
world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images created by that
useless POS programming.
Savageduck
For once you have actually added something useful to the debate.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
DRS
news:2009062807343444303-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom
And so nicely, too.
I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
page is bloody awful.
Unbelievable
wrote:
>> On 2009-06-28 07:03:45 -0700, Unbelievable <noco...@noaddress.com>
>> said:
>>>
>>> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or
>>> still stupidly use it, ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo
>>> HDR"? It makes Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>>>
>>> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>>>
>>> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the
>>> mindless herd following sheep that you are?
>>>
>>> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>>>
>>> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out
>>> loud. Do your part in helping to stomp out those garish, surreal, and
>>> UGLY
>>> effects that everyone creates with beginner's Photomatix software.
>>> The world is already flooded to the brim with the crap images
>>> created by that useless POS programming.
>>
>
>I'll have a look at it though. I hope the software is good because the home
>page is bloody awful.
>
>
Paint some rouge, lipstick, and a frilly bra on Mona Lisa, maybe you'll
find her attractive.
Is that all it is with you fools? The homepage and software has to "look
purty" or the superior results it can produce doesn't matter? Are you aware
that rarely do the software authors create the websites that sell their
work? Most software authors don't even care who represents it, they're into
the programming, not the cutesy GUI shit that attracts subhuman idiots and
kindergartners like you. Good programmers could care less if their work
pleases you or not, just so long as their method produces better results
than other programmers' methods. That's what drives them, the good ones
anyway, not what moron consumers like you might think of it.
Holy fuck. No wonder companies like Adobe can snowball you so easily. Put a
new pretty cover on shit that hasn't changed one bit in functionality for
over 9 years and you're on it like white on rice.
Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.
Alan Browne
> Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
> of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.
Please do post your 21 best photos to make us collapse in awe.
John McWilliams
>
> Go back to your mindless herd mentality where you belong. Your endless sea
> of stupid-on-hooves is getting in the way of something called progress.
The fact that you're so interested in prodding such a bunch of dullards
is telling.
Mooooo.
Savageduck
I took a look the OSX version, which might do the job, but is a very
clunky rendition of a Windows interface running as an emulation of the
Windows version in X Server.
It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX
software avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these
developers is all too obvious.
The concept is good, and the results may be good, but the overall lock
into an arcane Windows interface is awful.
It needs a lot of work to make it ready for prime time in OSX.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX software
> avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these developers
> is all too obvious.
Actually I find many OS X specific programs poorly designed, needing
more mouse moves and clicks than on comparable Windows apps. The
included OS X calculator's unit conversion method is an absolute bore to
use compared to a Win app such as PCalc. Apple's own "Pages" and
"Numbers" (word processing and spreadsheet) programs are atrocious
designs - so bad I might buy the MS office pack (which I returned last
year).
Other programs I've recently DL'd designed for Mac OS X have been really
badly designed.
I really hate in OS X how 'drop down' menus start at the top of the
primary display, esp. when the application window is in a second display.
As an OS, OS X is superior in almost all ways, but the GUI paradigm
could use many improvements. The notion that a program's menu bar be
detached to the top of the primary display is one of the worst aspects
of the Mac OS X GUI IMO.
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows machine.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
And ... THEY'RE OFF!
And now the pretend-photographers quickly veer off into an area that they
know a little something about, the computers under their fingers. And prove
that they know absolutely nothing about cameras and photography. They stay
away from those scary topics every chance they get.
Do go on proving how you avoid all topics about photography. It's quite
revealing.
Savageduck
BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results
aren't too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad
either.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Spanjaard
>> That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
>> however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
>> has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
>> interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows
>> machine.
>
> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
I certainly wouldn't pay for it based on this result. Your Photomatix-
versions, although far from perfect, were much better than this one.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Alan Browne
> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
I think you need to take a walk away from the monitor. They seem to be
getting worse and worse.
Alan Browne
> Do go on proving how you avoid all topics about photography. It's quite
> revealing.
Well you know you're the master so please do show us your fantastic
photography.
Savageduck
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
sigh! :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Alan Browne
;-)
See" a.b.p.original "SavageHDR.JPG" from me.
Photshop HDR merge and then levels/bright/contrast adjustment and a
little blue channel saturation. Really about what one should expect in
mid day shots...
DRS
news:ap6dnawGRbF8O9rX...@giganews.com
Neither you nor I saw thelandscape for ouselves so we can only guess how it
should look, nor do we know the particular settings that were used in each
case. The DPHDR rendered the trees vastly better than Photomatix.
I rendered the Photomatix Venice samples with both Photomatix and DPHDR on
default settings (which I think should be configured to give you at least
decent results) and the DPHDR rendering was unquestionably superior to my
eye.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne"<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:ap6dnawGRbF8O9rX...@giganews.com
>> On 28-06-09 12:52, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results
>>> aren't too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too
>>> bad either.
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
>> I think you need to take a walk away from the monitor. They seem to
>> be getting worse and worse.
>
> Neither you nor I saw thelandscape for ouselves so we can only guess how it
> should look, nor do we know the particular settings that were used in each
> case. The DPHDR rendered the trees vastly better than Photomatix.
Actually I shot slide film from almost that exact location and in pretty
much the same lighting last July. The tress are considerably 'duller'
in colour, esp. at that time of day. They really need morning/evening
light to get richer colour.
DRS
[...]
> I took a look the OSX version, which might do the job, but is a very
> clunky rendition of a Windows interface running as an emulation of the
> Windows version in X Server.
> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX
> software avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these
> developers is all too obvious.
Remember that they haven't released DPHDR v4 for Mac yet. I found the
Windows V4 interface acceptable, but I have no idea what differences there
were between v3 and v4.
Savageduck
Actually they have what is a poor excuse for a Mac version.
...and they know it otherwise they would not be making the following statement.
http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/mac.html
It is run in X Server and is very Windows clumsy, it is not ready for
primetime as a Mac application regardless of how well it does the
required HRD job.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
l v
Wow! I sure hope you are not in sales.
--
Len
Matt Clara
Well, maybe the $20 they stand to make off of Mac users isn't tempting
enough for them...?
Matt Clara
news:6e805$4a47a54e$5469b618$8...@cache70.multikabel.net...
Maybe he just needs more practice with the new software?
Savageduck
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:
-------------<Le Snip>-------------------
>> I took a look the OSX version, which might do the job, but is a very
>> clunky rendition of a Windows interface running as an emulation of the
>> Windows version in X Server.
>> It uses all the terrible Windows design features which good OSX
>> software avoids. The lack of familiarity with OSX programing by these
>> developers is all too obvious.
>>
>> The concept is good, and the results may be good, but the overall lock
>> into an arcane Windows interface is awful.
>>
>> It needs a lot of work to make it ready for prime time in OSX.
>
> Well, maybe the $20 they stand to make off of Mac users isn't tempting
> enough for them...?
$20 ??? They want $55! ...and it is not worth $55. Not yet anyway.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Matt Clara
news:q1ue45t8dnvp6l8lk...@4ax.com...
>ever tried Mediachance's "Dynamic-Photo HDR"?
>
> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>
Why, yes I have, thanks for asking. I've been using it for a couple of
months now. I shot this series of images on Friday, June 26, and composed
them into an HDRI last night.
http://mattclara.com/misc/chris-clark-powerplant-HDRi-02b.jpg
The effect here in this image is relatively subtle. As far as I'm
concerned, that's the key to a good HDR image. If it's obviously HDR (and
not a spectacular image), you've failed. The main thing you'll observe here
are an overall vibrance from the HDR as opposed to any of the original
images. Also, note the sky is virtually free of noise due to the averaging
of the images--these were shot at ISO 100 at 8, 15, and 30 seconds--lots of
noise in those, particularly noticeable in the sky. I still went for a
high-contrast image, where the HDR temptation is to illuminate everything.
I think it works nicely. Oh, and I had to do some shop work to get the dude
to hold still.
Matt Clara
added the winky emoticon, perhaps...?
Savageduck
Yup. That was my intention, practice, practice practice, but I can't
actually see moving to purchase this ham handed Mac edition of Dynamic
Photo HDR.
For now I will do my practicing with Photomatix and try to get to more
subtle results.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
...and I am impressed with your work here.
The example I was using was more of an improvisation and not well
planned (there was also a degree of HDR ignorance).
I can see the potential for Dynamic-Photo HDR, however I am using a Mac
and their OSX implimentation in X-Server, is very clumsy & awkward as
this stage. Perhaps once it is more polished and OSX native I will
reconsider.
For now I will plan my HDR shots better and continue with Photomatix.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
PDM
He's sales manager for IBM
PDM
Ken
http://www.pbase.com/moorlands
Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking at
HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed. Take
alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.
good luck
Ken
Eric Stevens
Impressive!
Eric Stevens
bugbear
>
> Have none of you who blindly recommend Photomatix to everyone, or still
> Photomatix look like MS Paint.
>
> http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html
>
> Can you for once in your sad little lives stop acting like the mindless
> herd following sheep that you are?
>
> Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
>
> There's even freeware that's better than Photomatix for cryin' out loud.
Yes, we were discussing it recently, thanks.
BugBear
matt...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:18:07 +0100, "Ken" <n...@none.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> >news:200906281617238930-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
> >>> "Unbelievable" <nocont...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
I was particularly impressed by the cheesy frames and drop shadows he
uses, along with the bad photoshop filters.
He has a good eye, but is a hack in other ways.
Savageduck
Now there is a photographer who has been working on his HDR techniques.
That is the sort of subtlety I would like to achieve, both for effect
and for shots taken in difficult light.
Knowing he used Photomatix tells me I have much more to learn, but with
time, scene/subject selection and planning getting good HDR results is
possible.
So, practice, practice, practice; patience, patience, patience, and persevere.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ken
Yes he is the ONLY reason why I am tempted to give it a go. Ironically he
lives about 5 miles away from me. Perhaps I should email and ask for private
lessons? ;-)
bugbear
>
> http://www.pbase.com/moorlands
>
> Hi you may be interested to know why about a week ago I started looking
> at HDR? It is because I came across this gallery and was very impressed.
> Take alook and let me know what you think. The guyuses Photomatix.
Hmm. If you look at that guy's photo's BEFORE he used HDR they also
have that "a little more saturated and contrasty than nature" look.
My conclusion is that he's been messing with tone-mapping (in
the general sense) for a very long time, and has mastered it,
at least to the degree that he can achieve what he's aiming for.
I suspect that even if the HDR software gave results that weren't
what he wanted, his "usual techniques" in PhotoShop (or similar)
would soon have things back on track.
BugBear
l v
That's sad.
--
Len
John Navas
<spam...@arumes.com> wrote in
<6e805$4a47a54e$5469b618$8...@cache70.multikabel.net>:
>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:52:22 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> That may be true for many of the over simplified pieces of OSX SW,
>>> however keeping the discussion on this piece of SW, which undoubtably
>>> has its value, remains a terrible translation from Windows to OSX. The
>>> interface is probably just as awkward to work with on a Windows
>>> machine.
>>
>> BTW I did actually try the Dynamc Photo HDR trial and the results aren't
>> too bad, just awkward to work with, and the price isn't too bad either.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HDR-1121-DynamicPhoto-w.jpg
>
>I certainly wouldn't pay for it based on this result. Your Photomatix-
>versions, although far from perfect, were much better than this one.
Agreed.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Carl Andersen
wrote:
Garbage in, garbage out. That's what happens when someone who doesn't know
what they are doing compares things. I have 99.999% of all Photomatix crap
examples that have ever been produced to prove all of you 100% wrong.