Machinery 2.9 example

Further to yesterday's post, I thought I'd show a quick example of a single exposure enhanced with Machinery HDR 2.9. It's not the perfect example since there's some moderate JPG artefaction happening but overall I think you can see the effect. Nothing too dramatic, just a basic preset easily toned down if it's thought to be too strong (it's probably a little over-sharpened) but comparing it with the base image on the left, I think it definitely adds a desirable enhancement.

Machinery HDR 2.9

One of the things I like about the Machinery HDR software is that it's clear that it's continuously being improved and developed behind the scenes. It seems as though every other time I start it up, there's a new version to update to. We're now on version 2.9 which professed "improved ghost removal" (something I'd commented before was weaker when compared with Photomatix). I'll be honest, I'm still not seeing it but the overall improvement in HDR quality from, say, v2.6 means that I can often remove the single exposure that's causing the ghost and I'm still able to get the overall effect I want from only two (JPG) exposures. Of course that doesn't help if you've got movement between all three frames, but it's something worth having nonetheless.

As I said, the overall improvement to HDR is great- it achieves an increasingly 'natural' HDR look (something they've always strived for). Blacks are well preserved, something I always struggled with in Photomatix where it would make my pictures look washed out, the famous HDR halo effect is all but banished entirely and, perhaps most surprisingly, it's able to achieve great effects from a single JPG exposure. Even for non-typical HDR subjects such as portraits. I'm now using it as a generic post-processing tool for pictures I wouldn't describe as HDR per se (e.g. the snap of Sacha, above). I'm seeing it really emphasize depth in a number of shots and it definitely bears further experimentation.

HDR Machinery update

I'm still using Machinery for my HDR processing. Overall I'm really happy with the software, particularly in contrast to Photomatix which it beats hands-down in terms of speed and transparency of process. It's ghost removal isn't anywhere near as good but I suppose you can't have everything.

That said, it's had a couple of updates lately up to version 2.8 which have seemingly removed a couple of features that I routinely use to achieve the particular look that I want. First, the 2.7 update (or possibly 2.6) removed a 'midtones' slider from the HDR processing panel and 2.8 seems to have shifted the 'lights' and 'shadows' slider to post-processing rather than having them affect the HDR process itself and I'm struggling to achieve my usual look as a result.

Hopefully I'll find a method to recreate what I could do before, I'd hate to think the product update has meant a genuine loss of functionality.

Update: Seems like the the light/shadow sliders are actually feeding into the HDR process as they did before but I'm still not still not sure that I'm able to use them to get the same contrast in, for example, clouds as I used to be able to without making items in the foreground unworkably dark. I'll keep plugging away at it and also maybe see if I can find an installer for v2.6 while I'm at it. Being able to dual-install both versions would be nice but I don't know how workable that is.

HDR compare and contrast

I stumbled upon HDR One magazine the other day and obviously it's a great resource for the type of photography that I most commonly do. As well as the articles themselves, it's also provided some great suggestions of HDR software out there. I've picked up a demo of Machinery to try it out and it's definitely an interesting contrast with Photomatix. Machinery does profess an intent towards natural HDR, which isn't usually what I aim for but maybe I should. All the more reason to experiment.

I must emphasise at this point that I have, at time of writing, only had to run a couple of images through it so there's lots more exploration to be done but here are two images- the first done in Photomatix, the second done in Machinery: The difference is obvious- Machinery certainly does create a more naturalistic HDR image. Also look at how crisp that bastard is! Not only does Machinery provide built-in sharpening but the halo-ing effect (so often the bane of HDR) is reduced, presumably due to the more natural look. Take a look at the streetlights on the left of the image, for example (both in the foreground and the BG) and the superior detail on the shelf of Buddha figures. It's also astonishingly fast and does a genuine live change as opposed to Photomatix's two-stage 'guestimate' process, which has always bothered me, to be honest.

Obviously this image comparison also depends on the settings and post-HDR-processing each image has been run through. They've both had the contrast lowered and brightness increased. The Photomatix image was sharpened a touch and the Machinery one had it's saturation upped a bit since lowering the contrast left it a little washed out (or maybe I'm just too used to Photomatix output).

Overall, perhaps as you'd expect, it seems that the different softwares both have areas in which they are superior but it certainly seems that the de facto industry standard position that Photomatix seems to enjoy can be challenged. In any case, I definitely need to do some more experimentation with Machinery to see what I can get out of it but first experience has definitely left a positive impression.