Expose More Detail with HDR Photography

Expose More Detail with HDR Photography


3. Merge

It’s fine to leave the default options in place. If you’re importing RAW images, you may want to adjust the white balance.


Now that you’ve got your pictures, transfer them to your Mac using Apple’s Image Capture. Why not iPhoto? iPhoto places your picture files in its library where it’s tough to find them later, but Image Capture will save them to your Pictures folder. Now fire up Photomatix and choose Process > Generate HDR. Drag your image files into the Generate HDR window and click Process. An Options dialog box will appear, but just leave everything set to the defaults and click OK.


4. Save the HDR

No, really, it’s going to get better. You’re almost there.


After Photomatix works its photo-blending magic, it’ll display a rather disappointing HDR image. Blame your monitor. Without further processing of the image, the computer screen can’t display the picture’s full tonal range. But don’t fret. This is about to get really fun. Be sure to save your file right now (File > Save HDR As). Once you start tone mapping, you won’t have an opportunity to save the original HDR. Now head back to the Process menu and choose Tone Mapping. Photomatix will have a go at processing the image. This is what you’ve been waiting for.




+ Add a Comment


Every little chat Salon 1000 ah!replica watchYou are my best's buddy



stands for High Dynamic Range.



You wrote a whole article about HDR Photography without telling us what "HDR" means.



Is this in the mag as well, or only on the website? If it is website only, any chance we could get a downloadable PDF edition of useful things like this?



There is another technique for capturing the highest possible dynamic range out of your image; it's called film. Shoot film, and scan it yourself for the best of the old and new. Thank you!



I take pictures rarely enough that I would never finish a roll in time, as I hear you should get it developed within a certain timeframe of putting it in the camera.

I take lots of throwaway pictures.

The price of film is increasing, and developing is expensive.

The environmental ramifications of film are substantive.

Ultimately, for many many people (including me) film just is not a great option. And if I'm not mistaken, bracketing was pioneered for higher dynamic range using film cameras, and digital application came later.



More environmental alarmism. It seems to be everywhere these days.
I submit that the manufacturing and disposal of digital cameras and other often barely used electronic products is more of a tax on the environment than the occasional roll of film.
Your negatives will likely be around longer than the digital files, too.
Not because digital files can't last but technology changes so quickly and the majority of people won't do the constant maintenance of transferring files as is needed, also a waste of time, money for newer equipment, and electricity.
I saw a while back a segment on TV about a book, the premise of which was how counter intuitive good environmental practices can be. It was suggested that if you live more than a mile to the grocery store it would be better to take the car than walk.
Just food for thought.
I'm sure the self described, yet in large measure "phoney" environmentalists will forgo the new electronic craze of large flat screen TVs. The most environmentally friendly TV is the small, B&W units from years ago.
Imagine that.

Log in to Mac|Life directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.