-
- Lincoln Memorial shot00
-
- Lincoln Memorial shot01
-
- Lincoln Memorial shot02
-
- Lincoln Memorial shot03
-
- Lincoln Memorial shot04
-
- Lincoln Memorial shot05
-
- Result using Photomatix
-
- Result using Enblend (Bracketeer)
This blog is the second part of the previous blog on high dynamic range imagery.
Exposure Fusion (a.k.a. Enfuse) does not use HDR. But it is related in a sense that it uses multiple exposures to create a nice “fused” image. (So technically, “part 2″ is a bit misleading.)
Exposure Fusion was a paper by Mertens, Kautz, and Van Reeth in 2007, and you can learn more about the work here. This technique basically bypasses HDR creation all together to create a wonderfully fused image.
Let’s just briefly discuss some issues with HDR (I will discuss some benefits of HDR in the next blog). HDR “assembly” takes quite a bit of processing time and the file sizes bloat up big time — which also means longer time to load to any programs like Photoshop to do anything to it. From there, you typically end up tone mapping the image anyway. And don’t get some folks started on the pain-in-the-ass-ness of tone mapping. Yeah, it generally sucks when you end up doing a lot of them by hand.
Exposure Fusion basically says, “that’s bullsh!t!” There’s no need to convert a bunch of files to something you won’t use, then have to convert again, only to spend the next 2 hours tweaking some parameters you don’t understand, that was named by some ivory-tower researchers (sorry guys 
). Exposure fusion just creates a wonderfully “fused” image from your multiple-exposure set, which is the part I really like.
So, gettin’down to the brass tax, if you have a hard time going from HDR, then back to LDR using some tone mapping operator that doesn’t understand you, then use Enfuse. It’s one of the most consistent way to create an image from multiple exposures. And, it’ll save you time and lots of disk space.
One caveat is that Enfuse is a command line tool. If you don’t like that, you can find some GUI wrapper programs out there (e.g. Bracketeer).
July 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Nice. I prefer the Photo Matrix end product. It emphasizes Lincoln’s presence and gives it a slightly other-worldly look without being burned looking.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
In this example, Photomatix does look fine. In the end, the answer lies in the eyes of the beholder.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I also agree with you. I feel as though you have more control over the end result with Photo Matrix. Sure, the learning curve on what does what is a bit steep. But after a few trial and errors, you get the hang of it and try new combinations.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Tx for sharing. Feel free to give us pointers or links to your learnings!
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Fusion is so so SO far ahead of photo matix. Yup you need to adjust the contrast afterwards, but in 30 minutes I can have 50 photos ready for a client to choose 10 – 30 from and then another 20 – 60 minutes I’ve got my client 10 – 30 photos that has earned me $300 – $900
It works, it is consistent – once you’ve found parameters that work for you. it is fast it is clean and no messing around on a per photo basis.
Photo matix rocks – if you have no clients, if you can cope with parameters that take 20 minutes to make some esoteric image that is not realistic.
I use fusion every day and it earns me $4000 a month – in South Africa.