Hydra: Give Your Photos Range
Recently, one passion of mine that has really taken over my spare time is photography. I have been interested in photography for some time now, but earlier this year I really stepped it up by purchasing a DSLR (a Nikon D40 to be exact). I am the type of person who learns by doing, so I purchased this camera not knowing what Aperture, Shutter Speed or what an 18-55mm lens was. These are all terms that I have learned since my purchase, but one term that I only recently started to research is HDR.
HDR means High Dynamic Range, and in photography, is when you combine multiple images with different exposures to create one master image (For examples of HDR images, check out the HDR group on Flickr). When I started to look for software that would help me create HDR images of my own, the one that seemed to come up the most was Photomatix. Unfortunately, I didn’t have $99 to spend on it. One day looking through an issue of Macworld, I saw a program called Hydra, which did the same thing as Photomatix, but at a more affordable price.
To get started with Hydra, all you need is your 2 or more images you want combined. Hydra supports all RAW formats that Aperture does (outlined here). Hydra is split up into 2 windows, the first where the photos are displayed, and the second an inspector window.
Creating an HDR image with Hydra can be broken up into three steps. Importing the images to be combined, aligning those images, and then the final merge.
To import photos into Hydra, you can drag and drop them onto the Hydra window, open them from a folder, or use the media browser to find your images in iPhoto or Aperture.
The next step is aligning the images. The neat thing about Hydra, is that it claims you do not need a tripod when taking your images with different exposures. Hydra uses advanced aligning techniques to make sure that even if you didn’t use a tripod, your images are perfectly aligned. You can align the images yourself, or have Hydra do it for you.
The last step, and the step that will affect the final outcome of your images the most, is the merging. There are two types of merging that you can do, each with their own options. 8-bit Blend takes 8-bit jpegs as input, and outputs an 8-bit image. You can adjust the smoothness of the blend, and how much of each image is used in the final output. HDR Merge allows you to take 8 or 16-bit images (RAW images) and outputs EXR. EXR carries much more information than even 16-bit images, and preserves every bit of dynamics.
Hydra also comes with an Aperture plugin when you download it, so you can create your HDR images right within Aperture. After you install the plug-in (move the plug-in file to ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins/. Create the folder if it is not already there), you just ned to select your image in Aperture, right-click, and select Edit With>Hydra. A box will pop up, and you will be able to edit and save your final HDR right within Aperture.
Now I am no expert at creating HDR images, but so far the results of my testing have been pretty neat. Hydra allows you to export your final image as a JPG, TIFF or EXR. You can pick up Hydra for $59.95 from Creaceed software.
What are your favorite examples of HDR images?
Arrrr what. $59.95 is not more affordable
Wow, great article, thanks for the tip. I’ve tried Photomatix but I didn’t like its appearance, its price and the results. I especially appreciate that Hydra is also an Aperture plugin – great for all who use Aperture.
And about HDRs, generally, HDR seems pretty realistic. It seems like you were looking at the scene by your own eye. But – it has a downfall – HDR lacks that artistic look of good old photography. You can’t play with light and shadows in HDR as it is designed to display both equally. However, HDR is great for nature sceneries.
I’ve tried a few different HDR apps out and tried different photo sets and plugged in various options. My findings:
Hydra was the worst. The results it yielded were mediocre at best.
Photomatix Pro: great app, especially for “artistic” HDR effects via tonemapping. It is a bit daunting at first, just spend time experimenting with settings and *read the manual*!!
Bracketeer: this is a GUI front-end for Enfuse, a free HDR app. Bracketeer is $40 I think, and yields the best “realistic” HDR results. Photomatix is cool for those artsy HDRs, where I feel Bracketeer will get you more true-to-life results.
I use both Bracketeer and Photomatix Pro.
The thing I am interested in is whether there is any kind of commercial market for HDR photos. Otherwise, can’t similar affects be done using Photoshop?
@Dermah: $60 is expensive, but it is more affordable than $99.
@CaptSaltyJack: I just found that with Hydra it was more of a step by step process, making it easier for the end user to produce a result. I tried Photomatix but never really got anywhere with it. If you are looking to have more control over your photos, or have the know-how (or read the manual) to use Photomatix, then it may be better for your needs. In the end, it was just easier to produce an HDR with Hydra than with Photomatix, at least for me.
Greg,
Give Bracketeer a try, it’s super easy. Just drag/drop images into the window, optionally align the images (if not shot on a tripod), and hit “go”! Can’t beat the price, on top of that. I found it even easier than Hydra and it yields better results IMO.
I think this warrants a “showdown.”
Look out for a HDR showdown post between Bracketeer, Hydra and Photomatix in the next few weeks.
I was using photomatix and didn’t think I liked it so I bought hydra & bracketeer and so far I haven’t gotten good results with the 2 later ones. I am using a nikon d200, so the camera is ok..
What i have come to find is that photomatix just blows the other 2 away for either realistic or artsy.. personally i like the artsy ones and below are examples and all were done in less that 5 minutes.. that includes shooting merging and editing in photomatix & without any editing done in photoshop, the other 2 just can’t do this kinda stuff..
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=2560428&albumID=606680&imageID=37445578
http://a522.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/77/l_e2f39b951321e7261735a6e0cd3da039.jpg
http://a506.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/49/l_953b99e6e43088c45afb05b2189b7401.jpg
http://a770.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/67/l_701ad95b42d824e89af5ab0ac3ae7889.jpg
oops that first link was one but not the one i wanted..
http://a100.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/87/l_a0815b95d6b5cd2c055b1738db20023b.jpg
dave,
your posts prove that photomatix is capable to make an art impression, but this has nothing to do with hdr.
So Greg if there is a shootout, please stick to HDR …
no offense vdb but umm those ARE HDR photos. With photomatix you can go with more “realistic” or “more artsy” or anything in between.. which you can’t do with the others.
I guess I should have also said that IMO photomatix gives you more control and can produce more realistic hdr’s than the other tools and also gives you additional controls to stylize your hdr’s.
So before you say things like “but this has nothing to do with hdr.” please make sure you know what you are talking about because apparently you only think there is only 1 acceptable output of an hdr which is not true at all.
“So Greg if there is a shootout, please stick to HDR …”
Basically what you are asking is to not only compare the the hdr programs but to also limit them to only one aspect or feature of what is available to hdr photographers, which seams rather silly to me.
Don’t forget that ps cs3 also does hdr.
@dave
And Photoshop CS3’s HDR feature should definitely be included in the Showdown, as it’s such a universally used program, but I find Bracketeer produces better results than PS. But I would love to read the review comparing all the available HDR programs!!! Bring it On, Macapper!
Most people prefer some other third party HDR app to Photoshop’s “Merge to HDR” feature. I agree, I think PS’s results are poor.
Here’s a comparison of Bracketeer vs Photomatix Pro.
This is a “realistic” HDR photo done in Bracketeer. This is simple exposure blending, not tonemapping. Some people may not be able to tell it’s HDR, but the dead giveaway is the fact that the window isn’t one big blown out highlight. Everything is within a decent visible dynamic range.
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1493/hdrrealisticik7.jpg
This next one is also a “realistic” (exposure blended) photo, done in Photomatix Pro. I personally feel the Bracketeer photo looks better, but to each his own.
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/5298/ppblendedtg4.jpg
Lastly, this is an “artsy” (tonemapped) HDR done in Photomatix Pro.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5559/pptonemappedax6.jpg
Hope this helps.
By the way, just to be fair, here’s Hydra’s render of the same image set:
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/9927/hydrablpw8.jpg
I should also mention, for Bracketeer’s and Photomatix’s “realistic” renders, I processed those with default settings, right out of the box. With Hydra, I made slight adjustments to *improve* the final image. You can see that Hydra is lacking, the final image looks dark and dull compared to Bracketeer’s.
@CaptSaltyJack
Wow, Bracketeer looks the best. Although Photoshop didn’t do that bad. I have to try all solutions myself
Bracketeer is the best, in my opinion, for realistic representations of what your eye saw when you shot a particular bracketed photo set. However, I did buy Photomatix Pro which is way better than Bracketeer when it comes to making those stunning shots with heavily contrasted landscapes underneath eye-popping clouds.
@Dave
how did you make your artsy HDRs?
I’ve been playing with Photomatix and can’t make it produce anything like that. Quick settings/tricks you used?
a few things..
@hunter
a quick n dirty artistic hdr vid
http://www.dreamlofts.com/artsyhdr.mov
The thing no one here is considering is this….
Ok so if you use the same images on the 4 programs then shouldn’t the hdr file come out the same? Well yes it should but each program adds it’s own default settings and that is what you are all comparing but really that shouldn’t be it.
Now if you are the type to add the photos and hit process and then go “OMG!!!!! OMG!!!!! LOOK I MADE AN HDR!!!!!!!” then yes maybe you should go with the one that makes the best “out of the box” image. But generally speaking this isn’t the “selling point”. Where a hdr program should shine is what you can do with the file after the merge.
A merged HDR file has basically the same info in it no matter what program you use to do it. For example most times i let photomatix do the merge and save the .hdr file, other times I will go into bridge and then merge to a .hdr file and then edit it with photomatix. And the thing is that it doesn’t matter which .hdr file i use the results come out the same.
So when I say that I like photomatix it is because of all the control it gives you AFTER the hdr merge & that extra control lets you create much better details & personalization than bracketeer or hydra, since they just basically give you the barebones to do it.
D90 Devotee…
I agree with Ansel Adams when he said, \’I can look at a fine art photograph and sometimes I can hear music.\’…
Like the author, photography has bitten me as well, and like the author, I’m starting to experiment with HDR (after growing a proficiency in aperture, shutter speed, ISO, exposure, etc.). I’ve tried Photomatix but, for all the hype and coverage on the Internet, the results just aren’t that impressive. I’m not one to make the super-surrealistic HDR, just something with more definition and color saturation. Being an (Apple) Aperture user…wasn’t that one of the required purchases for the early addict of photography…at least that’s what I told my wife…Hydra was begging to be tried. I must say Hydra is much more “Mac-friendly” and the results are better in my opinion than anything I’d gotten out of Photomatix. Therefore, being slightly less expensive than Photomatix and fully Mac-user enabled, I opted for Hydra. Hydra 2.0 (now 2.1) is very much improved over 1.x (1.5) so I think it’s well on it’s way to becoming a leading product in the field.