Hi all.

Does anybody know whether combining bracketed exposures in Photomatix could yield the same results (or at least very similar) as using ND graduated filters ?
The reason i ask is that at the moment I am considering buying a set of ND grad filters for use in landscapes, but it has also occured to me that i could acheive the same results in Photomatix by combining two exposures in a fairly simple way, say one normal exposure and one exposure around two stops underexposed for a bright sky, which would be how i may have done it using the ND grads. I could do this as well as being able to use it for creating actual HDR images with many more exposures should i wish too. This would make it better value for money than the filters. 
My only uncertainty is whether it is possibe to retain the more natural look of using the graduated filters by using Photomatix, which is why I need some advice. I don't want to shell out for the software if it will not be capable of retaining that natural feel, whereas if i buy some ND grad filters I know I'll not have wasted my cash. The cost of Photomatix is around the same as a set of Cokin ND grad filters and would eliminate the need to carry another set of physical objects around in my camera bag, which also appeals to me.

Any advice/opinions welcome.

Kind regards.. Shaun.
 

I can't answer for Photomatrix as I have not tried it.

However if you have Photoshop, or similar,  why not get the result you want with that ?

Taking your two exposures and applying a layer mask to the the top layer,  then use the gradient tool to fill the mask with a gradient from black to white.  This achieves the effect of using a soft ND graduated filter. It also has the advantage you can touch in areas of the image to bring the exposure down if you so wish, or create a grad. filter that does not have a straight line.  

Personally I prefer to use the filter on the camera for my own satisfaction of doing it that way. The disadvantage of using software is if the clouds (or anything else) move.

hi Shaun, well although I personally haven't had any hands-on experience with ND grad filters I would recommend going the photomatix route for a number of reasons..

1. you don't have to carry extra filters around with you, messing about fitting and adjusting them when you could be taking shots (admittedly for a good HDR you have to take your time to bracket the exposures etc but you don't have to carry the software round)
2. grads can silhouette objects which rise above the horizon where you set the gradation, as obviously the transition will run straight and not take into consideration any objects it may darken, contrary to your wishes. hdr obviously manages to sidestep this issue
3. if you've shot in RAW and appear to have lost some of the highlights, Photomatix and other similar tonemapping software will allow you to recover some of those 'blown' highlights (up to 2 stops overexposed I think) by working on a single RAW to create a 'pseudo-hdr' image
4. it is possible to maintain a natural look with HDR, but with the potential for creating all kinds of looks with the software it's quite often tempting to have a play around.... my advice is if you do go for Photomatix and want to maintain a natural look, stick with the highest level (5) of light smoothing available, and tweak the other settings until you have it how you'd like it.

of course this is all possible in photoshop but requires (imo) a decent understanding of channel masking and layer masks, and the various blend modes needed to create a tidy result. dedicated software like Photomatix will get you there quicker and with a little care an attention, just as naturally...

oh, and I forgot to mention one more thing in favour of the ND grad method however... for a good hdr exposure range you'd ideally need at least 3 bracketed exposures of the same scene with the same settings, and of course this means that you'll be needing the objects to remain stationary in the scene while shooting, or the exposures won't blend tidily.... with an ND grad filter you're less likely to have to shoot more than 1 exposure so movement within the scene will be easier to avoid... maybe something to consider if you're planning on heading some windy places!

Thanks guys, some great tips there Meowgli, thankyou very much...
I have decided to buy Photomatix.. Though i wont rule out getting some ND grads in the future. As i said in my original post i like the idea of travelling as light as possible so the software is my choice.

Kind regards... Shaun.

Other software options to consider

http://www.tiffen.com/dfx_v2_home.html

http://www.niksoftware.com/index/usa/entry.php

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

While the first two are not HDR proggies..

They offer some great tools to help you accomplish this

Hi Bruce.

Thanks for the links. I'll be looking at all those too, as i have not yet purchased anything.

Kind regards.. Shaun

http://tir.astro.utoledo.edu/jdsmith/exposure_blend.php

And it is for free. :)

The attached Image was done using Exposure Blend. In the balanced exposure the arch in the foreground was way too dark and things outsite (especially the red roof) were way too bright (almost whited out).

Shaun, I'm guessing you've probably already got yourself a copy of Photomatix by this point... I just thought I should point out that version 3 has just (as far as I'm aware it was recent anyway) been released, and is a free upgrade for Photomatix Pro users with a license.

as well as allowing you to tonemap and create HDR as before, there is now a mode called 'exposure blending' which is fantastic for retaining detail and avoiding the hdr 'effect', so now there really are several options for creating a well exposed photo with excellent tonal range and no clipped highlights or shadows..... I'd definitely recommend anyone to go check it out (there's a free trial too), and if you're a PP license holder with an earlier version, go get it now without delay... you will be impressed with the improvements (specifically in terms of haloing, tonemapping, noise reduction and chromatic-aberration correction)

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html

Hi there Meowgli.

Yes i did buy Photomatix, which was V3. Very happy with it indeed. I use both the exposure blending and tone mapping as sometimes one just seems to work the magic better than the other.. It's a great piece of software, and i've only really scratched the surface so far. To get the results im after i've realised i need a tripod too so thats on order at the moment..

By the way if anybody with only a 3 bracket exposure program (like my D80 has) on their cams would like to easily extend their number of differently exposed shots without touching the camera too much or stretching the RAW file exposures, i came across this paragraph in a Naturescapes HDR tutorial.. I think it's a great tip.

With only a little effort, you can extend the automatic bracketed approach described in the previous section to cover five shots at a 2 EV interval, even if your camera is limited to a three shot burst using auto-bracketing. Enable auto-bracketing at +/- 2 EV and select a good central exposure based on the camera’s meter. Prior to shooting, dial in -2 EV exposure compensation and shoot three frames. Now quickly dial up to +2 EV compensation and shoot three more frames. At this point you have six frames, two of which are exposed the same; discard one of them later. This leaves you with five frames covering -4 to +4 EV, roughly 16.5 stops, which approaches DR of 100,000:1. If your camera supports exposure compensation of +/- 3 EV, you can use the same technique without throwing away one of the exposures. You end up with six frames covering -5 to +5 EV, or about 18.5 stops of DR.

Here is the link to the whole Tut   http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_4.htm

Kind regards... Shaun.

top tip, totally logical but something which strangely never occured to me! glad you like photomatix and yes I'd agree that a tripod will be of huge benefit for bracketed exposures. in case you wondered my camera (Canon 40d) supports +/- 2 EV only, but I've always found that to be sufficient.... I'm not really into the whole mega-extreme range of tones hdr offers, but I hate blown highlights or clipped shadows in the foreground and it's a pretty nifty way of avoiding those nasties ;)

cheers for the link to the tut, bookmarked it into my 'photography' folder as I'm sure there will be occasions when I'll be wanting to call on a massive dynamic range at some point in the future..

all the best,
Adam