Qtpfsgui Version 1.9.3

[David]

For users of Qtpfsgui, if you don't already know, a new version has been released, 1.9.3. Apart from some cosmetic changes to the tone mapping window, the main update feature is a new version of the Mantiuk et al. TMO. There is now a "details" button that appears to affect sharpness. However, true to form, there are no details provided. What is it with open source programmers that they can produce software that rivals the best commercial ware, but fail to produce adequate literature about how it works and how to use it?

Two other points about this new version. First, in my hands at least, it appears more stable than 1.9.2, i.e. I haven't managed to crash it yet. Second, having learnt over the past year so much about HDR software, you should convert your RAW files to TIFFs before using Qtpfsgui. The RAW file decoder, based on DC Coffin's algorithm, is good, but does not appear to be updated. You need to go into the preferences menu and change some parameters if you want the best results, again messy. But, TIFF files no problem and it's quicker.

Finally, use the LEVELS option to adjust tone-mapped images.

Cheers

David

[Davey]

Thanks, I've been messing with qtpfs for a while now and it seems to be getting better by the release, I wasn't overly impressed at first and found realistic result hard to achieve but I find it's growing on me. That new release slipped me by (as so much software often does) but just got it and make-ing as I type Look forward to using it.

I got the newer pfstools as well (1.8) and I guess this is what qtpfsgui 1.9.3 is working on. The HDRHTML looks interesting too.

[larsjames]

I've had good luck with Photoshop CS4 HDR w/ 3 images. Is there something that Qtpfsgui does better, easier?

[Davey]

as far as ease goes pshop is your better bet by far I'd say. It's set to tonemap properly producing a natural style so not great for stylistic painted look or other extreme looking images or highly stylised ones. Also there is little control over pshop tone mapping, in vanilla pshop at least, I know there are plugins extend features/control but I haven't used them.

Qtpfsgui and pfstools have more tone mapping options and features than pshop since they are dedicated hdr processing applications. I found it hard to get a natural result but it's getting easier I've found, more due to my familiarity increasing but my lack of skill is the problem really. There are obviously better progs that offer all these features in a more polished form (command line interface in particular may be comp user friendly but it's not really photographer friendly) or do a better job, easier and surpass qtpfsgui in most ways but they aren't free. I'm not a photographer and HDR is more of a side interest of one of my hobbies (that being photography) so I don't plan on buying a dedicated HDR app.

Pshop I personally use for none photographic stuff mainly so it's just added bonus that it has hdr features but I wouldn't miss it if wasn't there. I would be more likely to buy a different app (hdr dedicated) if I were a photographer looking for HDR photography features. However as much as it probably wont suit those with professional needs qtpfsgui and pfst suit my needs and are enjoyable enough to experiment with and that's personally why I do it (lucky since all my photos are rubbish hehehe but I enjoy taking them ).

Anyway you can't complain for free and since it's open source if you don't like something you can always fix it yourself, and development moves faster. Although sometimes forks and opposing project direction can be an issue with open source stuff, and being honest a lot of things aren't worth installin for free nevermind buying if they were proprietary I think there are a lot of gems available that are as good or sometimes better than their proprietary equivalents. I wouldn't be surprised if qtpfsgui ended up surpassing a lot of existing proprietary software in future. For average persons needs I think it's already getting there now and I like it.

[David]

Hi Larsjames - Welcome to the forums. Regarding Qtpfsgui, there is nothing particularly easy about it. It is not a straight-forward plugin or menu option as appears to be the case for HDR in Photoshop (I don't have Photoshop, so I can't compare the two directly). Being open source, Qtpfsgui suffers from poor documentation, presentation, and ease of use. It has been somewhat prone to crashing and much of its workings are opaque to the user. However, on the other hand, it is also possibly the most powerful of all the HDR software that is currently available. Qtpfsgui offers several different ways to construct the HDR file itself and then provides 9 different tone-mapping operators (TMO's) with which to interpret your HDR file. Some of these TMO's appear, in my hands, to be very poor, but others (e.g. Manntiuk, Fattal) provide powerful methods of creating realistic or surrealistic images or art-like images. Unfortunately, because of the limitations regarding documentaion etc. noted above, a great deal of time and patience is needed to make the best of Qtpfsgui.

Cheers

David

[larsjames]

Thanks Davey and David for your good information and stern warnings concerning Qtpfsgui.

I've downloaded it and will take it for a test flight after I finish placing 340 paving stones in my outdoor patio today. (I've found that mind-numbing manual labor is very conducive to creative thought for someone like myself who has such a natural flair for laziness).

Any suggestions on stand-alone HDR apps?

Take care,

James

[Davey]

Photomatix pops up a lot. I tried a preview out but decided not to buy it since I wouldn't use it so much and I have other stuff that does what I need mainly. Also another I do use which is of interest is GUIs zeronoise

Zero Noise virtual RAW

I like that and find it's quite flexible. Also another free one which is very good is tufuse. Although it's not actually HDR and tonemapping it is used in similar situations or resolving the same problems (along with other applications like focus blending). Here's the link

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

It's CLI (command line interface) only I think but don't let that put you off, if you can spell tufuse you're fine Also I've found it does decent job on my fuji .raf files (with dcraw) and it's fast and stable. For the batch jobs the beauty is it's CLI so can write scripts, I did do a test on a night pano I took made from 14 or so images, each made from 2 exposures (3 in a few shots), just wote batch file in windows (text file saved as .bat with the usual command line arguments pretyped basically incase don't know) and called it pano.bat so all I needed to do was type "pano.bat". Came back a short while later and was all done, couldn't have been easier No need to type "tufuse -o outputname.tiff inputfile1.raf input2.raf" 14 times.