Photomatix and HDR/tonemapping question...

[Anna.]

I am giving the Photomatix software a go, but so far each image is losing clarity and quality and noise is becoming more obvious. I used two different exposures for this pic and I looked at the sand underneath the rocks at 100% before and after using the tone mapping...they weren't really grainy/noisy until after the PP. :confused:
I'm not really up to speed with how to use the program yet so I might be adjusting something that I shouldn't be? Any suggestions would be great..

[canonloader]

Yup, Photomatix is going to add noise, no way around it. You almost always have to do more processing in CS3 or other editor to clean up noise, final adjustments of brightness, exposure, maybe curves. What other software do you use for editing images?

Also, try 3 or more images with different exposures. The more the better, but 3 will work pretty good.

[Avi]

yeah...no workaround for noise other than noise removal softwares...I am using Neat image for cleaning up the Noise...
and as Mitch mentioned above...even after generating an HDR image...some work on Photoshop is most of the time required...

Avi

[Anna.]

Thanks for confirming the noise issue. :) I've never really used any noise reduction software.
I use CS2 and Lightroom 2 for photo editing..and still learning to use some of the features on those.
Appreciate the help!

[canonloader]

If your using CS2, then you will probably want to get this little Action for it (http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/1DISORpro). It's one of the best noise reduction options I have tried, including Neat Image which I paid through the nose for, but no longer use except in extreme cases, cause this $15 action works better than anything else I have tried. :)

It says it is for the Canon 1D, and it is, but it also works great for any image, which I have tried it on. When I upgraded to CS3, it still worked.

[Avi]

thanks for the link mitch..

[Anna.]

Thanks Mitch...will check that out for sure. Love POTN!:)

[BBoi]

Question. As you know, simply getting a regular picture and upping the saturation is going to cause noise and artifacts. I thought the point of HDR was to get the colour range and detail without those artifacts because you are using perfectly exposed shots to begin with.

Also, I'm finding it easier to create pseudo shots than actual HDR by combining exposures. Am I right in thinking that only works on a camera that can do bracketting to create your separate exposures from a single shot ? because I looked at this one by tareq: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578906 - and considered that had I taken this shot with my 640 in separate exposed shots, the waves would all get messed up.

I'm finding water and moving items in nature very hard to shoot with a P&S camera due to having to take each shot a few seconds apart.

[canonloader]

Yes, you can't really do a good true HDR on anything that moves much, like leaves, ripples and waves, birds in the air, even fast moving clouds. I use my 1D occasionally, that can shoot at 8 frames a second, and in AEB, I can generally stop clouds. But little ripples, moving leaves in the breeze, no way. And they come out blurred in HDR. So it's a good thing Photomatix does do "psuedo" HDR, cause it's the only way. :)

As for noise, any editing of the RAW or original jpg will add some noise. It's just the nature of the beast. Some edits add more, like Exposure, Fill Light and Brightness. Some less, like Contrast and Blacks, or Shadows. But everything will add some noise, whether it is noticeable at less than a 100% crop or not. Photomatix is not immune from that. I have found though, that starting with nice clean shots and more of them to start with, keeps noise to a minimum.

Also, you can not take multiple exposures for HDR and have them all at the "proper" exposure. The whole point of taking bracketted shots is so they are at different exposures. ;)

[zacker]

i think if you use more shots youll get less noise..try going through all the stops or maybe 1 stop apart for 5 photos..

[Duder]

there's almost no point in taking shots 1 stop apart. the dynamic range covered in each exposure negates the gain you'd get from only one stop. 2-3 between each exposure is more efficient/effective.

Also, if you're taking shots at low ISO, I don't know how you're getting noise using Photomatix. I rarely see any noise when I use it, infact, by blending exposures there should be less.

[zacker]

the more frames you have at less stops apart will give you more range than say a three shot 2 stops apart burst. Combine em all in PM and theres more info so you arent tring to Lighten up shadow.. Like when you under expose a shot and have to juice up the brightness... at least thats the way i see it.. maybe more than three shots at 2 stops apart..id would be a good experiment to try anyhow.

[canonloader]

I don't know how you're getting noise using Photomatix
From the original shots, RAW or not and it depends on the camera. If you underexpose a shot by one stop in the 1D, your going to get noise and banding in the dark areas. For that matter, you get noise and banding in the 40D under exposed shots.

[Duder]

the more frames you have at less stops apart will give you more range than say a three shot 2 stops apart burst. Combine em all in PM and theres more info so you arent tring to Lighten up shadow.. Like when you under expose a shot and have to juice up the brightness... at least thats the way i see it.. maybe more than three shots at 2 stops apart..id would be a good experiment to try anyhow.

well, if we assume the average shot covers 6 stops of light, if you drop the exposure 3 stops, you're shifting the 6 stops 'capturable' by the camera down 3, so you've now got 9 stops of light range, same if you up the exposure 3 stops, so overall you've added 6 stops beyond what the camera is capable of, in other words doubled the dynamic range of a single exposure.
point being, shifting the exposures 1 stop at a time is simply wasting shutter actuations because the dynamic range gained is neglible compared to what an exposure +/- 2or3 stops would give you.
then again, this only relates to the quality of the detail, and where on the sensor range it's captured (ie 'shooting to the right' gives better quality detail).

[Duder]

From the original shots, RAW or not and it depends on the camera. If you underexpose a shot by one stop in the 1D, your going to get noise and banding in the dark areas. For that matter, you get noise and banding in the 40D under exposed shots.

which is why you need to take enough exposures to cover the dynamic range you're trying to capture. If you leave the 'shadow exposures' too dark, then of course you'll get noise in the dark areas.