HDR Efex Pro 2 first impressions

Ok I'm a long time Photomatix user, but after reading all the great reviews i had to try it.
Its interface is great, quick, easy to use, its pretty much self explanatory.
In use however, I'm finding a lot more noise than I'm used to in Photomatix. Also the ghosting doesn't work quite as well as Photomatix either.
The best thing so far about it is its so versatile. If you have a certain way in your mind you want your image to look like this program can do it, but If you stray just a bit far from normal, you'll encounter noise, and lots of it. Not nasty huge issues, just lots of fine noise, most of which yu can get rid of with a good noise reduction program. The Upoint control is pretty cool, but I do wish you could choose different shapes for the control area other than circles. maybe you can, I'm not sure yet as I haven't used the program very long.

I absolutely love HDR Efex, and I was also coming from Photomatix but after going back to it I feel so restricted now.

Thanks, appreciate the mini-review.

Bsmooth wrote in post #14759721
I'm finding a lot more noise than I'm used to in Photomatix. Also the ghosting doesn't work quite as well as Photomatix either.

Two big negatives IMHO. On some images I find photomatix so noisy I discard the output. So noisier would be unacceptable. And good working alignment / ghosting features are mandatory when shooting true HDR, of which photomatix has the best available.

So thanks, you saved me some buck$.

I'll make sure I post more on this as i use the software more, and also some images as well. I really want to give the software a fair shot, so please don't write it off yet, but it definately needs some tweaking.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #14761239
Thanks, appreciate the mini-review.

Two big negatives IMHO. On some images I find photomatix so noisy I discard the output. So noisier would be unacceptable. And good working alignment / ghosting features are mandatory when shooting true HDR, of which photomatix has the best available.

So thanks, you saved me some buck$.

??? Why not dl the trial version and find out yourself? That much noise as described from op sounds like user error. The software is great.

Yes you should try it yourself, and yes it could be user error, or it could be it doesn't do as good a job as Photomatix. It doesn't do as well on ghosting, that I now know for sure.
But I do have a question on how to bring mages into Efex Pro 2, do you bring images in as RAW or Tiffs?.
I've found in Photomatix either works almost as well, although I prefer RAW Photomatix suggests using Tiffs, to each his own.
I also tried viewing the tutorial videos, with no results at all, they never came up.

Maybe RAW isn't this softwares forte, still reading and I couldn't find anything about a RAW converter, so I used Tiffs instead. Heres an image, take a look, noise was definately better.

Bsmooth wrote in post #14765033
Maybe RAW isn't this softwares forte, still reading and I couldn't find anything about a RAW converter, so I used Tiffs instead. Heres an image, take a look, noise was definately better.

I get cleaner images than that using RAW so must be something you are doing wrong but I cannot fault the software and I definitely use it over Photomatix now.

Well I'v eused RAWs and Tiffs, and the Tiffs have much less noise, then again these are from a 20D.
So I'm not sure what I'm doing "wrong", but these are the results I'm getting.

bsmooth, the whole image appears to me to be dull and dingy from underexposure. Underexposure will also result in more noise.

HDR Efex 2 handles raw files just fine, although its alignment functions for handheld shots suck. I prefer to use Photoshop CS6 to generate the 32 bit image and save it as an OpenEXR .exr file, then process that with either HEP 2 or Photomatix Pro 4.

Did you take multiple bracketed exposures and combine them into an hdr file and then tonemap it, or is this a single exposure that was tonemapped?

I like the scene and the composition, but not the PP.

3 exposures, and I checked the histograms, and the middle one was right on the money for exposure. I've done a few others as well, and pretty much I got the same noise problems.
I also repeated the same proces except I used Photomatix, but I didn't seem to have the same noise issues, then again its difficult to compare the 2 processes.
If I use more noise reduction with HDR Efex Pro 2 I can get rid of "most" of the noise.
After getting the images tonemapped, I often wind up with dull and dingy images, my problem right now is trying to put a little "life" back into them. I have tried curves, and levels, and quite a few other adjustments as well, so I'm still working on refiniing the post HDR adjustments. I have asked a few landscape photographers, but so far, haven't had much luck with the finer points of the details.
The only real reason I like to incorporate HDR is to get a little more detail, and to accentuate the great looking clouds.

Bsmooth wrote in post #14766944
Well I'v eused RAWs and Tiffs, and the Tiffs have much less noise, then again these are from a 20D.
So I'm not sure what I'm doing "wrong", but these are the results I'm getting.

You just posted that u can't figure out how to even bring in raw files and you are bashing epro2 ability to process raw files? Come on dude

Take a week to really learn the program before telling people it's no good lol.

Go watch all of there vids. They specifically talk about how to make your images pop and a whole lot more

Tried to watch the vids with no joy. Its a no brainer bringing in RAW images, but was told they don't look right. Thats why I thought maybe it doesn't do RAW's well, and If you read the title, it says first impressions, it doesn't say review.
I didn't really bash it, matter of fact I gave it quite a bit of praise. But the noise is there and the deghost feature isn't as good as Photomatix.
That doesn't mean its no good, matter of fcat I git some pretty good images out of it.
Some people just don't read the whole thread. so next time read the whole thread, and the title, and maybe dude you'll get something out of it.
As you said I will try and watch the videos, I just don't think our streaming here is fast enough

Oh ok dude. You actually sounded like a photomatix fanboy to me but i guess i was wrong. Sorry!

Thank you for your first impressions then. Why don't you link to your 3 raw files and let others have a go at it? See if those noise issues are real.


Glad u are going to watch the vids as its the least you can do to learn a program right?)

Can't wait to read your second impressions once you learn the program

Since you already sound like you like the program, why don't you tell me all about it. Or more to the point, tell me which program you like more and why, since it will probably take awhile to learn it anyways.
Have you got any images you've done with it? I'd like to see what it should look like, done the right way.