Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Frans Waterlander on January 20, 2019, 07:00:05 pm
-
Photomatix Pro 6.1 64-bit amplifies noise significantly when tone-mapping a single image and I wonder why that is or how to cure it. It happens with or without Exposure Fusion enabled. With noise reduction enabled with various amounts of reduction, you - wonder oh wonder - get less noise but also unacceptably unsharp images. Photomatix support suggested I use multiple copies of the same image, but that doesn't make any difference.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Are there tone-mapping-only programs that would do a good job on single images?
-
It pretty much has too since in single shot mode it is dramatically increasing exposure in dark areas of the frame. There is an option, at least there is in multiple shot mode, to apply noise reduction during the tone mapping.
Perhaps a better way to do this to minimize noise with a single shot is to to do three RAW conversion, one normal, one with a couple of stops of added exposure and noise reduction in the RAW converter, and one with a couple of stops of less exposure and then do the HDR process with the three frames. That way the dark areas that are being boosted already come in with noise reduction applied. i haven't tried this but this is how I would try to handle it in Photomatix to deal with the situation you described.
-
Sure, with a single frame Photomatix has to dramatically increase exposure in the shadows. When I import the same single frame in PSE and increase exposure in the shadows to about the same extent, the noise is dramatically lower, so Photomatix, as I said before, amplifies the noise. When I apply noise reduction in ACR in the Photomatix workflow, there is a significant loss of detail, as to be expected. So, here is what I get:
a) single frame with Photomatix: worst noise
b) single frame at default, same frame at -2 exposure compensation, same frame at +2 exposure compensation, then Photomatix: slightly less noise
c) single frame at default, same frame at -2 exposure compensation, same frame at +2 exposure compensation and noise reduction, then Photomatix: loss of detail, slightly less noise than in b)
d) single frame to PSE, shadows pulled up to about same level: lowest noise
To me, it looks like Photomatix is totally unsuitable for single shots, in spite of their advertising claims to the contrary.
-
Photomatix is not simply boosting shadows, it is applying a measure of local contrast enhancement - so, if you have noise in the shadows, it will be accentuated by the local contrast operation. In PSE, there is no local contrast operation taking place, so the noise is what it is, without its presence being accentuated by the local contrast operation.
What this is telling you is that your scene requires more than one exposure to get you the SNR in the shadows that you are interested in - that is, if you want to boost the shadows to whatever level you desire, there is a price to pay if your camera does not have the dynamic range to give you good signal in those shadow regions. You are trying to do the impossible with a single exposure made with that camera at that exposure.
Kirk
-
The bad noise even happens in the Realistic setting, which is not supposed to do any fancy tone mapping or contrast enhancement.
-
Turns out, Photomatix doesn't handle RAW files from my Nikon D70 very well at all. If I first convert to tif in PSE, then the noise in Photomatix increases slightly, but so little that I have to look really carefully to see the increase.
-
Ah OK, that is making sense. Photomatix is not a sophisticated RAW processor. you are much better off going to TIF or PSD out of your RAW converter and then going into Photomatix.
-
This increase in noise when using one shot HDR happens in all the programs I've used, even in images that otherwise appear good in that respect.
Over the years I've taken to putting them through Neat Image first to counter this.
But now I will be using Topaz "JPEG to RAW" since that seems superior to all NR programs to date, even Neat Image.
For my HDR program I use EasyHDR3 which I find excellent in getting me the kind of images I want without them looking like HDR images.
-
Ah OK, that is making sense. Photomatix is not a sophisticated RAW processor. you are much better off going to TIF or PSD out of your RAW converter and then going into Photomatix.
Ask him if he's exposed the raw optimally as under exposure produces noise.
A single capture has a fixed DR and nothing will increase that. Proper exposure, which I suspect isn't the case here affects DR!
https://photographylife.com/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera (https://photographylife.com/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera)
-
Sure, with a single frame Photomatix has to dramatically increase exposure in the shadows
No, it absolutely hasn’t' done anything with respect to exposure. Exposure is simple. It's the amount of light striking (in this conversation) a sensor and is controlled by ONLY two attributes: shutter and aperture. This IS what exposure is. No software, despite the claims or names of controls does anything whatsoever in terms of exposure.
Exposing optimally for data is the photographers job. Not doing so produces more noise in digital captures.
Read:
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
-
Are there tone-mapping-only programs that would do a good job on single images?
No, that's not tone mapping or extending DR with multiple captures.
But this product is very good:
https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php (https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php)
Oh, and the word you're looking for is brightness, not exposure when altering images AFTER capture.
-
No, that's not tone mapping or extending DR with multiple captures.
But this product is very good:
https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php (https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php)
Oh, and the word you're looking for is brightness, not exposure when altering images AFTER capture.
My RAW shot is exposure optimally. I have a series of bracketed shots, so I can choose the best exposure possible. And yes, it is low noise, until I use it as a single shot in Photomatix Pro 6; even without increasing the brightness of the shadows, the noise is horrendous.
I would like to use tone mapping on single RAW images to bring out various details, but Photomatix Pro 6 is totally unusable for that because of the introduction of horrendous noise. So, let me ask again: is there a tone mapping program that does a good job on single RAW images?
-
My RAW shot is exposure optimally. I have a series of bracketed shots, so I can choose the best exposure possible.
You can, how?
Well at least you now know what exposure really is. And that you can't alter it after capture.
I would like to use tone mapping on single RAW images to bring out various details, but Photomatix Pro 6 is totally unusable for that because of the introduction of horrendous noise.
You need a good raw converter.
So, let me ask again: is there a tone mapping program that does a good job on single RAW images?
http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2117241 (http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2117241)
You should consider (but may not) actually USING those brackets.
-
Frans all RAW files contain noise (mainly electronic in low exposure areas and photonic in highly exposed areas), so if you strongly process them (which is what any HDR software will do when tone mapping a single file), the shadow's electronic noise will be dramatically enhanced. It is not your camera's fault, nor Photomatix's, it's you demanding something that can't happen.
These 2 patches are the same, but the version on the right has a strong level adjustment applied.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/frans.png)
Regards
-
...it's you demanding something that can't happen.
These 2 patches are the same, but the version on the right has a strong level adjustment applied.
1. This is now going to get interesting ;D
2. Good point and example.
-
You can, how?
Well at least you now know what exposure really is. And that you can't alter it after capture. You need a good raw converter. http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2117241 (http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=2117241)
You should consider (but may not) actually USING those brackets.
Yes Andrew, when I have a series of bracketed shots I can choose the best exposed one. Even you could do that.
I have a good RAW converter, but the one in Photomatix Pro 6 sucks. I would like to go directly to Photomatix without first having to convert the RAW fileto tif in PSE; when I do that, all is fine (read answer #5).
Yes Andrew, I know how to use bracketed shots and actually use them once in a while. At issue is Photomatix's usability with single shot RAW files. Get it?
-
Frans all RAW files contain noise (mainly electronic in low exposure areas and photonic in highly exposed areas), so if you strongly process them (which is what any HDR software will do when tone mapping a single file), the shadow's electronic noise will be dramatically enhanced. It is not your camera's fault, nor Photomatix's, it's you demanding something that can't happen.
These 2 patches are the same, but the version on the right has a strong level adjustment applied.
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/frans.png)
Regards
The issue is the horrendous introduction of noise when using a single-shot RAW file directly in Photomatix. When I first convert my RAW file to tif and then use it in Photomatix all is fine. See answer #5.
-
Yes Andrew, when I have a series of bracketed shots I can choose the best exposed one. Even you could do that.
You can, how I'll ask AGAIN.
I have a good RAW converter, but the one in Photomatix Pro 6 sucks. I would like to go directly to Photomatix without first having to convert the RAW fileto tif in PSE; when I do that, all is fine (read answer #5).
Why can't you tone map with your good raw converter?
Yes Andrew, I know how to use bracketed shots and actually use them once in a while. At issue is Photomatix's usability with single shot RAW files. Get it?
Yes, I get you don't want to use that product so don't!
-
You can, how I'll ask AGAIN.
Reply: Oh, let me spell it out for you: evaluate the R, G and B histograms.
Why can't you tone map with your good raw converter?
Reply: if you had even a superficial idea of Photomatix's tone mapping capabilities, you wouldn't ask that question.
Yes, I get you don't want to use that product so don't!
-
RGB Histograms may or may not provide actual capture exposure data! Depending on what the Histogram data (raw?) is being shown:
Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms
Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining:
What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.
Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.
Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.
Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).
Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.
Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).
Are histograms useful and if so, how?
Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov
-
RGB Histograms may or may not provide actual capture exposure data! Depending on what the Histogram data (raw?) is being shown:
Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov
GREAT!!
Just two days ago I was going to ask that question and was too shy to ask
I'm joking, I always ask ;D
But decided to wait until I digested other related info
-
My RAW shot is exposure optimally. I have a series of bracketed shots, so I can choose the best exposure possible. And yes, it is low noise, until I use it as a single shot in Photomatix Pro 6; even without increasing the brightness of the shadows, the noise is horrendous.
I would like to use tone mapping on single RAW images to bring out various details, but Photomatix Pro 6 is totally unusable for that because of the introduction of horrendous noise. So, let me ask again: is there a tone mapping program that does a good job on single RAW images?
Excuse my silly asking:
If one has a series of bracketed shots, why use only one of them, however optimally exposed?
Is there some advantage?
-
Excuse my silly asking:
If one has a series of bracketed shots, why use only one of them, however optimally exposed?
Good question, I also suggested that approach. But it isn't the answer he wishes to hear. ;)
-
Photomatix, like similar programs, has several different functions. Among them RAW file conversion, combining bracketed shots, tone mapping those combined bracketed shots and tone mapping single shots. My post is specifically about single-shot tone mapping with Photomatix Pro 6.
It turns out that it does a lousy job of converting my Nikon NEF RAW files. However, its tone mapping capabilities are very impressive and I want to apply those to single shots that are not in need of multiple exposures. If you wonder why I would be interested in this, then you obviously never seriously looked at Photomatix's or similar programs' tone mapping capabilities.
Sidetracking this discussion with, for instance, smart-aleck comments about how to evaluate exposures of a series of bracketed shots, isn't very helpful and annoys the heck out of me.
Positive contributions to this thread are very welcome.
-
Sidetracking this discussion with, for instance, smart-aleck comments about how to evaluate exposures of a series of bracketed shots, isn't very helpful and annoys the heck out of me.
Not useful to you, someone who needed to learn what exposure actually is, as explained, but to others? There's this in response to my posting on Histograms and exposure:
GREAT!!
Just two days ago I was going to ask that question and was too shy to ask
I'm joking, I always ask
But decided to wait until I digested other related info
Positive contributions to this thread are very welcome.
Multiple contributions were made, you just don't find them positive because they don't specifically state the answer you're looking for, before asking. Many of us have seen this posting agenda in the past and you seem to be at it again.
Tell us the answer you wish to hear, maybe someone will parrot it back to you. :o
-
I tried PhotoMatix and other HDR programs in the past, but finally settled on EasyHDR3 because, for me, it does everything I want especially for one-shots.
I use it more as an editing tool with an amazing range of variations, rather like universal layer tool but without all the bother of using layers.
Of course it still increases noise which is why i now also use Topaz "JPEG to RAW" before using it because it is so powerful as a noise reducer in addition to everything else it does.
And unless I want to go OTT with it (which I don't) virtually no one has ever remarked that I am using an HDR program.
-
It turns out that it does a lousy job of converting my Nikon NEF RAW files. However, its tone mapping capabilities are very impressive and I want to apply those to single shots that are not in need of multiple exposures. If you wonder why I would be interested in this, then you obviously never seriously looked at Photomatix's or similar programs' tone mapping capabilities.
Sidetracking this discussion with, for instance, smart-aleck comments about how to evaluate exposures of a series of bracketed shots, isn't very helpful and annoys the heck out of me.
Positive contributions to this thread are very welcome.
Sorry - talking for myself - I didn't mean to upset you. As a lowly newbie I just wondered if I was missing something.
Just trying to learn from the more experienced
-
Sorry - talking for myself - I didn't mean to upset you. As a lowly newbie I just wondered if I was missing something.
Just trying to learn from the more experienced
Don't apologize for asking questions and attempting to learn new stuff.
The OP has a posting history here of asking questions about problems he's having, then pushing back on any answers to the 'problems' that don't fit a predetermined response he expects. There's a paper trail to prove this but it's an agonizing read. And there's nothing in the so called forum rules that say you can't ask a question that's related to the initial question that may come about from further discussion. Like explaining what exposure really is, not what a poster incorrectly assumes it is, or how to reduce noise by optimally exposing a raw that the original poster believes is noisy.
-
Don't apologize for asking questions and attempting to learn new stuff.
I don't apologize for asking questions. I profit a lot doing that :)
Since my English is far from perfect :( and I don't like upsetting others unnecessarily, I try to explain WHY I asked
-
I don't apologize for asking questions. I profit a lot doing that :)
Since my English is far from perfect :( and I don't like upsetting others unnecessarily, I try to explain WHY I asked
Your English is more than just fine, and I'm always impressed with anyone who's bilingual, something I wish I could accomplish.
Some members posting here can't be anything but upset. Annoyed is the term used. Made my day. ;D
-
Sorry - talking for myself - I didn't mean to upset you. As a lowly newbie I just wondered if I was missing something.
Just trying to learn from the more experienced
You didn't upset me one bit. No need to apologize.
-
Don't apologize for asking questions and attempting to learn new stuff.
The OP has a posting history here of asking questions about problems he's having, then pushing back on any answers to the 'problems' that don't fit a predetermined response he expects. There's a paper trail to prove this but it's an agonizing read. And there's nothing in the so called forum rules that say you can't ask a question that's related to the initial question that may come about from further discussion. Like explaining what exposure really is, not what a poster incorrectly assumes it is, or how to reduce noise by optimally exposing a raw that the original poster believes is noisy.
I incorrectly assume what exposure really is? Really? I believe that my RAW file is noisy? Really? Maybe you should read up on the principle of intellectual honesty.
-
Got it. I googled "upset" vs "annoyed".
Learned something again :) :)
-
I incorrectly assume what exposure really is? Really?
Yes really. Your own text, confusing what exposure really is. I will copy and paste for you to reexamine:
Sure, with a single frame Photomatix has to dramatically increase exposure in the shadows. When I import the same single frame in PSE and increase exposure in the shadows to about the same extent, the noise is dramatically lower, so Photomatix, as I said before, amplifies the noise.
You are confused (again) between exposure and brightness!
Maybe you should read up on the principle of intellectual honesty and read up on your own mistaken text when it comes to what exposure really is. ;)
-
Got it. I googled "upset" vs "annoyed".
Learned something again :) :)
At least one person here has learned something. That's worth the effort.
Now if the OP could only understand and learn the significant difference between exposure (https://photographylife.com/what-is-exposure) and brightness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness).
-
I believe that my RAW file is noisy? Really?
You probably don't, despite the facts already provided to you that you'll ignore, because it isn't what you wish to hear:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=128678.msg1093833#msg1093833
-
Yes really. Your own text, confusing what exposure really is. I will copy and paste for you to reexamine:
You are confused (again) between exposure and brightness!
Maybe you should read up on the principle of intellectual honesty and read up on your own mistaken text when it comes to what exposure really is. ;)
Yes, guilty of using the term "exposure" for adjusting brightness, just as guilty as Adobe. Guess both Adobe and me don't understand what exposure really is.
-
Yes, guilty of using the term "exposure" for adjusting brightness, just as guilty as Adobe. Guess both Adobe and me don't understand what exposure really is.
Adobe engineers do, despite names for editing controls; now perhaps so do you. Perhaps.
Now onto optimal exposure and Histograms? Perhaps.
-
Quote from: Frans Waterlander on January 20, 2019, 11:49:29 PM
"Sure, with a single frame Photomatix has to dramatically increase exposure in the shadows. When I import the same single frame in PSE and increase exposure in the shadows to about the same extent, the noise is dramatically lower, so Photomatix, as I said before, amplifies the noise."
"You are confused (again) between exposure and brightness!
Maybe you should read up on the principle of intellectual honesty and read up on your own mistaken text when it comes to what exposure really is."
If I may point out what should be an obvious fact - no "PROGRAM" can alter the exposure of an image - that is a function solely of three variables at the time the photo is taken - after that all that can happen is that the image produced can be manipulated by a program like Photomatix which AMPLIFIES the shadows or whatever up to a level to match the rest of the image depending upon the desired result.
And since the shadows have to be amplified more than other parts of the image you get more noise.
And all HDR programs produce noise for that reason.
When you combine 3 or more images where the shadows have been, in effect, over exposed, there is far less amplification needed so less noise.
But exposure is, and always has been, solely a function of the sensor, and 3 interconnected variables - light, shutter speed and aperture.
-
albytastic,
When I first convert my single Nikon NEF RAW file to tiff in PSE and then import that tiff file into Photomatix, I get very satisfactory tone-mapping results with noise well under control. When I import my Nikon NEF RAW file directly into Photomatix and let it do the RAW conversion, I get horrendous noise, no matter what tone mapping I apply. Apparently Photomatix does a bad job of converting Nikon NEF RAW files.
-
albytastic,
When I first convert my single Nikon NEF RAW file to tiff in PSE and then import that tiff file into Photomatix, I get very satisfactory tone-mapping results with noise well under control.
You've discovered the solution. Hooray.
Not that what you're stating above has anything to do with the correction (again) about what Exposure really is, this time from albytastic.
Now that you know about exposure and how to get good results with Photomatix, we're done here?
There's always PhotoNet to post on...... ;)
Are there tone-mapping-only programs that would do a good job on single images?
See the last post (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=128678.msg1094132#msg1094132)from Frans Waterlander; seems Photomatix. ;)
-
You've discovered the solution. Hooray.
Surprise, surprise.
That was quick...took only 2 pages.
(wait though, there will be some problem with that approach as well.)
-
Surprise, surprise.
That was quick...took only 2 pages.
(wait though, there will be some problem with that approach as well.)
Yup. You can bank on it.
-
albytastic,
When I first convert my single Nikon NEF RAW file to tiff in PSE and then import that tiff file into Photomatix, I get very satisfactory tone-mapping results with noise well under control. When I import my Nikon NEF RAW file directly into Photomatix and let it do the RAW conversion, I get horrendous noise, no matter what tone mapping I apply. Apparently Photomatix does a bad job of converting Nikon NEF RAW files.
It's not just Photomatix which has problem doing a decent conversion of RAW files, which is why when I have RAW files (yes I do sometimes use RAW) I always use Canon's DPP.
After all It's their files so they do know best how to convert them.
-
After all It's their files so they do know best how to convert them.
Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups...
-
It's not just Photomatix which has problem doing a decent conversion of RAW files, which is why when I have RAW files (yes I do sometimes use RAW) I always use Canon's DPP.
After all It's their files so they do know best how to convert them.
No, users who understand how to use the software know best. That's a critical job for some photographers; rendering their images. It is why many don't shoot JPEGs and allow a chip in a camera to do so.
Read this, tell us what you don't agree with in terms of rendering images by humans who capture them:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
-
Read this, tell us what you don't agree with in terms of rendering images by humans who capture them:
http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf
Well explained. I enjoyed this paper