HDR fuzziness

[molested_cow]

I am using Photomatix Pro for HDR and comparing HDR to regular photos, my HDR photos always have this "fuzzy" look to it, making it less sharp as compared to its regular shots. Some details therefore get lost. Do you guys have the same effect as what I am getting?

 

[Light Guru]

Are you soothing from a tripod? The auto align can only do so much.

 

[Steve5D]

I am using Photomatix Pro for HDR and comparing HDR to regular photos, my HDR photos always have this "fuzzy" look to it, making it less sharp as compared to its regular shots. Some details therefore get lost. Do you guys have the same effect as what I am getting?

It's difficult to know without seeing some examples.

Could you post some of the shots you're comparing?

 

[Compaq]

Are you referring to the fact that many shots out of Photomatix look "soft"? Something like this one:


Kjøkenhylle by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

 

[480sparky]

Is your subject moving between frames?

Hard to answer without having some idea of what you're seeing that we can't.

 

[KongKurs]

I seem to have always concluded, that Photomatix (and HDR processing and tonemapping in general) produce a lot of noise, and I guess the "softness" comes from the photomatix's noisereduction.
If you can do it, a "manually" produced HDR image in Photoshop with stacked photos masked in on each other with layer masks will always be a better, sharper result. But it won't have the same 'artistic' HDR-esque feel to it. At least until you run it through a tonemapping software.

Sometimes I combine the two processes to reduce noise in different places (in the sky/clouds for example, when shooting landscapes);
I create the HDR photo in Photomatix, and afterwards layer-in the best photo of the sky. This way I avoid noise in the sky, which often is easily visible, compared to noise in structures, foliage, etc.

 

[amolitor]

HDR techniques OUGHT to reduce noise, inherently.

 

[molested_cow]

Sorry for the late reply, been busy lately. Here's two examples at 100%.

The first photo is more obvious. I don't call it "soft". It's more noisy and seems to have picked up a lot of unwanted texture. CA also gets amplified in many cases. The second photo isn't as obvious, but the original is always better in terms of image quality.

 

[molested_cow]

I just realized something... I was looking at my earlier HDRs that were done using photoshop CS5 and damn they are clean! The settings are not as well put out as photomatix pro but the images just seem as sharp as they were. I guess I will give CS5 HDR module a second chance.

 

[molested_cow]

Man this takes a lot of work for one image!!!

 

[KongKurs]

HDR techniques OUGHT to reduce noise, inherently.

It doesn't.. I don't know why, but it enhances noise. At least, Photomatix does.
David Nightingale also states this in his book "Practical HDR".

This is from the HDRSoft's Photomatix FAQ: http://www.hdrsoft.com/support/faq_photomatix.html
"· When source images are noisy, tone mapping may further increase noise."

 

[dmunsie]

I've been using photomatix for a few weeks now, and I've found my images look sharper if I do not have the software align the images. Granted, I'm using a tripod, etc. But as soon as I unchecked that option, I noticed an improvement. I also think photomatix seems to work better for those that want a more artsy, painted result.

 

[KmH]

Any kind of edit degrades image quality to some extent, even so-called nondestructive parametric edits.

 

[skieur]

Actually your first shots are not less sharp. There is just less contrast which makes them appear less sharp.

So, HDR is not ideal for all kinds of shots and for some shots you may need to fine tune your HDR adjustments or how many f stops you use to vary your shots.