Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: macgyver on June 28, 2007, 10:43:46 pm
-
After installing 1.1 many of my photos have taken a drasticly different appearance. In the past, for most applications I left the default NR in lightroom at 25 leaving high ISO shots with a somewhat grainy, but sharp appearance. However, now, everything seems to change/have changed to having very (for lack of better term) digicam-like NR. Details and colors look heavily smeared. Even when I drop the NR to 0 it does not improve much. Does anyone know how the new noise reduction works, compared to the old? Or is this some other problem, sharpening or somesuch?
-
Are you sure this has to do with noise reduction?
-
After installing 1.1 many of my photos have taken a drasticly different appearance. In the past, for most applications I left the default NR in lightroom at 25 leaving high ISO shots with a somewhat grainy, but sharp appearance. However, now, everything seems to change/have changed to having very (for lack of better term) digicam-like NR. Details and colors look heavily smeared. Even when I drop the NR to 0 it does not improve much. Does anyone know how the new noise reduction works, compared to the old? Or is this some other problem, sharpening or somesuch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125535\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is discussed somewhat in the 1.1 tutorial update.
-
Are you sure this has to do with noise reduction?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, hence the last sentance of my first post.
This is discussed somewhat in the 1.1 tutorial update.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which tutorial?
-
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess he means a tutorial on adobe's lightroom site. I haven't seen it myself, but heard it's about 45min long.
-
No, hence the last sentance of my first post.
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
-
No, hence the last sentance of my first post.
Which tutorial?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
-
I'm talking about the update to the Luminous Landscape Light Room tutorial that can be downloaded from this site. The tutorial is about 4.5 hrs and the update is about another thirty minutes and covers whats new in the 1.1 LR upgrade.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Has the LR 1.1 update tutorial been released? I just checked and did not see any update.
Henry
-
This is very strange. I have just noticed this also. LR does appear to be applying some NR even turned right down.
-
I watched the LL video (thanks for the freebe guys!) and it was somewhat helpful, but I still can't seem to make the connection. I know its me not sharpening right (I think).
-
I watched the LL video (thanks for the freebe guys!) and it was somewhat helpful, but I still can't seem to make the connection. I know its me not sharpening right (I think).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=125873\")
The situation you're describing is discussed in great detail over at the LR User to User forum in [a href=\"http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/117]this thread.[/url]
Rick
-
And, another post (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc45755) on this in the ACR forum.
Rick
-
rfreschenr, thank you so much, those are very helpful. Its good to see I'm not the only one who sees this. This effect, which im still trying to learn to counteract does not seem to be reversable. I think I'm about to reinstall 1.0, does anyone know if I can reimport photos from 1.1 to a fresh install of 1.0?
-
It reminds me a lot of RSP.
I'm still trying to figure this out.
-
Isn't this where parametric editing falls down? It only works so long as the converter underneath does not change? Or does LR have a solution to that?
(Only started really paying attention to it with this version.)
-
This post by Frank Schroeder at the Adobe LR forum shows exactly what I'm seeing with base ISO images from D70s, D200 and D2x:
Post #140 (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bc44a00/139)
It may be argued that this is irrelevant pixel-peeping, but my architectural images are printed large and displayed for close viewing, and this level of detail is visible in such prints.
That level of fudged processing is visible in many different sizes of print.
The main problem there is that Mr. Schroeder set the Detail slider to 100.
Just for fun, I rummaged through my libary and found a shot of some underbrush, and duplicated his settings (Amount: 64, Radius: 0.5, Detail: 100). Here's a before and after view, shown at 200% (420 kB).
[attachment=2738:attachment]
Here's a before and after view with Detail set to 0 instead:
[attachment=2739:attachment]
-
Isn't this where parametric editing falls down? It only works so long as the converter underneath does not change? Or does LR have a solution to that?
This is where naive and simplistic parametric editing falls down.
It doesn't have to fall down, but avoiding the problem requires additional complexity that only grows as the underlying functions evolve (old functions must be kept, and versioned).
If you don't trust Lightroom to handle this, the wise choice seems to be to export edited images to TIFF in 16 bpc as soon as an image is done in Lightroom.
-
Isn't this where parametric editing falls down?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think what is "falling down" is the amount of time people are looking at images at 1:1, 2:1 or higher...I honestly think that most of the people that have been posting about this issue really and truly don't understand the implications of what they think they are seeing...
Fact; CR 4.1 and LR 1.1 are "different" than previous version of CR/LR...
Fact; Camera Raw 4.1 & Lightroom 1.1 have both improved noise reduction and sharpening...
Fact; very few people know how to use the new tools...
Fact; there's been a lot of "tests" and befores/afters from a wide variety of people, cameras, ISOs-so many in fact that pretty much everybody is now further confused...
Opinion; people need to learn what a computer display can and can't show you. Looking at 50% or 25% zooms will tell you more regarding what detail is visible and relevant in a print. Making an actual print will tell you a lot more about what can be seen in a print.
Opinion; testing anything at "defaults" is useless, turning stuff off or all the way up/down are useless. Optimal testing would be to optimize an image in CR 4.1/LR 1.1 and compare the same final prepared image done in CR 4.0/LR 1.0.
Is CR 4.1/LR 1.1 capable of producing better, smoother and more detailed raw conversions? In my testing, yes...and I was actually paid by Adobe to test this stuff. but I only had access to about 10 cameras whose ISOs varied.
Will there be camera model to camera model variations between what the demosiacing, luminance smoothing and sharpening do to various ISO images? You bet.
That's why it would be useful to cut down on the chatter and the chaos and try to concentrate on 1) are there any real, repeatable cases where it can be proven that CR 4.1/LR 1.1 does a worse job and 2) exactly what cameras at what ISOs.
So far I've seen a lot of informal "tests" with little or no documentation, history records to be able to replicate the results nor raw examples posted to duplicate the results. Until that happens, it's all anecdotal information not evidence...
-
Thanks for that Jeff! But I think a fair question is raised:
From your explanation, you seem to imply that edits are *not* saved overtly as "slider x position set to value y" which would make sense making future upgrades (and plugins) possible.
That *still* begs the question - how would previous adjustments be represented with upgraded controls? It seems "not even going there" would be a definite possibilty - somehow I think not . . .
Curious - John
-
I'm not referring to whether it is better or worse. (I haven't figured that out for myself yet.) The question was in regards to the same parameters producing something different than it did when those parameters were set. (I've no idea if this happens or not. As I said, I really only started looking at this with 1.1.)
-
That *still* begs the question - how would previous adjustments be represented with upgraded controls? It seems "not even going there" would be a definite possibilty - somehow I think not . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So far, Thomas has only felt the need to provide backwards compatibility in the case of camera color rendering where an initial color calibration was later adjusted or changed. In that case, he came up with the method of allowing users to select the previous camera profile in the Calibrate tab...which of course has produced a lot of hand wringing since people assume it represents the Camera Raw version installed (no good deed goes unpunished).
In the case of the sharpening (the only thing I can directly attest to) the mandate was to at default (setting of 25 in the previous version) meet or exceed the quality of sharpening at default. We didn't worry (in fact we couldn't have anyway) about matchng how bad the old sharpening worked at different settings. But since this is parametrics and are subject to change we felt that was less of an issue.
We're faced no with an unusual situation...new software will be drastically changing the way older captures are processed...in most every case I'm aware of, the new processing is vastly better than the old. It would be useful to get to the bottom of the luminance smoothing/demosiacing issue.
-
I'm sorry, but I refuse to take the "it's better because I say so" line. Reading this fourm as well as the threads on the adobe fourms its clear that people would love to have a solution to put their photos back to the way they were. But, apparently that isn't an option. Someone compared it to being forced to change fixers. And Jeff, if you really want comparisions, look at the above listed adobe thread, there are many examples there.
-
And Jeff, if you really want comparisions, look at the above listed adobe thread, there are many examples there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And none of them raw files to run an independent confirmation. Sorry, I want to see what the raw files look like before I could possiblymake my own determination.
-
I think what is "falling down" is the amount of time people are looking at images at 1:1, 2:1 or higher...I honestly think that most of the people that have been posting about this issue really and truly don't understand the implications of what they think they are seeing...
Fact; very few people know how to use the new tools...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
I would agree that very few people at present know how to use the tools. The online help supplied by Adobe describes the controls, but doesn't really inform us how to make the best use of them. As to the sharpening tools, Bruce Fraser wrote a whole book on the subject of sharpening, and the information in the online help pales by comparison.
Your post on Photoshopnews was helpful, and I am getting usable results using the information in that post. Hopefully, your ACR book will be a big help when it becomes available in September.
Bill
-
And none of them raw files to run an independent confirmation. Sorry, I want to see what the raw files look like before I could possiblymake my own determination.
Ditto. And I have asked quite directly for the raw files, only met with stonewall silence on that point.
That there appears to be different processing of a file depending on the ISO data in the EXIF headers is kindof interesting, though, and I'd really like to investigate the claim that an ISO 1600 image is processed with less loss of detail when the header is changed to ISO 100. I could do that on my own images, but it's hard for me to say whether differences would come from my own lack of skills or not.
Perhaps I should post raw files for free processing.
-
That level of fudged processing is visible in many different sizes of print.
The main problem there is that Mr. Schroeder set the Detail slider to 100.
Just for fun, I rummaged through my libary and found a shot of some underbrush, and duplicated his settings (Amount: 64, Radius: 0.5, Detail: 100). Here's a before and after view, shown at 200% (420 kB).
[attachment=2738:attachment]
Here's a before and after view with Detail set to 0 instead:
[attachment=2739:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FWIW, I compared LR 1.1 to the last version of RSP that was available and still on my machine. With RSP, you could have Processing Parameters based on ISO that set up things before you even got started. For ISO 800 on a Canon 20D (and these were published on the net somewhere),
Detail Extraction vs. noise suppression was set to -16
Noise Suppression Bias was set to 22
Color Noise Suppression Bias was set to 16
In LR 1.1 setting Luminance to somewhere between 60-70 would bring about a similar "overall smoothness" before processing is started. For sharpening, I am still bridging out to PS3 for USM. Sharpening is still just not there in LR 1.1, clearly better than it was in 1.0, but still needs work. I wish they would allow initial parameters to be set in LR upon import, but based on things such as ISO... Would help immensely..
Jay S.
-
I watched the LL video (thanks for the freebe guys!) and it was somewhat helpful, but I still can't seem to make the connection. I know its me not sharpening right (I think).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which Freebie? :-)
Jay S