Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: barryfitzgerald on October 09, 2007, 08:59:53 pm
-
Still not 100% happy about the RAW high ISO NR processing.
1.2 is better than 1.1, but still seeing artifacts when sharpening, and still not getting that fine grain effect I used to.
Don't get me wrong, LR is good, lots to like here. More work needed IMHO.
C1 4 beta is simply doing a better job at high ISO, more details, no NR when luminance NR slider is set to 0, and unlike the LR luminance NR slider, C1 4 seems more effective at removing noise, in a more subtle, less watercolour way.
Side issue also, but C1 also seems to have the edge on HL recovery too! Are adobe losing their edge here a bit?
-
Can we see an example? Don't get me wrong, I believe you fully, the NR/sharpening/whatever it is in ACR and Lightroom is decidedly suppar but I'd be interested to see just how much detail is kept in C1 in comparison.
-
ISO 3200 KM5D
C1 4: 0 Luminance NR, default colour NR,
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/CustomName001.jpg)
LR..same
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/DeniseGerard120.jpg)
100% crops on both.
-
Still not 100% happy about the RAW high ISO NR processing.
1.2 is better than 1.1, but still seeing artifacts when sharpening, and still not getting that fine grain effect I used to.
Don't get me wrong, LR is good, lots to like here. More work needed IMHO.
C1 4 beta is simply doing a better job at high ISO, more details, no NR when luminance NR slider is set to 0, and unlike the LR luminance NR slider, C1 4 seems more effective at removing noise, in a more subtle, less watercolour way.
Side issue also, but C1 also seems to have the edge on HL recovery too! Are adobe losing their edge here a bit?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
Glad, but sad, to see that this is being proven out. I just posted something similar in terms of noise reduction on Canon 20D ISO 1600 when compared to Raw Shooter Pro. I'll have to give the C1 Pro Beta a try and see the difference for myself. I may try to post something as well. The "watercolor" effect (best description I've seen) is very prevalent with combined NR and Sharpening. I've taken to zero'ing out both settings on high ISO and handling in PS3 with Noise Ninja and USM. They had this SO clean in RSP.. I don't understand why the technology didn't translate with the acquisition of the company.
Jay S.
-
The "watercolor" effect (best description I've seen) is very prevalent with combined NR and Sharpening. I've taken to zero'ing out both settings on high ISO and handling in PS3 with Noise Ninja and USM. They had this SO clean in RSP.. I don't understand why the technology didn't translate with the acquisition of the company.
Jay S.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everything I've heard from Adobe or their apologists basically says 'you are doing it wrong'. But even following their advice I can't seem to get it right.
-
Everything I've heard from Adobe or their apologists basically says 'you are doing it wrong'. But even following their advice I can't seem to get it right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mac,
I've watched some of the videos very carefully where the image is examined at 2:1, and the balance that one must go through between not applying too much sharpening or detail otherwise the NR can get "incorrect". I don't know if there is an exact "right" way to do it, but I agree, even after watching the experts, this is one area of an otherwise very very good product that needs work. I'm not even sure it is the sharpening section anymore. I like the visual balance that can be achieved by seeing the amount of detail, etc. It is the application of Noise Reduction that messes things up it seems. Again, in RSP, using the pre-processing abilities, I could get relatively silky smooth RAW images to begin work with even with ISO 1600. That is why I wish I could draw some correlation to those parameters and the ones in LR.. At least have something to try. I really wish someone with a Canon 20, 30, or 40D and ISO 1600 images would post some of their successes and how they got there. Still not replies to my post earlier tonight.
Jay S.
-
I downloaded some other RAW files from here:
http://raw.fotosite.pl/ (http://raw.fotosite.pl/)
Still see the same thing, aka some NR processing going on even with NR set to 0. I know adobe mentioned this, after the outburst on LR 1.1, still think they need to turn it down.
Canon 30D ISO 1600
C1 4 beta
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/c101.jpg)
LR 1.2
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/LR02.jpg)
It's more noticable on the corners of the unit, smearing effect. I cant seem to avoid it, even playing with details, and the sharpening. It's also an issue when pulling up shadows, you get a kinda splodge effect, more than a finer grain like one. So it's not just limited to high ISO shots.
Also worryingly, at low ISO I found that Arcsofts el cheapo LR lite clone, Photostudio Darkroom, is giving "better" fine details! Not what I would expect from a $99 RAW converter V ACR/LR.
-
Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
-
Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Eric..
Well for the ist series of shots I was printing at 8" x 6" for an album, using LR. At that size the artifacts were not a problem. (ISO 1600/3200)
I made some enlargements for a client (different shots, lower ISO) but with some shadow areas pulled up somewhat, and it started to become an issue at 12" x 10", not to the point the prints were ruined, but it had less of a "finer grain effect" than conversions I did using other software.
I have not tried a print with C1 4, but have done some with the previous version, again finer grain, rather then the thicker grain/artifacts, simply put to my eyes, it prints better than LR (high ISO)
So smaller prints high ISO, not an issue, but if you were printing about 10" I would say it would be, and of course larger you go, the more noticable the artifcats would be. My aim for high ISO is a "flm grain" effect, esp for mono shots, not really getting that with LR. Its better than LR 1.1, that was way OTT NR wise, but it needs IMHO to be turned "OFF" 100%
-
Barry, out of curiosity how these images compare when printed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
I don't think the issue is going to show in the smaller size prints (you can hide a lot in a 4x6), but as Eric says you certainly begin to see it in larger prints AND in crops of originals where you are getting that much closer to the fine details. I'm not seeing the issue anywhere near as much at 400 and below, but there should not be this significant an issue with higher ISOs.
Jay S.
-
Right, I didn't mean to imply it was a non-issue -- I was mostly curious to learn at which sizes (and above) could one start to see the differences in the print. Looks like that has been answered ...
-
I downloaded some other RAW files from here:
http://raw.fotosite.pl/ (http://raw.fotosite.pl/)
Still see the same thing, aka some NR processing going on even with NR set to 0. I know adobe mentioned this, after the outburst on LR 1.1, still think they need to turn it down.
Canon 30D ISO 1600
<snip>
It's more noticable on the corners of the unit, smearing effect. I cant seem to avoid it, even playing with details, and the sharpening. It's also an issue when pulling up shadows, you get a kinda splodge effect, more than a finer grain like one. So it's not just limited to high ISO shots.
Also worryingly, at low ISO I found that Arcsofts el cheapo LR lite clone, Photostudio Darkroom, is giving "better" fine details! Not what I would expect from a $99 RAW converter V ACR/LR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
Are you on a Mac or PC? I have both, and perhaps it is the display (CRT on PC vs. LCD on Mac Book Pro), but first time I've noticed that this seems worse on the Mac than on the XP based PC. The difference is noticeable at higher zoom in such as 2:1, and just did not have them side by side before.
Jay
-
Looking at the the crops that people have posted, it's my personal belief that Capture One's rendering is not much better than Lightroom, if at all. Frankly, they both look ugly. Capture One's rendering seems to preserve essentially the same amount of detail at the edges, whereas they produce different types of artifacting on uniform areas (such as the man's suit). It could be due to compression artifacts, but there is this nasty criss-crossing line pattern on the C1 4 crop, which seems most apparent in the upper right hand corner of the married couple crop (the corner of the window in the background). In my opinion, C1 4 is producing some fine-grained artifacts that's being mistaken for extra detail. Would either type of artifacting be visible in a print? In theory, the C1 4 rendition may be better, since the artifacts are smaller and may be less visible, but I don't really know.
Honestly, if you're interested in precise noise reduction, don't bother with any of the current RAW converters out there. I think it will be a long time before we see the sophistication and noise profiling technologies of programs such as Noise Ninja or Neatimage (that is, incorporated into the actual program, rather than a third party plugin, such as Noise Ninja for Bibble... which requires a licensed version of Noise Ninja to provide the best functionality).
The best chance of seeing good noise reduction employed by the current leaders of RAW converters will come in the form of a third party plugin... or someone completely new that knows how much photographers value quality noise reduction if they shoot at high ISO. Unless you're analyzing the noise patterns of your own specific camera and generating accurate profiles with a target, the generic noise reduction of ANY raw converter is a fudge at best.
-
The best chance of seeing good noise reduction employed by the current leaders of RAW converters will come in the form of a third party plugin... or someone completely new that knows how much photographers value quality noise reduction if they shoot at high ISO. Unless you're analyzing the noise patterns of your own specific camera and generating accurate profiles with a target, the generic noise reduction of ANY raw converter is a fudge at best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not talking about reduciing the noise, but the option to "decide", what to do with that. I take issue with adobe's stance of pre appying NR by default to RAW.
C1 isnt perfect, but its making a more "printable " film like image. I do not remove luminance noise for print. I think you are misssing the point here, people want a choice of what to do. The noise is not the issue, NR is.
-
Barry,
Are you on a Mac or PC? I have both, and perhaps it is the display (CRT on PC vs. LCD on Mac Book Pro), but first time I've noticed that this seems worse on the Mac than on the XP based PC. The difference is noticeable at higher zoom in such as 2:1, and just did not have them side by side before.
Jay
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi jay I am on a pc. Are you saying that the mac has more NR than windows??
-
Just wondering how much the difference in the apparent noise in the wedding pictures is due to differences in the default exposure settings in the two RAW converters. On my screen the LR looks lighter by perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 a stop and to have more shadow detail could this be enough to explain some of the differences in perceived noise?
David
-
Just wondering how much the difference in the apparent noise in the wedding pictures is due to differences in the default exposure settings in the two RAW converters. On my screen the LR looks lighter by perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 a stop and to have more shadow detail could this be enough to explain some of the differences in perceived noise?
David
-
I am not talking about reduciing the noise, but the option to "decide", what to do with that. I take issue with adobe's stance of pre appying NR by default to RAW.
C1 isnt perfect, but its making a more "printable " film like image. I do not remove luminance noise for print. I think you are misssing the point here, people want a choice of what to do. The noise is not the issue, NR is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if you think I am missing the point, let me try and make myself more clear so you'll know, and I'll know for sure, that I really am missing the point.
You are comparing two crops with no luminance smoothing, and standard color noise reduction. Although you maintain that C1 4 is yielding better results with respect to LR's "build in" noise reduction, I don't feel that the results are substantial enough to claim that it's significantly better than LR. However, I am not at all convinced that Lightroom is actually smoothing out very much detail (I believe they implement some sort of noise reduction during or shortly after demosaicing... correct me if I'm wrong), and that there appears to be no visual loss of detail at the edges. The uniform artifacting, or noise in the C1 4 sample gives the appearance of extra detail, but if you look at your own crops at the fine details, they are pretty close. Sometimes noise (or similar artifacts) can give the illusion of extra detail or sharpness when there is none.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing special about C1 4's handling of noise reduction/ detail preservation at its base level compared to LR's... speaking purely from what I've seen here. Most RAW converters out there need to handle detail and noise more efficiently as a whole, and I do not see any evidence here that C1 4 is significantly better. If you like it because it looks more like film, that's fine, but the samples don't convince me that it's producing a significantly more pleasing result than LR.
-
Hi jay I am on a pc. Are you saying that the mac has more NR than windows??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
So, where working the sliders (According to the videos) of both NR and Sharpening to an acceptable image at 1:1 and 2:1 on the PC/CRT XP based system, I applied the exact same numbers to the same image on a Mac Book Pro and found I need to reduce the "Detail" slider in half. The Mac Book Pro is hooked up to a Dell 24" LCD Panel (2407WFP-HC excellent by the way). Again, I don't know if it is just an issue of LCD vs. CRT. I have an LCD based notebook with XP I'll have to try and see... The XP/CRT is running at 1600x1200, and the MBP at 1900x1200..
Also, at least to me, it seems that the Detail slider causes the most grief. If you do use the NR in LR 1.2 try to reduce the detail slider.. I understand what you are saying though about LR applying some NR even if everything is set to 0. Obviously this changed from 1.1 to 1.2, so it is clear that they are aware it is an area that needs or needed work...
Jay S.
-
Hi Jay..
Details slider is a strange one, never really got to grips with it. I have tried many combinations, but nothing seems to really help aka NR wise. If anyone has any tips, feel free to fire away.
Not pre sharpening in LR appears to not be an option, this is a 100% crop
No sharpening in LR, high pass sharpen and USM too at 70 odd radius 2
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/lr-1.jpg)
This is pre sharpened standard landscape sharpen preset, plus high pass in psp.
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/LRsharp.jpg)
And for a laugh I added the arcsoft one, no sharpen in program, USM only. I can get a little better with pre sharpening in the program, though it holds up no worries to ACR/LR
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/psd.jpg)
Pretty much says to me must use sharpen in LR!
-
Hi Jay..
Details slider is a strange one, never really got to grips with it. I have tried many combinations, but nothing seems to really help aka NR wise. If anyone has any tips, feel free to fire away.
Not pre sharpening in LR appears to not be an option, this is a 100% crop
No sharpening in LR, high pass sharpen and USM too at 70 odd radius 2
<snip>
This is pre sharpened standard landscape sharpen preset, plus high pass in psp.
<snip>
And for a laugh I added the arcsoft one, no sharpen in program, USM only. I can get a little better with pre sharpening in the program, though it holds up no worries to ACR/LR
<snip>
Pretty much says to me must use sharpen in LR!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145432\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
Well, you can see a clear difference, although it may be harder to determine on what appears to be a center crop of a wider angle image. I understand if is there, it will affect other images. I am more concerned though with portrait type shots, tighter if you will, where a crop really brings out facial detail (or lack of it), or that the effect of the "watercolor" is really evident perhaps. Will look for a good example and try and post results.
Jay S.
-
Hi Jay..
Details slider is a strange one,
Barry, the best way to see what the Detail slider is doing is to hold down the Alt Key when moving it (Option key on Mac).
The further right it is, the more the high frequency detail will be sharpened.
-
Barry, the best way to see what the Detail slider is doing is to hold down the Alt Key when moving it (Option key on Mac).
The further right it is, the more the high frequency detail will be sharpened.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sean,
I'll let Barry answer for himself, but personally I'm well aware of holding down the Option or Alt key and see the detail that will be sharped and masking (incredibly useful) confines the sharpening to the edges, for example.. The issue is the possible impact of the detail slider and noise reduction at high ISOs and the result to the image. Some call is smearing, some calling a watercolor effect, etc. Not sure what equipment you have, but what settings are you using (in general) for high ISO RAW processing?
Jay S.
-
Hi Jay
I am aware of the alt key and the grey effect for sharpening (for some reason it makes the slider very sloppy though)
As a rule I sharpen somewhat more conservative than most, I have tended to go easy on the detail slider being honest. I always have luminance NR set to 0, only ever go after the colour noise.
By no means am I unhappy with LR, overall, its a fantastic piece of software, easy to use, and fast for a large no. of images. A few areas that need ironing out a tad, like most people feel.
C1 4, cannot really comment that much on, only really used it to illustrate the difference between the high ISO NR. Overall its much more appealing than the previous version, not sure about netframework though, makes for a slow startup.
-
Hi Jay
I am aware of the alt key and the grey effect for sharpening (for some reason it makes the slider very sloppy though)
As a rule I sharpen somewhat more conservative than most, I have tended to go easy on the detail slider being honest. I always have luminance NR set to 0, only ever go after the colour noise.
By no means am I unhappy with LR, overall, its a fantastic piece of software, easy to use, and fast for a large no. of images. A few areas that need ironing out a tad, like most people feel.
C1 4, cannot really comment that much on, only really used it to illustrate the difference between the high ISO NR. Overall its much more appealing than the previous version, not sure about netframework though, makes for a slow startup.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
I agree about LR.. I like the workflow, like the visual representation of components of the Develop module, closeness to CS3, etc. I, in fact, have very little issues with noise on the lower ISOs (which kinda just plain makes sense) :-) ... Like you, I cannot find a good balance of sharpeneing, noise reduction, detail, etc. For the most part, I keep the detail at a minimum on high ISO, and use masking to keep any artifacting off faces, etc. Still bring results into CS3, use Noise Ninja, and USM...
Jay
-
I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.
I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.
I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.
-
I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.
I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.
I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. But Shh! Don't tell adobe!
-
I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.
I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.
I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
T-1000,
I like C1 Pro as well.. liked RSP when we had it. There are absolutely some features (camera profiles for one) that are very nice. That said, I've got the C1 beta on my Mac Book Pro, and at ISO 1600, it can get pretty ugly as well. At the defaults they supply, ISO 1600 with a Canon 20D looks just downright nasty. Getting to something acceptable on a high ISO image there is also a tradeoff. Turn up the noise reduction and some of the uglies go away, but then some of the softness comes back in. So, one way or another, we're back to Noise Ninja on the JPG, which may be just what has to be. I'll be more than glad to share a RAW file and would honestly like to see what you think are the best settings with C1...
Jay S.
-
I've said this many times - many programs out there, including Lightroom and SilkyPix render images with a watercolor digital effect, while C1 just gives you straight detail, that doesn't look digital at all.
I will never use Lightroom, and I can't imagine why some people with expensive Phase backs are using Lightroom instead of C1, simply because Lightroom's workflow is better.
I'll take image quality over workflow, especially if I just paid $30,000 for a digital back. Unbelievable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
O.K.,
Let the discussion begin :-) Same image.. zoom at 2:1 (200%) no correction except a white balance (both using the same temp and tint). All noise and sharpening turned to 0. Shot is ISO 1600 Canon 20D, image area is to the side and further back from center of focus. Shot at 35mm, F/4.5, 1/250th. Looking at the packages, C1 Pro V4 on the left, LR 1.2 on the right. To my eyes, the C1 image may seem "sharper", but I think it has more artifacting. If you look at the young ladies neck, I prefer the image under LR over the one under C1. This does not say there still isn't an issue when applying NR and Detail and Sharpening to the image with LR, but the discussion started comparing NR under both packages at their respective starting points. That said, an edge to C1 for white balance on auto.
Jay S.
-
Hi Jay,
After examining both images, my impression is that the C1 image has more luminance noise whereas the LR image has more chroma noise. (Obviously these can be balanced out via the appropriate noise reduction sliders.) Also, I see some artifacts near the corners of the woman's lips and at the end strands of the woman's hair in the LR image; this might have to do with the Detail slider for sharpening. What do you think?
-
Hi Jay,
After examining both images, my impression is that the C1 image has more luminance noise whereas the LR image has more chroma noise. (Obviously these can be balanced out via the appropriate noise reduction sliders.) Also, I see some artifacts near the corners of the woman's lips and at the end strands of the woman's hair in the LR image; this might have to do with the Detail slider for sharpening. What do you think?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
I've looked and looked at the two images. My next step was to plan on "adjusting" the image with both packages, and put up a similar post (I know, lots of room for personal judgment there). I agree with your assessment on noise. If we're "splitting hairs" (no pun intended) look at the part in her hair, and the small loop that appears near the bacl. I think the C1 version has more detail, but the LR version has more of the loop (go figure)...
Also, I intentionally went away from the focus point, and into an area where depth of field would have made the image "softer" to begin with. We're talking about loss of details here, and in my mind, if you are going to lose them, then that is where to look. I would hope both do reasonably well at the focus point. The C1 image looks a bit "harsher" (look at her eyebrows), but I"m not sure that is more detail...
The was no LR Detail applied as all sliders were set to zero (unless LR is doing some detail before presenting the image), and as I said, this doesn't show anything regarding what happens to the images after we start using the sliders. This was my attempt to just show how each package handles the image on import with nothing applied.
It is on higher ISOs, that we started seeing the effects of Sharpening vs. NR vs Detail, etc. under LR. If you want the original just let me know. You can download the C1 beta for free and try them side by side..
From a useability standpoint, LR (in my opinion) is a better tool, and I'm not even talking about Workflow. I've used C1, RSP, ACR, Canon's DPP, and others. I think that (once you get past the whole library thing) LR is a better experience. I just wish they would get this high ISO noise/sharpening thing correct and I'd be a happy camper!
Jay S.
-
I just want to say that in the example you have provided I see more contrast in Lightroom and a softer image in C1 4. The difference appears to be related more to contrast and sharpness than any difference in NR to my eye.
ISO 3200 KM5D
C1 4: 0 Luminance NR, default colour NR,
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/CustomName001.jpg)
LR..same
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c25/barryfitzgerald/Test%20shots/DeniseGerard120.jpg)
100% crops on both.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I just want to say that in the example you have provided I see more contrast in Lightroom and a softer image in C1 4. The difference appears to be related more to contrast and sharpness than any difference in NR to my eye.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well being fair its no unusual to get a different look in various RAW processing software, by default.
I am still thinking that C1 4 is doing a better "cleaner/crisper" look. By no means am I out to rave out the software (for a beta its pretty decent) net framework makes for a slow startup too..leaving that aside.
Down to personal taste I guess, but I still want adobe to "not do any NR at all" unless I do it myself. I think the 30D sample shows this point also. I dont think I am alone in this thinking either.
-
Well being fair its no unusual to get a different look in various RAW processing software, by default.
I am still thinking that C1 4 is doing a better "cleaner/crisper" look. By no means am I out to rave out the software (for a beta its pretty decent) net framework makes for a slow startup too..leaving that aside.
Down to personal taste I guess, but I still want adobe to "not do any NR at all" unless I do it myself. I think the 30D sample shows this point also. I dont think I am alone in this thinking either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Barry,
I tried to get a good solid conversion on the ISO 1600 image I had above, and used the same levels of USM on the best I could get from both C1 and LR. When I got in real tight on the C1 Pro image (after converting to JPG), what I thought was detail, was actually some artifacting. I went back to the TIF file that came out of the C1 conversion and it was there as well. To me, neither is handling the higher ISO scenarios very well.. which is really starting to be frustrating. I went back and reviewed step by step the videos on the LR 1.1 noise reduction and sharpening videos and just cannot get a good balance without some level of watercolor effect. Very frustrating to not have a solid workflow. Next up, Canon's DPP just to see what it looks like.
Jay S.
-
Hi Jay...
Well I don't have Canon's software, so I will let you fire away on that one!
As for C1 and LR, sure on both you get artifacting (if you really pixel peep up close), it just looks tighter and finer overall, more grain like in effect.
Printed output appears that bit better (C1), you wont see anything nasty at small 6x4" sizes, up that a bit and you start to get the effect come through..(10"+ odd, barely visible on some 8" shots)
I notice in LR that the shadow or black areas are even harder hit that the rest of the image, aka it kidna blocks up a lot more.
You could argue I guess that for my needs (album shots are mostly 8"x6" on average), that it matters not a lot, and you would be right. Most of the bigger enlargements are with the lower ISO ones (aka outside etc, or flash)
On the other hand if you do want a grainy effect at high ISO for larger printing, or you are pulling up the shadows a lot on lower ISO shots, it could cause a few problems.
I have yet to find a balance I like in LR, its just applying "some" NR whatever you do. Odd thing to say, but I am getting some really nice jpegs out of LR!!! lol