I have to say that is one reason I shoot jpeg an awful lot because all my raw files have more noise than my jpegs.
Shooting Goldmember  1,552 posts Likes: 3 Joined Jan 2008 More info | I have to say that is one reason I shoot jpeg an awful lot because all my raw files have more noise than my jpegs.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded  More info | Jan 09, 2012 12:12 | #17 Shooting wrote in post #13673881  I have to say that is one reason I shoot jpeg an awful lot because all my raw files have more noise than my jpegs. Well, just realize that a jpeg may have less noticeable noise, but that is because noise reduction has been done in the camera, meaning that you have no control over it and whatever detail may get lost in the process. Many of us prefer to keep control of the process and so prefer to work with the Raw file. Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Shooting Goldmember 1,552 posts Likes: 3 Joined Jan 2008 More info | Yeah. At the moment the camera software using it's noise removing capabilities makes my images look better than I'm able to achieve in raw.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 10, 2012 03:43 | #19 Well I hope you van have access to these!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bohdank Cream of the Crop  14,060 posts Likes: 6 Joined Jan 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada More info | Jan 10, 2012 07:26 | #20 I downloaded one of them. It is your processing. Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mattia Senior Member 528 posts Likes: 2 Joined Feb 2009 More info | Jan 10, 2012 07:31 | #21 Shooting wrote in post #13676352 Yeah. At the moment the camera software using it's noise removing capabilities makes my images look better than I'm able to achieve in raw. You're doing something (several somethings) wrong in that case. 5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 10, 2012 07:45 | #22 I downloaded one of them. It is your processing. You're doing something (several somethings) wrong in that case. Using DPP (bundled with your canon camera) you can get the exact same JPG as you can in-camera. Using Lightroom or DxO Optics (f'r instance) you should be able to get at least equal, if not substantially better results (I prefer the control and output, anyway). As I am a newbie with this, these comments just do not make sense. Can someone please "talk" me through the steps that I did wrong??
LOG IN TO REPLY |
S.Horton worship my useful and insightful comments  More info | As you view at 100% back off vibrancy and clarity to see what changes. Sam - TF Says Ishmael
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mattia Senior Member 528 posts Likes: 2 Joined Feb 2009 More info | Jan 10, 2012 12:49 | #24 All I mean is if you want the in-camera JPGs, use the bundled RAW converter that comes with the camera (DPP), as it will give you the exact same JPG from the RAW. RAW files have more information and require more careful fiddling around to get the optimal results, but you have a lot more latitude for playing around with pictures.  IMG_6317_DxO2 by mattia_v, on FlickrFinally a quick process of the other shot you posted, which is massively overexposed (1.5-2 stops too bright or so for the sky), which means I pulled back exposure and used fairly aggressive fill light to get the tree and foreground exposed roughly decently. It's not the most exciting light overall, so not the greatest process in the world, but again, only spent about a minute doing it, and left the default settings for everything else. Result:  IMG_6316_DxO by mattia_v, on FlickrI'm mostly self-taught, but basically it's about fiddling around with each set of commands until you understand what each does, and learning how far you can push each one before you get weirdness and artifacts. Honestly, I much prefer Lightroom and DxO for this kind of (non-destructive, real-time) stuff versus a pixel-level editor like Photoshop, which can do all sorts of things I'm usually not that interested in doing. Exploring various presets, seeing what they do to pictures, playing around with the tone curve (very powerful tool), and most of all learning to read the histogram (overall, and RGB channels - make sure they're not clipping, or not clipping too much at least, and that you minimize overexposed or underexposed areas). Calibrated monitor helps (note: I did these on my laptop screen, so uncalibrated, because I'm traveling right now) 5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 10, 2012 13:56 | #25 Thanks for that reply, it helps a lot!  Screen background set at 1600 by 900 http://i261.photobucket.com …vz10/2012-01-10184222.jpg Any comments? Should I have sharpened more?? But at least the screen does not have so much noise as my previous effort.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | Jan 10, 2012 14:57 | #26 So, I downloaded your "desktop" Raw file, and when you leave your "develop" settings at the default (Lightroom or Camera Raw) the noise doesn't show at all, viewed at 100%.  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size. Now, that does not mean that the image "has no noise" -- all digital images have noise, but your "typical" low ISO shot has an exposure that lets more light in so that the inherent noise is "not noticeable". But yes, you can crank things in processing, especially with a Raw file, that can bring noise to the "surface", even with a low ISO shot, and that is obviously what has happened here -- likely the Contrast and Clarity settings "overcooked" things. If you want to figure this out, open the file in Camera Raw again and just take a step-by-step approach through each of your settings, viewing the image at 100%. You should find that at least one setting causes that noise to pop up. Such findings can be valuable for the future -- learn what to avoid and alternative ways of processing! Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | Jan 10, 2012 15:03 | #27 OK, in my earlier post the large version came up. Let's do this again:  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size. Here is the enlarged version, where of course you see not only some noise but the "pixellation" from being enlarged beyond 100%:  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size. Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Stone13 Goldmember  1,690 posts Likes: 8 Joined Aug 2009 Location: Huntersville, NC More info | Jan 10, 2012 16:39 | #28 not sure if this is your problem but if you aggressively bring down the blue luminance in the HSL panel to deepen the blue sky it seems to always introduce a ton of noise. Ken
LOG IN TO REPLY |
S.Horton worship my useful and insightful comments More info | Jan 10, 2012 16:40 | #29 Again, back off on the clarity and vibrance sliders; see what that is really doing. Sam - TF Says Ishmael
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1013 guests, 110 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
