[wulinka]

Darn, kombi, you're good! I don't have time to play with it right now, but you pretty much guessed my detail settings there, so I have hope to fix them soon

I'll also look into DPP further, as chris and you both recommend it so warmly. However I am really turned off by the slow process of RAW editing right now, will have to wait for new computer altogether. but good to start figuring out how to do it!

thanks for your input, it's much appreciated, uli

[Toad]

I agree with Kombi here and was about to suggest similar settings - except that I tend to use values of 50 for each of Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction with my shots.

[wulinka]

thanks toad!

[Wedding Shooter]

Kombi - I like the workflow of DPP. It is very simple and matches the natural settings of my camera - as it would for yours as well.

On the two posted images there also appears to be a big exposure difference. My feeling is that the RAW image has been brightened in the RAW converter by one to two stops over the JPEG. If you shoot at ISO 800 and push the brightness by one stop is the equivilent of shooting at ISO 1600 and so on. If you are shooting at high ISO's it is important to get the exposure right. I dare say that Kombi's suggestions will help also.

But check out the original RAW file (in DPP as it will leave the file unchanged until you tell it what you want it to do) and see if it looks dark like the JPEG. If this is the case process it as it is and see how the noise compares.

By the way the noise in that picture would only show up in a larger print and noise ninja would handle it very well (I also use this programme instead of the RAW converter to adjust noise in images).

Cheers,

Chris

[peter]

Just for anyone who may find it useful...

if you have windows XP .. theres a powertoy, so that in your filebrowser you can see raw files properly... as far as i know it works for canon and nikon raw formats...

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/detai...laylang=en

theres the link =P

[Wedding Shooter]

Preview on a MAC will also do this - but DPP would be best to process the file.

[Schellamo]

Thanks guys,
kombi, i think I might try the canon upgrade you were talking about, and maybe noise ninja. I have probably been pushing my images a bit too much with the exposure, and I have fiddled with the sharpness/noise in CS2, but since it doesn't preview, I've found it hard to tweak, will have another go though.

Thanks for all the info!

[wulinka]

So much good advice, where do I start??

Thanks Chris for your tips, and yes, that was on thing about bridge, I haven't found a setting so it will show me the original picture untouched, it opens it with its suggestions applied already.

unfortunately I don't have XP, Peter, but actually I don't think I need any more progams here before I haven't mastered the ones I have.

Schell, Chris, how do you like noise ninja? I have heard very good things about it!

uli

[Wedding Shooter]

Uli - Noise Ninja is really quite a good program. They have profiles for your camera you can download so that it already knows what to look for in terms of noise.

It can be very simple, or advanced depending on how you use it. It can also be used as a plug-in in Photoshop and Bibble has it as a built in part of its RAW conversion process.

Cheers,

Chris

[Schellamo]

Uli, I don't have noise ninja
Chris, I could go and look this up myself of course, but how much is noise ninja?? Also, I couldn't find the download you were referring to, which section of the canon site can I find the update?

[Wedding Shooter]

Hi Schellamo,

Here is the link for DPP - just choose your operating system and go from there:

http://alpha02.c-wss.com/inc/ApplServlet...R&TRF=MAIN

Noise Ninja ranges in price depending on what version you want. I think the pro version with all features is $79.95 US (but I could be wrong). i seem to remember the cheaper versions were around $40-50 US.

Web site is:

www.picturecode.com

Cheers,

Chris

[Schellamo]

you know your just making me lazy now, don't you chris??

Now I'm tossing up between noise ninja and neat image, opinions?

[Wedding Shooter]

Do they have a free trial download? Try them both out - I think thay both have a good reputation.

[wulinka]

Hello.......... still playing and trying.

Now: does the DPP have the same setting to fix the luminescence smoothing anywhere??

Thank you!

uli

[wulinka]

I hope someone still feels like talking about this:

I shot this caterpillar today, in JPEG and RAW.




It was ok-ish, but I wanted to brighten it up a little. so I used the RAW to edit in Canon DPP, and the JPEG to edit in PS. Now it wasn't a drastic manipulation I performed, just brightened it up a little, using mostly the curves in both programs.

for comparison, here is the Photoshop - edited JPEG:


Now below I am showing two comparisons between (from left to right)
1. the original JPEG
2. the RAW-edited in DPP - converted to JPEG
3. the JPEG - edited in PS






To me, the original JPEG looks the best, the edited JPEG the second, and the converted RAW the worst. color noise is worse in both edited versions than in the original.
I am sure I am to blame for not making optimal use of my software.... but at this mild level of adjustment, I feel almost ecouraged to stick with the JPEG, as the RAW editing takes so much more resources!

How can I make the RAW better?
As I mentioned, one thing I was looking for DPP was something like the luminescence smoothing from bridge.

thanks for any advise you can give me,

Uli

[Toad]

You are focussing on the wrong things. A little noise is easily cleaned up. How about something where your white balance is totally wrong? See the examples below - the only difference is that I adjusted the white balance before saving...

Before




...and After





Try to fix that photo without RAW...

[wulinka]

Well, I don't disagree, but how do I fix the noise??

Tap tap tap, I am off to trying the ninja now..... will be back

[Toad]

Hmmm. I hate to get into a philosophical argument so please forgive me if my respectaful intent is poorly conveyed by my post. Written language is a poor conveyor of intent.

I believe that 100% crops are a poor way to judge a photo's merits. If you did 100% crops of Cartier Bresson or Ansel Adams's photos they might not look so great. The key (IMO only) to great photography is to capture the image by whatever means you can and then (if the image is crap) transform it subsequently into something that you can use. This transformation is easier if you shoot RAW. You can correct noise or contrast fairly easily in PhotoShop but for the big modifications (totally blown exposures or white balance are the main candidates), RAW can save the photo that is otherwise garbage. This is the gift of RAW - not that every photo is better - just aint so plus the workflow is more complicated - but that you can get great photos from utter photographic screw-ups.

Others may be different than me - but I lose great images all the time to:

- flash not going off
- was in manual mode instead of Auto and blew exposure
- didn't use flash or lights when I should have
- etc. etc.

If you don't do things like this and are more disciplined - I applaud you - but for me - I like the RAW insurance.

Best
T

[wulinka]

Hey! didn't mean to involve you in any kind of argument!! I agree with everything you said, sorry if it seemed I wanted to argue....

I had a quick glance at ninja, and am very tempted to get it. even if just because it is so much faster than PS's noise reduction, which I have been told can give really good results if you really master is.

Ta! uli

[Wedding Shooter]

Uli - the amount of noise in the files you are showing at 400% is minimal anyway. Try printing something and see if you can see that noise.

Once again I also feel that the exposure on the DPP edit is brighter than the photoshop version - hence slightly more noise.

Toad has a lot of good points. Also RAW allows you to save as a 16bit Tiff. By creating a JPEG from the RAW file you are throwing away all that extra information.

Cheers

[Toad]

Hey! didn't mean to involve you in any kind of argument!! I agree with everything you said, sorry if it seemed I wanted to argue....

oops sorry - not my intent either - like I said written word is imprcise

[Russt]

Uli, i can understand your apparent frustration with raw and the different work flow. I would encourage you to keep at it. The positives out way the extra work........and 9 out of 10 (what ever) photogs can't be wrong

There are lots of programs out there to help.........I have used neat image and like it. The trial version will only go to 1024 pixels (I think).

I would also recommend you have a look at Raw Shooter........I find the work flow easier than other programs I have used. The noise reduction is also good (all in one) and you can set it to open your pics in PS once converted.

You should find that you spend less time in PS once you have your raw conversion going. I mainly use PS for the more creative (used loosely) work now!

good luck

[Toad]

I think the worst thing about RAW, and the reason I avoided it for years, is how it complicates your workflow. Not only do you have to do 1 and possibly 2 extra conversions - but you have multiple places where you can control noise, sharpening etc.

To simplify workflow, I do as little as humanly possible in Adobe CR. I adjust the white balance and overall exposure (if necessary) and also adjust the luminance smoothing and color noise reduction (again - only if the original is noisy and requires the adjustment). I do everything else in PS after I save the original RAW image to TIFF.

Where CR really comes in handy is when I have a badly exposed photo - for example a scene that has both bright sunlight and dark shadows. I then use CR to make 2 separate exposures of the shot - one exposed for the shadows and one for the light and blend them together in PS (this technique is the poor man's HDR).

I am currently reading a book on RAW, and the author stresses that one should not let themselves get caught up in discussions over whether jpeg or raw is better - each have strengths and weaknesses - and there is no discernable visual loss by shooting jpeg. He says that people get the idea that raw is "professional" and jpeg is not. Totally false. Many people who shoot lots of photos - weddings, sports, news - don't use raw because the workflow is too cumbersome for volume work and the quality they achieve from jpegs is up to professional standards.

jpegs are a lossy format by their very nature - so repeatedly editing and saving jpegs does cause a discernable loss over time. Most of us don't work like that. I use RAW for only 2 reasons - 1. Raw protects me from my own mistakes and 2. Raw allows me flexibility to manipulate photos that I otherwise would not have using PS alone.

What I worry most about is the lack of standards in the RAW world - every manufacturer - and in many cases - every camera has its own format - this is planned obsolescence at its very worst. That is why I convert everything to DNG as soon as I shoot it. Now I just have to set some time aside to go back and convert all my old raw stuff (while I still can)...

Let's hope that we can trust Adobe to maintain backwards compatibility - yet to be proven in my mind.

[wulinka]

Thanks again everyone for your very very helpful input!

Right now, I am frankly a bit overwhelmed by the apparent flood of software out there, I definitely don't need more software but rather more mastery of the ones I own.
And a new computer would help tremendously.

I do want to learn to use RAW, for those cases like the wedding, where I'm afraid I will have to shoot under suboptimal conditions and the pics will be really important.

Other than that, I must say that I have been very pleased with my results mostly, it's rare that I discard a picture because of false exposure or such, much more often it's the subject or the composition I don't like.
And it's been really rare that I have encountered JPEG artifacts visible in 8x10 prints.

So for many occasions I don't see why I shouldn't stick with just JPEG and save myself a lot of memory, waiting time, and frustration at the computer. I would rather spend that time learning to use my camera better.

Anyway and after all, I think I'll get the noise ninja registration. I was satisfied with what I tried last night, and it is sooooooooooo much faster than the inbuilt PS filter. and it's inexpensive.

Cheers!

Uli

[Kombisaurus]

Ok Uli...

I would agree with Toad in that noise levels don't really provide a case for or against shooting RAW. As far as I'm concerned, colour, dynamic range, and colour resolution are the reasons I shoot raw. And its not just a matter of getting the exposure right. Quite often a "good" subject exposure will still result in a blown-out sky.... and the only way to get that detail back into the shot is with higher dynamic range. But we're talking about noise here so I'll stay on track.

Regardless of the whole RAW vs JPG argument or whether 100% crops mean anything in relation to real photos, clearly you are currently getting more noise in your RAW shots than your JPGs. As all jpg's come from the same data that is contained in the raw shot originally, there should be a way to get the same or better noise performance from the raw shot yourself, given all the processing power of a PC compared to a camera. I think things can be improved here.

So I tried my own little comparison today. I took a random shot at 800 ISO on my 30D. I had my camera set to RAW+JPG (large, fine).. so I ended up with two copies of exactly the same shot in both formats. Then I set about trying to do a RAW conversion that gave as good or better noise and detail performance as the jpg.
As with most things, there is always a balance to be had. It's easy to get rid of noise, but usually it comes with a loss of detail. Conversely by enhancing the detail you increase the amount of noise. Finding the most appealing balance is a very subjective thing, and I often find the style of noise more important than the amount.

Anyway, below are some 100% crops of my results. The shot was taken at 800 ISO on a 30D with the picture style set to "standard" (with sharpening set to 3). The JPG is as it came straight out of the camera, the ACR conversion used values of 30, 35, and 40 for Sharpening, Luminance Smoothing and Colour Noise Reduction respectively, and the DPP version used values of "high" for both luminance and colour noise reduction (found under Tools->Preferences of DPP v2.1) and I reduced the sharpening from 3 to 2 (as the sharpening seems to be a bit more aggressive in DPP than in-camera, or maybe the noise-reduction is less agressive?). The noise-ninja version is just to demonstrate how a decent noise-reduction plugin can really make a big difference (performed on the DPP conversion in this case).



You can draw your own conclusions, but to my eye the noise-ninja version is clearly the cleanest while maintaining high levels of detail. I prefer the DPP version next because it contains the most detail (despite the not-overly-impressive noise reduction). The ACR version does a better job of noise reduction but loses a bit of detail (and looks a little bit blotchy), and to my eye the JPG has neither impressive noise reduction or detail levels.

This pretty much backs up what my common sense and experience tells me. If I didn't have Noise Ninja then I'd be more inclined to use ACR, but I prefer using DPP for its detail and colour.. and Noise Ninja can take care of the noise.

Hope this helps a bit (even though you might not share my conclusions).
Cheers
Adrian