raw files very grainy.

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Skip M
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,171
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Skip M wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

Do you think you might be overreacting just a wee tiny bit?

No, but you may be reading more than I actually said I did not bash 5D3, I am pretty happy with it. I only agreed with DPR that 5D3's JPG's are not very good.

It's hard to read more into "blurry cartoonish conversion."

The reason is well known, it was marketing. Canon advertised a 2-stop high ISO improvement from 5D2 to 5D3 in JPG, but refused to state the number in Raw. Later DXOmark tested only a half a step improvement in Raw. Canon actually did a pretty good job with the high ISO noise filtering where the details are missing anyway. I guess, Canon should have made the noise filter less aggressive in other cases, but personally I couldn't care less

Nikon makes just as much of a hash of JPEGs with NR, too.

The difference is that 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient in many cases while D800 has an excess. Nikon's JPG's may not be better at 100%, but you don't need to look at them at 100%, because you can downsample and still retain all meaningful details.

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient?  Since its resolution matches that of all the other full frame cameras on the market and exceeds some of them, other than the D800, just what are your expectations?  Especially when you deem the D800 to have an excess.  And, honestly, when you disable the NR in camera on the 5D3, it matches very closely the output from RAW in ACR.  I shot a very detailed Samba dancer's headdress and honestly, just went with the JPEG, 'cause there wasn't enough difference between the one and the other.

And, while the 5D3 indeed isn't the highest resolution camera on the market, only one DSLR out-resolves it to any significant degree.

I think the resolution of 5D3 is sufficient for most applications, but only in Raw not JPG.

Hmmm... For what I do on a day to day basis, I'd disagree, but I may not shoot what you do.

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,494
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

I'm not a JPG shooter, either, so that may be.  I know the high-ISO JPG noise looked pretty good to me, without losing a lot of visible details, but I haven't done an extensive study on it.  ACR in LR4 does a good job of removing noise, but can easily turn everything into mush. Like I said, I think I've had better success using the Nik plugin Dfine 2, however, I can't say I've done a detailed quantitative comparison.  It just seems like it does a better job reducing noise without losing details.  However, I've seen it turn noisy shadow areas into mush, too.  But it seems to leave areas without noise mostly alone.

I've heard DPP does a better job with noise, but I just don't like the tool, and it doesn't fit into my workflow very well.  I've also heard DxO does a good job, but haven't test that myself.  There are other noise tools out there, as well.  I can't really say which is best.  If someone has done a detailed comparison and ranking of them all, it would be nice to know.

In response to the other poster, you can launch the Nik plugins from LR and return to LR, but you are editing a TIFF file when you return.  I usually do as many adjustments as I can first in LR then go to CS6 and use that to run the Nik plugins, with Dfine being the first step, usually, then return with a TIFF file to LR.  You can also use a smart object pipeline, but I confess I don't use that too much due to the overhead.  I still have the DNG in LR to fall back to if I don't like the way things turn out.

The Nik plugin suite took a drastic price cut after they were bought by Google, which is why I started using it.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Skip M, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Skip M wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

Do you think you might be overreacting just a wee tiny bit?

No, but you may be reading more than I actually said I did not bash 5D3, I am pretty happy with it. I only agreed with DPR that 5D3's JPG's are not very good.

It's hard to read more into "blurry cartoonish conversion."

The reason is well known, it was marketing. Canon advertised a 2-stop high ISO improvement from 5D2 to 5D3 in JPG, but refused to state the number in Raw. Later DXOmark tested only a half a step improvement in Raw. Canon actually did a pretty good job with the high ISO noise filtering where the details are missing anyway. I guess, Canon should have made the noise filter less aggressive in other cases, but personally I couldn't care less

Nikon makes just as much of a hash of JPEGs with NR, too.

The difference is that 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient in many cases while D800 has an excess. Nikon's JPG's may not be better at 100%, but you don't need to look at them at 100%, because you can downsample and still retain all meaningful details.

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient?  Since its resolution matches that of all the other full frame cameras on the market and exceeds some of them, other than the D800, just what are your expectations?  Especially when you deem the D800 to have an excess.  And, honestly, when you disable the NR in camera on the 5D3, it matches very closely the output from RAW in ACR.  I shot a very detailed Samba dancer's headdress and honestly, just went with the JPEG, 'cause there wasn't enough difference between the one and the other.

And, while the 5D3 indeed isn't the highest resolution camera on the market, only one DSLR out-resolves it to any significant degree.

I think the resolution of 5D3 is sufficient for most applications, but only in Raw not JPG.

Hmmm... For what I do on a day to day basis, I'd disagree, but I may not shoot what you do.

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Damn iPhone doesn't let me reply in line, sorry. On "blurry conversion', I referred to the JPG conversion, so my point stands that I was only agreeing with DPR and I am puzzled why this may be a stumbling point. I get that your opinion is different and you are entitled to it. One thing I am guilty of is not knowing JPG related camera settings too well. I don't care for them, because I shoot Raw.

On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality. The former is concerned with the meaning of the image as a whole and is well served by 20 mp. This is why I say that the resolution of 5D3 is marginally sufficient while D800 has an excess. Examples include portraits, landscapes, architecture, concerts, you name it. The latter (Virtual Reality) is concerned with smaller details unrelated to the meaning of the image as a whole. Examples include forensics, surveillance, medical imaging, extreme cropping, pixel peeping, gigabit city panos, wall sized prints observed from a close distance, etc. I hope this helps.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,036
Like?
Problem
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:


On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality.

The problem is the concept is so restrictive (numerous assumptions) that it can only be reasonably applied to very specific scenarios. For that reason, it may not apply in the context of this discussion at all. Makes it sort of unrelated.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Unrelated question
In reply to billythek, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

I'm not a JPG shooter, either, so that may be.  I know the high-ISO JPG noise looked pretty good to me, without losing a lot of visible details, but I haven't done an extensive study on it.  ACR in LR4 does a good job of removing noise, but can easily turn everything into mush. Like I said, I think I've had better success using the Nik plugin Dfine 2, however, I can't say I've done a detailed quantitative comparison.  It just seems like it does a better job reducing noise without losing details.  However, I've seen it turn noisy shadow areas into mush, too.  But it seems to leave areas without noise mostly alone.

I've heard DPP does a better job with noise, but I just don't like the tool, and it doesn't fit into my workflow very well.  I've also heard DxO does a good job, but haven't test that myself.  There are other noise tools out there, as well.  I can't really say which is best.  If someone has done a detailed comparison and ranking of them all, it would be nice to know.

In response to the other poster, you can launch the Nik plugins from LR and return to LR, but you are editing a TIFF file when you return.  I usually do as many adjustments as I can first in LR then go to CS6 and use that to run the Nik plugins, with Dfine being the first step, usually, then return with a TIFF file to LR.  You can also use a smart object pipeline, but I confess I don't use that too much due to the overhead.  I still have the DNG in LR to fall back to if I don't like the way things turn out.

The Nik plugin suite took a drastic price cut after they were bought by Google, which is why I started using it.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

Quick question. I use PS CS 5.5 or 6. I know everyone uses LR, so I have tried it, but found the controls much different from PS with quite a bit of the learning curve. I don't mind learning, but only for a benefit. Otherwise I'd rather spend my time learning something else instead. Is there a significant benefit in using LR instead of PS? They use the same ACR and after that I can do what I want in PS, so I am not sure what such benefit might be.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Re: Problem
In reply to Mako2011, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:


On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality.

The problem is the concept is so restrictive (numerous assumptions) that it can only be reasonably applied to very specific scenarios. For that reason, it may not apply in the context of this discussion at all. Makes it sort of unrelated.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

It is the most general concept perfectly applicable here. I wish you understood it better before making judgemental statements. In fact, I wish you limited judgemental statements to your own concepts an any case.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,036
Like?
Easy
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Quick question. I use PS CS 5.5 or 6. I know everyone uses LR, so I have tried it, but found the controls much different from PS with quite a bit of the learning curve. I don't mind learning, but only for a benefit. Otherwise I'd rather spend my time learning something else instead. Is there a significant benefit in using LR instead of PS? They use the same ACR and after that I can do what I want in PS, so I am not sure what such benefit might be.

LR is more simplified so can be a bit faster for a general workflow. Cheaper and less complicated. LR also has cataloging capabilities that Photoshop does not (unless you consider Bridge part of Photoshop). Lightroom can be considered a subset of Photoshop, by some, with specific functionality that Photoshop does not and probably will never have. It was created for the main purpose of managing a large number of images, keeping them organized in one place.

Lightroom is easier to learn than Photoshop and contains a big number of post-processing tools for most tasks. Lightroom might be more efficient, because you can go through and process many photos quickly, without having to deal with opening and closing files. Lightroom will keep you organized by cataloging all of your images in one place.  Serious editing, Photoshop to be able to do things you cannot do in Lightroom. It could be for something simple like removing an object from your image, to something more advanced like stitching panoramas.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,036
Like?
not so much
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality.

The problem is the concept is so restrictive (numerous assumptions) that it can only be reasonably applied to very specific scenarios. For that reason, it may not apply in the context of this discussion at all. Makes it sort of unrelated.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

It is the most general concept perfectly applicable here.

Not really as he's talking about grain in RAW in Pixel Peep territory. "Image Domain" concepts start to fall apart in that area of exploration. Image Domain is the total amount of details relevant to the meaning of the entire image. By your own definition of the concept, ID has far less application here, if any.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeFromMesa
Senior MemberPosts: 2,849
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to adams, 11 months ago

adams wrote:

The raw files are 2 to 3 times more grainy than when I shot in raw with my 5d mark II at 1600 iso. I can't figure out why this is?

OK. Your current raw files are more grainy than when you shot with your 5D2. What are you shooting with now? A 5D3? A 6D? Something else? You didn't say.

Without knowing what your current camera is I am at a loss to know where to begin to respond (other than to ask what you are using now).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dave_bass5
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,896Gear list
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to MikeFromMesa, 11 months ago

MikeFromMesa wrote:

adams wrote:

The raw files are 2 to 3 times more grainy than when I shot in raw with my 5d mark II at 1600 iso. I can't figure out why this is?

OK. Your current raw files are more grainy than when you shot with your 5D2. What are you shooting with now? A 5D3? A 6D? Something else? You didn't say.

Without knowing what your current camera is I am at a loss to know where to begin to respond (other than to ask what you are using now).

Eh? Have you read the thread or just the first post?

He has already stated what the two cameras are.

 dave_bass5's gear list:dave_bass5's gear list
Canon PowerShot S110 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 650D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeFromMesa
Senior MemberPosts: 2,849
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to dave_bass5, 11 months ago

dave_bass5 wrote:

Eh? Have you read the thread or just the first post?

He has already stated what the two cameras are.

I started at the top of the thread and read every post down to the one I responded to. There was no comment up to that point as to what camera was being used.

There may well be a posting about the camera being used well after my post, but it was not in the thread up to the point where I responded. Typically I read through posts from the start but I don't read everything that has been posted. I read everything up to the post I am responding to. That seems reasonable to me.

I am not starting in the middle or at the end. I am starting at the beginning of the thread.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,036
Like?
when column
In reply to MikeFromMesa, 11 months ago

MikeFromMesa wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

Eh? Have you read the thread or just the first post?

He has already stated what the two cameras are.

I started at the top of the thread and read every post down to the one I responded to. There was no comment up to that point as to what camera was being used.

Then switch to flat view and you can very quickly see it's a 5d mark III.

There may well be a posting about the camera being used well after my post, but it was not in the thread up to the point where I responded. Typically I read through posts from the start but I don't read everything that has been posted. I read everything up to the post I am responding to. That seems reasonable to me.

But can make you look a bit foolish from a chronological stand point. I have made the same mistake many times...commenting after not seeing the bigger picture. Now I pay a little closer attention to the "when" column.

I am not starting in the middle or at the end. I am starting at the beginning of the thread.

Actually, you're starting from the very end of the thread...in terms of when you posted. Can be confusing for folks, especially those who didn't assume you only read the first few. Try flat view if your in a hurry and don't want to click on each post. Can help sometimes and can also help regards fewer folks reviving old threads in the middle to answer a question long ago answered. Some actually only use flat few and that's why your response would certainly seem out of place from their perspective.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skip M
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,171
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Skip M wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

Do you think you might be overreacting just a wee tiny bit?

No, but you may be reading more than I actually said I did not bash 5D3, I am pretty happy with it. I only agreed with DPR that 5D3's JPG's are not very good.

It's hard to read more into "blurry cartoonish conversion."

The reason is well known, it was marketing. Canon advertised a 2-stop high ISO improvement from 5D2 to 5D3 in JPG, but refused to state the number in Raw. Later DXOmark tested only a half a step improvement in Raw. Canon actually did a pretty good job with the high ISO noise filtering where the details are missing anyway. I guess, Canon should have made the noise filter less aggressive in other cases, but personally I couldn't care less

Nikon makes just as much of a hash of JPEGs with NR, too.

The difference is that 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient in many cases while D800 has an excess. Nikon's JPG's may not be better at 100%, but you don't need to look at them at 100%, because you can downsample and still retain all meaningful details.

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient? Since its resolution matches that of all the other full frame cameras on the market and exceeds some of them, other than the D800, just what are your expectations? Especially when you deem the D800 to have an excess. And, honestly, when you disable the NR in camera on the 5D3, it matches very closely the output from RAW in ACR. I shot a very detailed Samba dancer's headdress and honestly, just went with the JPEG, 'cause there wasn't enough difference between the one and the other.

And, while the 5D3 indeed isn't the highest resolution camera on the market, only one DSLR out-resolves it to any significant degree.

I think the resolution of 5D3 is sufficient for most applications, but only in Raw not JPG.

Hmmm... For what I do on a day to day basis, I'd disagree, but I may not shoot what you do.

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Damn iPhone doesn't let me reply in line, sorry. On "blurry conversion', I referred to the JPG conversion, so my point stands that I was only agreeing with DPR and I am puzzled why this may be a stumbling point.

" Blurry cartoonish conversion" is not a term that DPR used and that's to what I was referring.  It was a light hearted comment and not really a stumbling point.  I just thought you might be overreacting in your terminology, that's all.  I always wonder when someone goes overboard with rhetoric what they'd say if they needed to really go beyond what they'd already said.  What would happen if some hypothetical camera truly was blurrily cartoonish?

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
billythek
Senior MemberPosts: 3,494
Like?
Re: Easy
In reply to Mako2011, 11 months ago

Mako2011 wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Quick question. I use PS CS 5.5 or 6. I know everyone uses LR, so I have tried it, but found the controls much different from PS with quite a bit of the learning curve. I don't mind learning, but only for a benefit. Otherwise I'd rather spend my time learning something else instead. Is there a significant benefit in using LR instead of PS? They use the same ACR and after that I can do what I want in PS, so I am not sure what such benefit might be.

LR is more simplified so can be a bit faster for a general workflow. Cheaper and less complicated. LR also has cataloging capabilities that Photoshop does not (unless you consider Bridge part of Photoshop). Lightroom can be considered a subset of Photoshop, by some, with specific functionality that Photoshop does not and probably will never have. It was created for the main purpose of managing a large number of images, keeping them organized in one place.

Lightroom is easier to learn than Photoshop and contains a big number of post-processing tools for most tasks. Lightroom might be more efficient, because you can go through and process many photos quickly, without having to deal with opening and closing files. Lightroom will keep you organized by cataloging all of your images in one place. Serious editing, Photoshop to be able to do things you cannot do in Lightroom. It could be for something simple like removing an object from your image, to something more advanced like stitching panoramas.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

What he said.  Plus, I like that LR is a 100% non-destructive flow when dealing with RAW files.  Yes, you can do the same things in ACR in CS, but it is very easy to veer off the edge in CS without realizing it.

I know ACR has he same capabilities, but for some reason, I just find the LR interface a lot nicer.  But the main reason is the catalog.  I know Adobe keeps improving Bridge, so maybe a lot of the differences have diminished.

On the other hand, I know guys that only use CS, and are very happy with it.  If you are one of those guys, then no problem, use what you are most comfortable with.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeFromMesa
Senior MemberPosts: 2,849
Like?
Re: when column
In reply to Mako2011, 11 months ago

Mako2011 wrote:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

Eh? Have you read the thread or just the first post?

He has already stated what the two cameras are.

I started at the top of the thread and read every post down to the one I responded to. There was no comment up to that point as to what camera was being used.

Then switch to flat view and you can very quickly see it's a 5d mark III.

There may well be a posting about the camera being used well after my post, but it was not in the thread up to the point where I responded. Typically I read through posts from the start but I don't read everything that has been posted. I read everything up to the post I am responding to. That seems reasonable to me.

But can make you look a bit foolish from a chronological stand point. I have made the same mistake many times...commenting after not seeing the bigger picture. Now I pay a little closer attention to the "when" column.

I am not starting in the middle or at the end. I am starting at the beginning of the thread.

Actually, you're starting from the very end of the thread...in terms of when you posted. Can be confusing for folks, especially those who didn't assume you only read the first few. Try flat view if your in a hurry and don't want to click on each post. Can help sometimes and can also help regards fewer folks reviving old threads in the middle to answer a question long ago answered. Some actually only use flat few and that's why your response would certainly seem out of place from their perspective.

Yes, I can see that now that I look. I was following the "now" thread and now thinking about when they were posted.

Thanks for the advice.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Skip M, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Skip M wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

billythek wrote:

The 5D3 does an excellent job in reducing noise in-camera when it does the jpeg conversion. Better than the 5D2 did, and better than many RAW converters can do.

I hate my 5D3 JPGs. Can't stand looking at the image details sacrificed by a blurry cartoonish conversion. The 5D3 resolution is not exactly industry leading, you know, and lowering it even more is just repulsing. JPGs were pointed out as the biggest con of 5D3 in the DPR review and I completely agree, although I it makes no difference to me anyway, because I shoot Raw.

Do you think you might be overreacting just a wee tiny bit?

No, but you may be reading more than I actually said I did not bash 5D3, I am pretty happy with it. I only agreed with DPR that 5D3's JPG's are not very good.

It's hard to read more into "blurry cartoonish conversion."

The reason is well known, it was marketing. Canon advertised a 2-stop high ISO improvement from 5D2 to 5D3 in JPG, but refused to state the number in Raw. Later DXOmark tested only a half a step improvement in Raw. Canon actually did a pretty good job with the high ISO noise filtering where the details are missing anyway. I guess, Canon should have made the noise filter less aggressive in other cases, but personally I couldn't care less

Nikon makes just as much of a hash of JPEGs with NR, too.

The difference is that 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient in many cases while D800 has an excess. Nikon's JPG's may not be better at 100%, but you don't need to look at them at 100%, because you can downsample and still retain all meaningful details.

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient? Since its resolution matches that of all the other full frame cameras on the market and exceeds some of them, other than the D800, just what are your expectations? Especially when you deem the D800 to have an excess. And, honestly, when you disable the NR in camera on the 5D3, it matches very closely the output from RAW in ACR. I shot a very detailed Samba dancer's headdress and honestly, just went with the JPEG, 'cause there wasn't enough difference between the one and the other.

And, while the 5D3 indeed isn't the highest resolution camera on the market, only one DSLR out-resolves it to any significant degree.

I think the resolution of 5D3 is sufficient for most applications, but only in Raw not JPG.

Hmmm... For what I do on a day to day basis, I'd disagree, but I may not shoot what you do.

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Damn iPhone doesn't let me reply in line, sorry. On "blurry conversion', I referred to the JPG conversion, so my point stands that I was only agreeing with DPR and I am puzzled why this may be a stumbling point.

" Blurry cartoonish conversion" is not a term that DPR used and that's to what I was referring.  It was a light hearted comment and not really a stumbling point.  I just thought you might be overreacting in your terminology, that's all.  I always wonder when someone goes overboard with rhetoric what they'd say if they needed to really go beyond what they'd already said.  What would happen if some hypothetical camera truly was blurrily cartoonish?

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

It was descriptive, not emotional. I was just trying to illustrate the visual properties of the camera JPGs. It definitely reduces details, so it is blurry for sure. DPR used "mushy" which is arguably a stronger term than "blurry", but probably the same in meaning as "blurry" plus "cartoonish". I said "cartoonish", because it reminded me how lLCD TV looks vs . superior plasma TV. The key point is that this pattern is not only there at high ISO, but unnecessarily at the base ISO as well:

"Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO."

Sirry it was so emotional for you that you still can't get over it Just kidding

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Re: Easy
In reply to billythek, 11 months ago

billythek wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Quick question. I use PS CS 5.5 or 6. I know everyone uses LR, so I have tried it, but found the controls much different from PS with quite a bit of the learning curve. I don't mind learning, but only for a benefit. Otherwise I'd rather spend my time learning something else instead. Is there a significant benefit in using LR instead of PS? They use the same ACR and after that I can do what I want in PS, so I am not sure what such benefit might be.

LR is more simplified so can be a bit faster for a general workflow. Cheaper and less complicated. LR also has cataloging capabilities that Photoshop does not (unless you consider Bridge part of Photoshop). Lightroom can be considered a subset of Photoshop, by some, with specific functionality that Photoshop does not and probably will never have. It was created for the main purpose of managing a large number of images, keeping them organized in one place.

How large? Is 100,000 OK?

Lightroom is easier to learn than Photoshop and contains a big number of post-processing tools for most tasks. Lightroom might be more efficient, because you can go through and process many photos quickly, without having to deal with opening and closing files. Lightroom will keep you organized by cataloging all of your images in one place. Serious editing, Photoshop to be able to do things you cannot do in Lightroom. It could be for something simple like removing an object from your image, to something more advanced like stitching panoramas.

What he said. Plus, I like that LR is a 100% non-destructive flow when dealing with RAW files. Yes, you can do the same things in ACR in CS, but it is very easy to veer off the edge in CS without realizing it.

What do you mean? CS does not "destroy" Raw files eier.

I know ACR has he same capabilities, but for some reason, I just find the LR interface a lot nicer. But the main reason is the catalog. I know Adobe keeps improving Bridge, so maybe a lot of the differences have diminished.

On the other hand, I know guys that only use CS, and are very happy with it. If you are one of those guys, then no problem, use what you are most comfortable with.

Thank you both. Please see a couple questions inline above.

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Press Correspondent
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,342Gear list
Like?
Re: not so much
In reply to Mako2011, 11 months ago

Mako2011 wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality.

The problem is the concept is so restrictive (numerous assumptions) that it can only be reasonably applied to very specific scenarios. For that reason, it may not apply in the context of this discussion at all. Makes it sort of unrelated.

It is the most general concept perfectly applicable here.

Not really as he's talking about grain in RAW in Pixel Peep territory. "Image Domain" concepts start to fall apart in that area of exploration. Image Domain is the total amount of details relevant to the meaning of the entire image. By your own definition of the concept, ID has far less application here, if any.

True, but I was not replying to the OP, but to Skip, whose name and question you cut off in your intrusion. His question was:

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient?

And my response was the Image Domain vs. Virtual Reality. Now, back to your point, the image Domain concept still applies here in the following way. Consider first you have a 22-mp body. At high ISO you apply noise reduction that effectively reduces your resolution, say, twice to approximately 11 mp. Now you are under the Image Domain that is 12-20 mp depending on the subject. In turn, consider you have a 36-mp body and apply the same algorithm. You still get 18 mp left that is well within the Image Domain for 99% of the subjects. This was exactly my point of how the Image Domain concept applies to noise reduction at high ISO. I hope this helps

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skip M
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,171
Like?
Re: raw files very grainy.
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

"Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO."

Sirry it was so emotional for you that you still can't get over it Just kidding

I hope so!

But I don't agree with the mushy JPEG at base ISO, even so, and even if that wasn't part of the original discussion.  It's impossible, however, to put an image SOOC here without the compression killing it, apparently. So that discussion will have to wait for another day.

-- hide signature --

Skip M
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,036
Like?
small range
In reply to Press Correspondent, 11 months ago

Press Correspondent wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

On resolution, I believe 20 mp is sufficient to resolve the details relevant to the meaning of the image as a whole, 16 mp +/- 25% depending on the application (12 mp for some portraits, 20 mp for some landscapes). I call this concept "Image Domain" and explained it in at length numerous times on this forum. If you feel a need to respond on this, I would appreciate if you search for and read these explanations first.

I use this principle to divide photography into two branches, General Photography and Virtual Reality.

The problem is the concept is so restrictive (numerous assumptions) that it can only be reasonably applied to very specific scenarios. For that reason, it may not apply in the context of this discussion at all. Makes it sort of unrelated.

It is the most general concept perfectly applicable here.

Not really as he's talking about grain in RAW in Pixel Peep territory. "Image Domain" concepts start to fall apart in that area of exploration. Image Domain is the total amount of details relevant to the meaning of the entire image. By your own definition of the concept, ID has far less application here, if any.

True, but I was not replying to the OP, but to Skip, whose name and question you cut off in your intrusion. His question was:

Just what are you shooting that the 5D3's resolution is only marginally sufficient?

And my response was the Image Domain vs. Virtual Reality. Now, back to your point, the image Domain concept still applies here in the following way. Consider first you have a 22-mp body. At high ISO you apply noise reduction that effectively reduces your resolution, say, twice to approximately 11 mp. Now you are under the Image Domain that is 12-20 mp depending on the subject. In turn, consider you have a 36-mp body and apply the same algorithm. You still get 18 mp left that is well within the Image Domain for 99% of the subjects. This was exactly my point of how the Image Domain concept applies to noise reduction at high ISO. I hope this helps

Yes it does still apply but as you point out, with many viewing assumptions and with strict caveats. As in your case...marginally sufficient circumstances that simply cover a small range of disciplines and viewing scenarios. Your 99% is a stretch by any measure, IMO, but does indeed cover perhaps most of your viewing setups.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads