Only the long exposure noise reduction affects the raw data.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
40D - how best to reduce noise at highest ISO
- Thread starter Jas H
- Start date
Thank you everyone 
I will certainly disable the in camera NR now.
btw, I am one of those who really likes DPP. It is simple and easy to use and generates good results for me in RAW processing. I have Lightroom 2, but still use DPP in fact!
I will certainly disable the in camera NR now.btw, I am one of those who really likes DPP. It is simple and easy to use and generates good results for me in RAW processing. I have Lightroom 2, but still use DPP in fact!
This begs a second question please. Again, is there any point in enabling this setting? Or, are we better once again doing this in DPP (or similar).
--Hi Sergio,
I used v3.5.0
I will try the latest version, but...
Take care,
Russ
Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...
IMO, DPP for conversion yields excellent color/tones. Noise wise, I use it for color noise reduction only. Luma, I set to zero.
In PS CS2 I use Nik's Dfine 2.0. By far the best noise reduction I've used. I love Noise Ninja but it has been surpassed IMO.
Some of my samples showing ISO 3200-12800 and higher are here:
http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/40d_iso__othertest_shots_gallery
-tim
NW Columbus/Dublin, Ohio
http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro
In PS CS2 I use Nik's Dfine 2.0. By far the best noise reduction I've used. I love Noise Ninja but it has been surpassed IMO.
Some of my samples showing ISO 3200-12800 and higher are here:
http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/40d_iso__othertest_shots_gallery
--Simple question, but I don't know the answer
I only shoot RAW.
Is it best to leave the in camera high ISO noise reduction off, and
deal with any noise afterwards in DPP etc?
Or is it better to use the 40D's in camera high ISO noise reduction,
and then do anything further that is needed?
Basically I am wondering what the best technique is pls.
Thanks
-tim
NW Columbus/Dublin, Ohio
http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro
JackM
Veteran Member
Same here. I have CS3, but 95% of my work is in DPP. And why not, with results like these... ISO1600, brightness +0.5 and NR in DPP:
Gerrit Smit
Leading Member
OK, great. Picture seems to be virtually noise-free ... but, this is not a 100% crop.
So, you example is beautiful, I love it, but you did more than just a simple NR in DPP, you also downsized the photo.
Did you downsize before, or after creating the JPG version?
Please provide the full workflow in DPP.
Thanks,
Gerrit
Gerrit
So, you example is beautiful, I love it, but you did more than just a simple NR in DPP, you also downsized the photo.
Did you downsize before, or after creating the JPG version?
Please provide the full workflow in DPP.
Thanks,
Gerrit
--Same here. I have CS3, but 95% of my work is in DPP. And why not,
with results like these... ISO1600, brightness +0.5 and NR in DPP:
Gerrit
xtoph
Veteran Member
there is one thing you can do in camera that can make a big difference to the image quality in low/poor light: make sure you use a slow enough shutter speed.
if your lighting is coming from artificial sources, especially florescents, then you should use 1/60 sec or slower (or 1/50 in some parts of the world, depending on the hertz of your electricity) for best results. modern florescent lights use a variety of technology to reduce the flickering we used to deal with, but i've found that the spectrum still appears to suffer in fast exposures. letting at least one full cycle of light in gives you a better chance to gain a fuller spectrum of illumination, or at least as full as that source can generate. it can make a big difference for colors, especially skin tones, and reduce the nasty-est noise artifacts.
despite what you sometimes hear, as long as you're not photographing sports, 1/50th is usually fast enough to get sharp pictures.
if your lighting is coming from artificial sources, especially florescents, then you should use 1/60 sec or slower (or 1/50 in some parts of the world, depending on the hertz of your electricity) for best results. modern florescent lights use a variety of technology to reduce the flickering we used to deal with, but i've found that the spectrum still appears to suffer in fast exposures. letting at least one full cycle of light in gives you a better chance to gain a fuller spectrum of illumination, or at least as full as that source can generate. it can make a big difference for colors, especially skin tones, and reduce the nasty-est noise artifacts.
despite what you sometimes hear, as long as you're not photographing sports, 1/50th is usually fast enough to get sharp pictures.
--These are 100% crops of the same image file, taken with the 20D @ ISO3200, then converted with ACR, DXO & DPP respectively. To save DPR's bandwidth, I've compressed the file to just under 1meg, so some IQ has been suffered. IMO you can still see enough from each file to draw your own conclusions.
Remember, these are base conversions with no NR or Sharpening applied...
For me, I will always use DXO to convert my most important files.
Regards,
Russ
Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...
Remember, these are base conversions with no NR or Sharpening applied...
For me, I will always use DXO to convert my most important files.
Regards,
Russ
Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...
You gotta love Jeff's directness. :
--
Joe (suprised Gabor would point anyone to that thread)
Old Acct: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjigihivhdif
Originally I posted that demo here, but it is not easy to find an old post without knowing the actual wording. The only part I knew literally is the URL of the crop, and the DPR search engine does not find it.
--
Gabor
http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum