The miracle of modern post processing

[mangurian]

I am testing out my new lens. I took some shots in a semi-dark room. The ISO is 12800.
Below is what the original RAW looked like and the pp image after just increasing exposure, correcting a color cast on the wall, and denoise. Taken with the RF100-500mm at 100mm on a Canon R5.

A downsized RAW

The downsized pp image

 

[ppage]

I also have an R5. With that camera and Topaz AI, I have just stopped worrying about ISO. If I'm doing landscapes, then fine: ISO 100 and a tripod. But when I'm shooting handheld I shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO. I'm always amazed at the quality of the images I can get at ISOs that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago with older cameras.

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

Yes, it is pretty impressive what we can do today.

I have gone back in time to some of my old higher ISO RAWs, and they can usually be improved a lot.

 

[KoolKool]

But not blown out highlight

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I am testing out my new lens. I took some shots in a semi-dark room. The ISO is 12800.
Below is what the original RAW looked like and the pp image after just increasing exposure, correcting a color cast on the wall, and denoise. Taken with the RF100-500mm at 100mm on a Canon R5.

A downsized RAW

The downsized pp image

If you think Adobe's AI Denoise is good, you should take a look at DxO's new DeepPRIME XD2s - it's amazing. More detail, less noise and, as far as I can tell, no artifacts. It also runs about 2x faster on my Mac Studio and doesn't require generating an intermediate space-hogging, workflow-complicating DNG file.

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I also have an R5. With that camera and Topaz AI, I have just stopped worrying about ISO. If I'm doing landscapes, then fine: ISO 100 and a tripod. But when I'm shooting handheld I shoot in manual mode with Auto ISO. I'm always amazed at the quality of the images I can get at ISOs that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago with older cameras.

After testing DxO's new DeepPRIME XD2s noise reduction recently, I realized that my ISO ceiling for event photos to be published online is now up from 25,600 to 51,200.

Thinking back 20 years, when max ISO was 800, this seems insane.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

But not blown out highlight

If you have an ISO-invariant camera, you can use the same aperture and shutter speed but set ISO 1-4 stops lower to protect highlights, then brighten in processing and wind up with noise no higher than if you'd used a higher ISO setting. There's a good article about this somewhere here on DPR.

 

[tbcass]

Post a full-sized image because downsizing so much by itself gets rid of a lot of visible noise. The noise is still there but difficult to see in such a small image.

 

[tbcass]

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".

I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".

I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.

That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.

 

[mangurian]

That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.

Why ?

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.

Why ?

Just after looking closely at "raw" dngs produced by my Pixel9XL with the same shot processed in camera to a 50MP jpeg.

 

[Digital Nigel]

That includes smartphone cameras. I'm still not convinced that anything that leaves a smartphone camera as a "RAW" hasn't left with some processing.

Why ?

They almost always include some multi-frame computational photographic magic, to overcome the limitations of the tiny sensor. These tricks let the cameras increase the sharpness, dynamic range, resolution and high ISO performance. They also apply optical corrections. It’s impossible to tell that a multi-frame sequence is being shot and combined, unless you notice a processing delay, as the camera is completely silent. I think some phones combine frames from more than one camera.

So I too am convinced that the so-called raw images from smartphones are actually highly processed, multi-frame stacked images, simply saved in a better format than 8-bit JPEGs. Products that require real raw files (eg, PhotoLab) therefore can’t process them.

 

[ishwanu]

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing.

i think someone was incorrect. Post processing is a shorter way to say processing in post, and post means after something has happened. So IMO, post processing in digital photography refers to processing after the result has left the camera, regardless of the file delivery format, or to what degree it was already processed in-camera (even RAW files have been processed before leaving the camera). But either way, we know what's meant.

 

[ChuckB]

BTW, someone pointed out recently that "post processing" is redundant unless you're processing after processing. Now I just say "processing".

I like to say "processed RAWS. Post processing is a term that originated when most shot JPEG, TIFF etc. so you were processing an image that had been previously processed by the camera.

When you think about the movie industry where problems will be "fixed in post", post simply means a time when the film is shot and the editing begins. With film there is no "processing" while shooting, as there is today with digital.

So, the term "post processing" may be archaic, but as a grizzled veteran I say the old ways are best.

ETA - oops, didn't read to the bottom of the thread and Ishwanu beat me to it.