Figaro
New member
Any reason we can't do this in Camera Raw instead of Lightroom?
Make ISO 12,800 Look Like ISO 400: Lightroom Denoise Master Class
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
No reason at all. I use ACR instead of LR. Camera Raw has 99% of the Development features of LR........
Yup, what Karen says. Works with either.
Well now I'm confused as I thought the camera raw filter WAS camera raw in PS. Where else does one find it?
Sorry for the confusion. The camera raw filter IS in the Bridge module of Photoshop.
However, in addition to using Bridge, once you are working in Photoshop, under the Filter menu, one can also access the camera raw filter....which will put you back in camera raw. There are just a few adjustments that are not available when doing this.
Wrogu
Active member
You cannot do it inside Photoshop either. Well, given my workflow it is not a big issue. I used to develop in camera raw inside Photoshop, run topaz (it works quite well in low light mode) and do all the layers and colour work.
Actually with new approach I will just run LR denoise and do my usual stuff.
I have actually tried myself the LR denosie first time a week before Steve's video. I had issues with Topaz denoise loosing fine detail in my Kingfisher shot. Lr does not do that. However, it might cause some colour issues. Fixable but annoying. Furthermore topaz does better job with removing background nosie. There are no reasons why not to run topaz at almost no sharpening with a mask applied. Topaz does produces almost zero artifacts in low light mode. In any other mode it is terrible, it oversharpens and produces tons of artifacts. I had no luck with topaz sharpen ai, has not saved me a single picture.
Awesome video, just like always. What can you say more, usual top notch BCG quality.
Actually with new approach I will just run LR denoise and do my usual stuff.
I have actually tried myself the LR denosie first time a week before Steve's video. I had issues with Topaz denoise loosing fine detail in my Kingfisher shot. Lr does not do that. However, it might cause some colour issues. Fixable but annoying. Furthermore topaz does better job with removing background nosie. There are no reasons why not to run topaz at almost no sharpening with a mask applied. Topaz does produces almost zero artifacts in low light mode. In any other mode it is terrible, it oversharpens and produces tons of artifacts. I had no luck with topaz sharpen ai, has not saved me a single picture.
Awesome video, just like always. What can you say more, usual top notch BCG quality.
MarkB
Member
Thanks for another great video, I had actually tried the masking technique prior to watching, but you provide additional guidance which is appreciated.
Somewhere near the end of the video I thought I saw a glimpse of a more defined back of the bird that you used for illustration purposes, it would be great to see how you achieved that more refined result, and I would be interested in a workflow class, but maybe less than 100 hours.
I find I do not use the Lightroom Denoise as much and have used the traditional noise reduction on a limited basis because the dng files created are so large. If I used it on every photo above ISO 1000 it would double my storage space requirements, assuming I also keep the nef files. Anyone have a solution?? I may just start deleting the dng files after I export a jpeg.
Somewhere near the end of the video I thought I saw a glimpse of a more defined back of the bird that you used for illustration purposes, it would be great to see how you achieved that more refined result, and I would be interested in a workflow class, but maybe less than 100 hours.
I find I do not use the Lightroom Denoise as much and have used the traditional noise reduction on a limited basis because the dng files created are so large. If I used it on every photo above ISO 1000 it would double my storage space requirements, assuming I also keep the nef files. Anyone have a solution?? I may just start deleting the dng files after I export a jpeg.
Last edited:
Takatanaka
Well-known member
I´m keeping the NEF, the edited DNG or PSD (if it will go through Ps) and the exported low-resolution JPG.
My archivig device is a NAS (Network Attached Storage).
Storage is inexpensive, but a big part of it is figuring out a system that works for you and sticking with it. I keep only one lightroom catalog for all photos ever, this lIves on my internal ssd drive, but I store the image files in folders by year. For example all photos taken this year and all dng and tiff and so on all in one folder, no subfolders. This year's photos and last year's stay on the internal regular drive, but previous years get moved as I run out of room to external storage. They stay linked to the one lightroom catalog though, even when on external drives.
I think the final version was one where I used a little less opacity for the back - this video was supposed to be part of the course and at this point it would not have discussed masks, so I wanted to keep it very simple. I had the intention of referring back to it when I got to the making portion
Also, I agree with the other posts about storage - it's not that much to get more. You never know when you want to go back and tweak a shot and the DNG is going to have most of the adjustments made to it since it should be created early in the process.
This is a great workflow for a small number of images. However, this does not allow syncing of noise reduction to large numbers of images. Do you have a video or documentation describing a "traditional" workflow with sliders that scales? Thanks.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
These are all the same thing under the hood, with mostly all the same controls and abilities:
Steve, thanks so much for the video. As a former Topaz user, I agree with all of the comparisons you've made.
I was prepared to ask for clarifications on working with the LR sharpness mask before denoise, but I think it's fine (sharpness settings are carried over to the DNG as metadata, not burned into the bits) and you just didn't want to get into that level of technical detail in the video. I think now that it's a good step as it aids in the selection of how much denoise to use (assuming the sharpness settings are being applied to the preview in the denoise window). Feel free to correct me if I'm off on these assumptions.
Chris
Edit: I forgot to add that I used the new knowledge right away! The cat was backlit with dim room light, so I shot her at 3,200 ISO and used the new-found sharpening mask to good effect before Adobe Enhance DeNoise @ ~50%:
- ACR (stand-alone as used from Bridge)
- Lightroom Develop module
- Camera Raw Filter in Photoshop (there is no 'Bridge module' in PS).
Steve, thanks so much for the video. As a former Topaz user, I agree with all of the comparisons you've made.
I was prepared to ask for clarifications on working with the LR sharpness mask before denoise, but I think it's fine (sharpness settings are carried over to the DNG as metadata, not burned into the bits) and you just didn't want to get into that level of technical detail in the video. I think now that it's a good step as it aids in the selection of how much denoise to use (assuming the sharpness settings are being applied to the preview in the denoise window). Feel free to correct me if I'm off on these assumptions.
Chris
Edit: I forgot to add that I used the new knowledge right away! The cat was backlit with dim room light, so I shot her at 3,200 ISO and used the new-found sharpening mask to good effect before Adobe Enhance DeNoise @ ~50%:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Thanks for the video Steve. I've been using the Lightroom Denoise since it came out and I really like it. With your tips, I can do a much betrter job, and a lot easier!!! Thanks!!
I loved your Noise Reduction Workshop ... but have to admit I was delighted when LRC made it obsoleteIn this video I was specifically talking about Lightroom. As anyone who purchased my (so old it's now discontinued) Noise Reduction Video Workshop can tell you, I've been using selective masking for years in Photoshop for noise reduction and selective sharpening. In fact, my series was talking about the technique years before that video came out.
I'm sure that's why I started doing it in Lightroom when its Denoise option came out - it's an old habit
There are times in my bird id photography that I will have a fairly large group of images with the same camera settings etc. that do not need all of the steps and I use d LRC Denoise on as many as 30 images. I do the initial processing what ever that might be usually with one of my user presets that applies my in camera settings maybe something like using the shadow slier or exposure and then synch all of the images to the first one. Then I apply denoise AI to all of them by selecting all of the images and applying the denoise AI at the level I want to the first image and select enhance 30 images or however many I have selected.
Since about version 2, Topaz Photo AI when processing raw files, at least .arw and .orf, colour washes out. Doesn’t seem as noticeable when generating a .tiff file To me.
macwalter
Well-known member
First off thanks to Steve for the tutorial although for me personally I still tend to prefer DXO pure raw but that being said it doesn’t allow for much modification as you can’t use it in PS where for years I would use Topaz on a layer above the original and brush in small amounts of original detail from the base layer. I find all the Denoise options including LR tend to squash feather detail especially in the linear lines on the flight and tail feathers. Also I must confess I am not using the “big“ glass and can’t always fill the frame as much as id prefer. Also I personally like to see the fine feather details in the rest of the bird, not just the head and eye and will sometimes sacrifice a bit of critical sharpness in the eye region to get better feather detail in the rest of the bird. So the trade off for me is sometimes shooting from a bit further away to allow more depth of field. I’m sure Steve would probably disagree with this but the example he shows of the woodpecker with the beautiful head and eye would not cut it for me as there is too much loss af feather detail in the rest of the bird. That being said there is nodoubt in my mind that the image is well shot And processed. Even on my iPad Pro I can see his excellent technique which I for one can only admire and use to raise the bar in my attempts to achieve better photos. Finally I did learn a lot from the video and will make further attempts to improve using his technique.
As for the relative value of new technology I avoid those arguments as we each will have to decide what we are willing to accept. As a professional musician for most of my adult life I have come up against these type of arguments often where some people want things to remain as they were or if you play a song play it like the record even to point of paying outrageous amounts on money for “vintage“ gear for the sound and look. Personally I hate that attitude and avoid situations where this can occur. No tribute bands for me.
As for the relative value of new technology I avoid those arguments as we each will have to decide what we are willing to accept. As a professional musician for most of my adult life I have come up against these type of arguments often where some people want things to remain as they were or if you play a song play it like the record even to point of paying outrageous amounts on money for “vintage“ gear for the sound and look. Personally I hate that attitude and avoid situations where this can occur. No tribute bands for me.
I get my email every Sunday morning listing the most popular topics from the past week over the last couple of years since taking up photography. I am a beginner willing to learn and have picked up many helpful suggestions. Pictures I keep would not make the cut for many of the forum members but it is where I am at at this point. Sadly every couple of weeks there is some comment or string of comments that quick frankly turns the milk sour on my muesli. I enjoy photography to get the best shot I can for my skill level and photography gear. Not interested in overinflated egos. Sorry Steve this will be my last forum. FroKnowsPhoto is more entertaining.One thing that I've learned from this thread is that Steve is one cool character. There is no way I would have kept my cool and provided a calm response if I was replying to that non-sensical tirade. Somehow I doubt he even watched the video.
Nothing at the moment. I was working on one, but it's just too much.
Thank you for the response. I think I have a fast and good workflow in Lightroom Classic using import presets and then de-noise presets based upon ISO. Always looking for improvements and good tips. The results aren't as good as yours, but for the volume of images I'm expected to deliver and their use, it's "good enough" and reasonably fast. I shoot sports and I find that a lot of what you teach about wildlife photography also works for sports. I use the Nikon Z9 and I find its sensor is not very noisy, even at high ISO. I'm also fortunate to shoot in venues that are well lit.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I've found that any Lightroom edits that use masks are dicey affairs when Syncing to other images (mainly because the mask usually doesn't align with all images in your set), so you would have to leave out the Sharp with Mask steps in Steve's video to avoid undefined results. Otherwise, I think you could sync fine with DeNoise, but it would be set at the same denoise amount, and of course it would be a much slower sync than traditional due to each image running the Enhance function.
Are there truly any LR workflows that allow sliding scales of settings when syncing? I've not run into that with LR.
Chris
Wow, thank you for sharing this. I gotta try it. The hardest part disqualifying smaller in the frame shots which I still like, and there is no way to really fix’em.
99%
Because it lacks the inner circle to adjust the fathering.