Nicely done!
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).
There are so many potential things to cover that you'd never be able to hit them all in a specific video like that one... I imagine that is why when you started to do your other "big" version it went down a rabbit holeThanks!
Keep in mind that this was supposed to be part of a larger tutorial and that we hadn't covered masking at this point. So, I had to keep it simple.
I agree and often use masks to adjust sharpening with more precision. I was going to discuss that in the masking part of the video, but that never came to be.
I'm just happy LR has come so far in the last number of years. I used to use it almost exclusively just for cataloging and would do all my edits in Photoshop. That slowly transitioned over the last few years to where I'd only use things like Topaz and just about everything else I did in LR. Now I can do 99% of my stuff in LR which is really nice.
Steve, To your credit, we are all going to see better posts here.
Gotta add to the Exif data how the post processing was done…
Gotta add to the Exif data how the post processing was done…
steigw
Member
@Steve I noticed your original imported image is a .RAW file. With the import settings I'm using, my images end up with .NEF and that is right after import, before any sort of changes in the develop module. Is this a problem? How would I change things to start with a RAW extension. Or am I mistaken?
Winston Churchill (Sir)
Well-known member
The RAW format for :
Nikon is .NEF
and AFAIK
Canon Mirrorless is .CR3
Canon DSLR is .CR2
Sony is .ARW
So each brand names their RAW files differently
so you are good to go
Nikon is .NEF
and AFAIK
Canon Mirrorless is .CR3
Canon DSLR is .CR2
Sony is .ARW
So each brand names their RAW files differently
so you are good to go
Reading the original comment from @JoelKlein on this it was referring to the "inner circle" in the feathering circle which is showing the amount/size of the feathering the smaller the inner circle in relation to the outer circle the more feathering. I donot use ACR so assuming from what the commenter wrote they were not seeing this visual aid for the feathering amount. Will see what Joel says.
Well I enjoyed the video. As always I picked up some useful pointers. Unfortunately I followed it up by reading this thread which makes me question my ethics as a photographer or indeed whether I'm a photographer at all. At best I guess I have to start limiting myself to the few days each year in Alaska that I can shoot at base ISO. Hoodathunkit? All the time and resources invested into technology to now realize that to be a true photographer we have to go back to the days of ASA 25 slide film.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Why? The first surviving photographs were metal plates coated in bitumen deployed in a camera obscura so does that mean that in order to be "photographers" we need to chuck our MILC's, computers, and software in the garbage? I love this stuff and while the technology makes some things easier, it challenges me all the more to get great captures in camera. Interestingly, my favorite images in my portfolio are those which required the least post processing, or in other words images where I saw the light, nailed the composition, and executed it near perfectly. Am I a "photographer", then? Nope, occasionally I get it right but more often than not, I feel like I am a hack with an expensive and time consuming hobby.Well I enjoyed the video. As always I picked up some useful pointers. Unfortunately I followed it up by reading this thread which makes me question my ethics as a photographer or indeed whether I'm a photographer at all. At best I guess I have to start limiting myself to the few days each year in Alaska that I can shoot at base ISO. Hoodathunkit? All the time and resources invested into technology to now realize that to be a true photographer we have to go back to the days of ASA 25 slide film.
He was making a JOKE.............. a facetious comment....Why? The first surviving photographs were metal plates coated in bitumen deployed in a camera obscura so does that mean that in order to be "photographers" we need to chuck our MILC's, computers, and software in the garbage? I love this stuff and while the technology makes some things easier, it challenges me all the more to get great captures in camera. Interestingly, my favorite images in my portfolio are those which required the least post processing, or in other words images where I saw the light, nailed the composition, and executed it near perfectly. Am I a "photographer", then? Nope, occasionally I get it right but more often than not, I feel like I am a hack with an expensive and time consuming hobby.
A joke related to a post early in the threadWhy? The first surviving photographs were metal plates coated in bitumen deployed in a camera obscura so does that mean that in order to be "photographers" we need to chuck our MILC's, computers, and software in the garbage? I love this stuff and while the technology makes some things easier, it challenges me all the more to get great captures in camera. Interestingly, my favorite images in my portfolio are those which required the least post processing, or in other words images where I saw the light, nailed the composition, and executed it near perfectly. Am I a "photographer", then? Nope, occasionally I get it right but more often than not, I feel like I am a hack with an expensive and time consuming hobby.
Marion Anstis
Well-known member
As always, very well explained and I will be giving it more of a try than I had. I just got a bit put off initially by the time it takes to create the DNG each time, but layering it with the original raw as it does is a plus.
Nikon’s own De-Noise is not bad at all.
I had to use a Z30 + 16-50mm last night 2am for a in house event. (No big camera and no flash allowed)
I shot it RAW + Jpeg, and guess what,
ISO was floating to 6400.
Nikon’s built in noise reduction did a fantastic job. I didn’t bother working on the RAW’s which appeared way more noisy.
Then, I downsized it for screen the noise was almost gone.
Pictures looked great.
Customer is happy
I had to use a Z30 + 16-50mm last night 2am for a in house event. (No big camera and no flash allowed)
I shot it RAW + Jpeg, and guess what,
ISO was floating to 6400.
Nikon’s built in noise reduction did a fantastic job. I didn’t bother working on the RAW’s which appeared way more noisy.
Then, I downsized it for screen the noise was almost gone.
Pictures looked great.
Customer is happy
Ed Erkes
Active member
You don't have to disqualify smaller in the frame shots if they are in focus. And if they are in focus, there is nothing to fix. Just apply noise reduction as needed, making sure you don't lose existing detail. Steve's criteria for judging sharpness only apply to large in-the-frame subjects.
Two ISO12800 shots processed with the this threads methods... however I did have to crop quite a bit so results are probably less then perfect. These were taken after sunset
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I finally got around to watching this, and I have to say -- another slam dunk tutorial from Professor Perry. I re-upped my forum membership immediately after watching. Well done!
Thanks so much!
Winston Churchill (Sir)
Well-known member
yes I have to concur. Steve you definitely nailed it with this video - I will admit I am now sharpening my images 
VKAMALJ
New member
Thanks for a very informative video on Noise control. I remember seeing a list of Steve's recommended optimum ISO 's for each Nikon camera, somewhere on this website. I wonder whether there is a link to access that information? Your response would be appreciated. Thanks.