Capture One 6 NR much improved
I have been playing with the new upgrade, testing its NR capabilities on a number of very high ISO shots that I had previously worked on in C1-5. There is no question that the NR function is different and better. Gone are all of the white speckles that used to drive me crazy. There is still a bit more blotchiness than I would like, but much less than before. By experimenting with the luminance and surface noise sliders, I can get very acceptable results, whereas I could not do so with the previous version.
I have also done some quick head to head comparisons with the latest version of ACR, and I would say that C1-6 is a very strong challenger in the NR department. At 300%, ACR shows slightly smoother edges and fewer stray black pixels, but at 50-100%, it is hard to say that it is superior. I will be interested in hearing what other users think. Topaz DeNoise is still king of the hill, IMO, but for most purposes, I think that C1-6 will be able to produce very usable images on its own. Given the fact that the latest generation of sensors generate relatively little noise, there will be correspondingly less need to do NR in the post-conversion stage. For extremely noisy images, however, it will still be necessary. People are shooting at astronomical ISOs these days.
Great work, Phase One!
Rob
I have also done some quick head to head comparisons with the latest version of ACR, and I would say that C1-6 is a very strong challenger in the NR department. At 300%, ACR shows slightly smoother edges and fewer stray black pixels, but at 50-100%, it is hard to say that it is superior. I will be interested in hearing what other users think. Topaz DeNoise is still king of the hill, IMO, but for most purposes, I think that C1-6 will be able to produce very usable images on its own. Given the fact that the latest generation of sensors generate relatively little noise, there will be correspondingly less need to do NR in the post-conversion stage. For extremely noisy images, however, it will still be necessary. People are shooting at astronomical ISOs these days.
Great work, Phase One!
Rob
0
-
So I guess what you guys are saying is "you're satisfied with Cap One 6 NR" - not the same thing at all as "Capture One 6 NR much improved", because - truth is - it isn't "much improved". In fact it (and the underlying demosaicing algorithm) are no better than Cap One 4's, and they need to be.
I suppose that Cap One's apparent target audience (studio-based photographers) deal with less challenging situations and have lower IQ demands: as long as the colours are pleasant and skin looks smooth, job done, eh? And there's rarely a lack of light or a completely uncooperative, fast-moving subject, in a studio.
Sorry if this comes across as "arsey" - it's not directed at anyone here - but I really am ticked-off by the extent to which Cap One's much-lauded IQ has gone backwards in comparison with its competitors: that it was acceptable two or three years ago is no excuse for Phase One not to be looking for significant improvements, and God knows, they're not in Cap One 6.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
So I guess what you guys are saying is "you're satisfied with Cap One 6 NR" - not the same thing at all as "Capture One 6 NR much improved", because - truth is - it isn't "much improved". In fact it (and the underlying demosaicing algorithm) are no better than Cap One 4's, and they need to be.
I suppose that Cap One's apparent target audience (studio-based photographers) deal with less challenging situations and have lower IQ demands: as long as the colours are pleasant and skin looks smooth, job done, eh? And there's rarely a lack of light or a completely uncooperative, fast-moving subject, in a studio.
Sorry if this comes across as "arsey" - it's not directed at anyone here - but I really am ticked-off by the extent to which Cap One's much-lauded IQ has gone backwards in comparison with its competitors: that it was acceptable two or three years ago is no excuse for Phase One not to be looking for significant improvements, and God knows, they're not in Cap One 6.
NR is much improved, and I have demonstrated this to my satisfaction with high ISO images that I had previously edited in C1-5, and overall IQ absolutely kills ACR, despite microscopic cross hatching artifacts. But you feel differently, so the question becomes: What are you going to do about it? I know that you like Raw Therapee. Why not use that as your main raw converter? I sincerely hope that you can find a satisfactory solution to your dilemma.
Rob0 -
As a Capture One 5 (non-pro) user I was interested in an improvement in NR with the new release. I'm afraid I agree with Keith as to the appraisal of this aspect of the software. My Pentax K10D files are rather bad starting with ISO 800 and I can see no improvement with the Express 6 version. There is a slight improvement when I perform the conversion with the 6 Pro because of the additional sliders (I like the grain slider and would like to see it in the non-pro version). As it is I have to employ a three-app approach to the conversion of those photos that I'd like to print myself, and that's not optimal (C1 with no sharpening and NR, then the 16-bit tiff goes to ACR 6.2 just for the chroma NR, and then in PSE8 I can make use of either Noiseware or Topaz DeNoise -- tedious, that's why I was interested to see whether the switch to no. 6 improved things, which would encourage me to upgrade). As it is, I won't upgrade till C1 at least equals the ACR6 noise reduction. The HDR highlight protection could also do with some tweak because ACR's fill light is competitive here -- otherwise I still prefer what C1 brings to the table. 0 -
I actually just tried something last night that wrapped all this up for me, and it's pretty dang easy. Export your files (I did 16 bit TIFFs) with NR and sharpening turned off completely. When they're done, open up bridge and then right click the files and open them in ACR. Apply NR and sharpening as needed there, and the results look 98% the same as ACR's at 100%. Obviously, sans ACR's nasty colors and flatness. I just have a preset I apply to everything, takes me 2 seconds to open them all up and hit save. They all process quickly and I'm done. So if you all hate C1's NR so much and love ACR so much, but for some reason don't just use ACR and quit whinging about C1, do this. It's the best of both worlds and looks great.
I found this combination because there was a picture of a client in a red sweater that was causing me major problems with NR and Moire. C1's NR has always struggled with pure red detail for me, roses, sweaters, whatever. ACR's NR somehow made it look perfect right away, but no combination of NR, moire tool and sharpening could fix it in C1. However, ACR was making the sweater an annoying orange-red when it was really burgundy. So I tried the combination method I described above and it worked perfectly.
So, yes C1's NR is much improved, no it's still not good enough for everything, nor is it the best at anything, but for me it's a small price to pay for everything else it offers. Now, cue the "you shouldn't have to do that" "why not just ACR the whole time" etc. Just use ACR or LR and be happy if you're asking those questions!0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
I actually just tried something last night that wrapped all this up for me, and it's pretty dang easy. Export your files (I did 16 bit TIFFs) with NR and sharpening turned off completely. When they're done, open up bridge and then right click the files and open them in ACR. Apply NR and sharpening as needed there, and the results look 98% the same as ACR's at 100%. Obviously, sans ACR's nasty colors and flatness. I just have a preset I apply to everything, takes me 2 seconds to open them all up and hit save. They all process quickly and I'm done. So if you all hate C1's NR so much and love ACR so much, but for some reason don't just use ACR and quit whinging about C1, do this. It's the best of both worlds and looks great.
Zach,
I think that if I need to do major NR post-conversion, I would much prefer to use Topaz DeNoise. It takes longer than ACR but does a better job. The best way to accomplish this is to do color NR in C1 without any luminance NR. Then do luminance NR in TDN. The results are extremely good. I'm talking about images with heavy noise. LIght to moderate noise can be handled by C1-6.
Rob
Rob0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
now if you still continue to claim that C1 v6 has NR on par with ACR 6.x then I can only - 😂
You sharpened the ACR version?
you can try to sharpen C1 version and it (unlike w/ ACR) will make things even worse...[quote="robgo2" wrote:
But that spoils the direct comparison of the NR functions of the two programs.
NR in raw converter does not exist in vacuum - w/ ACR I can use sharpening/deblurring, the same way you can use 2 extra sliders in C1 in "Noise Reduction Advanced" tool...0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
I don't think that I ever claimed that C1-6's NR is as good as ACR's, but only that it is now competitive, which it is.
it depends - like the example by Doug P - there are certainly cases when C1 will be good enough @ high ISO...[quote="robgo2" wrote:
The fact of the matter is that for most images with a moderate level of noise, C1 will remove it quite nicely and still provide a superior raw conversion. For images with very high levels of noise, Topaz DeNoise is the program of choice, not ACR.
certainly if C1 can't deliver adequate NR you have to take it to another tools...[quote="robgo2" wrote:
You are always looking to start a food fight.
absolutely nothing personal, just it makes things more interesting... replace C1 w/ ACR in your postings and then I will take C1's side 😁0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
So I guess what you guys are saying is "you're satisfied with Cap One 6 NR" - not the same thing at all as "Capture One 6 NR much improved", because - truth is - it isn't "much improved". In fact it (and the underlying demosaicing algorithm) are no better than Cap One 4's, and they need to be.
I suppose that Cap One's apparent target audience (studio-based photographers) deal with less challenging situations and have lower IQ demands: as long as the colours are pleasant and skin looks smooth, job done, eh? And there's rarely a lack of light or a completely uncooperative, fast-moving subject, in a studio.
Sorry if this comes across as "arsey" - it's not directed at anyone here - but I really am ticked-off by the extent to which Cap One's much-lauded IQ has gone backwards in comparison with its competitors: that it was acceptable two or three years ago is no excuse for Phase One not to be looking for significant improvements, and God knows, they're not in Cap One 6.
Keith,
It seems your pretty passionate about this and fairly knowledgeable... yet I see no support cases from you which report this concern. It sure would be nice if we had been at least been given a chance to look into it before we unknowingly upset you.0 -
I have to say that I was looking forward to trying out C1 v6 Pro's capabilities on high ISO images with lots of red items in them (sweaters, blankets, props, walls, etc.). I guess it won't be too much different than C1 v5 in some respects based on what I've read here.
I shoot lots of theatre events. It's miraculous if I can go below 1200 ISO to stop the action at 1/100th and have any hope of acceptable DoF (using a Canon 5D mk ii).
For some reason, directors and costumers LOVE to put actors and set pieces in bright red textures or in red pools of light with low light elsewhere... this makes for really challenging image processing. Red items in a high ISO image can quickly turn any picture into an impressionist painting.
So, the latest comments in this thread have been enlightening...
I learned about all that the hard way because I got too comfortable with C1's NR settings. I once had to go re-process a few hundred photos individually to remove the red blotches out of a red chenille throw / blanket thing that was being used as a shawl around an actress (while trying to keep the noise at acceptable levels elsewhere).
I made that mistake once... once!
TTFN
Gregg0 -
One thing to know gregger, the ISO values on the 5D between 100, 200 400, 800, 1600, 3200 are all fake. The in-betweeners tend to have greater noise than the main values. Like, 1000 is as noisy as 1600, because it really is 1600 pushed down.That might help you a bit! The other thing to know is that red is the weakest point for all cameras, film and digital alike. It has to do with it's wavelength and whatnot... I never dived in that deep but I know that much. But it also is the first channel to clip often, and if you use the RGB histogram on the 5D you can keep a better eye on it. You could be blowing your reds past what's recoverable even though the rest of the photo looks good. C1's NR is particularly weak at reds, and the sharpening it does makes subsequent NR have a harder time if you do it after RAW conversion, so I've had great luck doing NR and sharpening as a batch in ACR after C1. For some reason CS5's ACR NR has almost magical powers with recovering reds in noisy photos. I was blown away. Sounds like you, like me, have to process a lot of photos, and doing Topaz or the like on each one is not a realistic option, so you may want to give this method a try. 0 -
Oooh... thanks for the ISO tip. I actually didn't realize that about the tweener ISO values. Lame.
A friend of mine pointed out something else about high density megapixel sensors that I hadn't thought of... I've tested it a couple times and it may work:
If you are shooting really high ISO (1600 and greater), try shooting at a lower RAW resolution quality. The lower quality may let you decrease the amount of noise between the sensor pixels.
That's the theory... it sort of worked (I took a few both ways and compared them). The other way to "fix" noise with a still subject is "image stacking" to let the random noise patterns cancel each other out (hopefully).
I did notice when screwing around with the NR on that red chenille blanket thing that all the texture would come back once I moved the sliders back down toward zero. Basically, the Color NR was considering the texture of the chenille blanket to be "noise" and was turning it into a fingerpainting. Luminance NR didn't really have much impact.
Here's an example (of the best I could do) if anyone cares:
So, I will start looking into CS5 ACR for NR with red stuff like that.
Like you say... Red is always a tough color - whether cameras, pigment, or whatever... my mom used to lecture me about the problems with red when she was doing her degree art and photography and now, it turns out, she was right about all those things! 😉
Dang it!0 -
[quote="gregger" wrote:
I guess it won't be too much different than C1 v5 in some respects based on what I've read here.
On the basis of some pretty exhaustive tests I've made, no difference whatsoever. Right down the most excessive pixel-peeping level, the IQ from Cap One 6's NR is - grain for grain - identical to Cap One 5's.For some reason, directors and costumers LOVE to put actors and set pieces in bright red textures or in red pools of light with low light elsewhere... this makes for really challenging image processing. Red items in a high ISO image can quickly turn any picture into an impressionist painting.
This is a 100% crop (further cropped at right by the forum software) of a curtain (my living room curtain, in fact) at 6400 ISO from my 7D, straight out of Lr 3 into Photoshop CS only for the cropping (Exif is in there):
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2-2_1_crop.jpg
Good luck replicating this standard of NR/detail in in Cap One. And this is before the application of dedicated NR like Topaz Denoise, remember.
For clarity, the curtain is actually a smooth weave - this crop is providing a lot of "magnification", and loads of detail: the Wildlife Trust logo here is actually only 5/8 inch across.
And I repeat: 6400 ISO from a crop camera.0 -
Keith,
I could not resist the challenge, so here are two images shot with a Pentax K-7 at ISO 3200. That is the highest ISO available, and it produces plenty of noise. I chose subjects with red fabric and shot very close, although not in macro range. Both examples were processed in C1-6 and then opened in CS5 for cropping at 100%. As Zach mentioned earlier, you have to avoid overexposing the red channel, in order to preserve detail, which makes sense. Personally, I think that they look pretty good in terms of sharpness and detail. It is possible that ACR would do a better job of NR, but even so, this is quite acceptable by my standards. Your standards may be higher. Still, most people would agree that there is much more to IQ than noise level and microscopic detail, which is a point that I have to reiterate.
For some reason, I cannot get images to show up in the thread, even though I select the URL and click the Img button, so you will just have to follow the links. Perhaps, someone can tell me how to do this.
Rob
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=12064733
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=120647320 -
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12064733-lg.jpg
Rob,
In your post the image is embedded in a page layout. That does not work with the /img tag. I took the link of the jpg image itself and pasted it between tags. My syntax for this example is:[img]http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12064733-lg.jpg[/img]
How did I manage to get the link to the jpg only? I simply right-clicked on it from my Mac browser, and selected Copy Image Address.
By the way, image look very good to me in terms of high ISO and noise. But who am I between the experts in this field? 😉0 -
Thanks, Paul,
Today, I happen to be on a Windows machine, using Internet Explorer. When I right click directly on the jpg image, there is no option to copy the image address. I will try again on my Mac at home tonight.
I would love to receive comments on my two images from the NR experts. My goal is not to show off but to learn.
Rob0 -
I find those results surprising to say the least, Rob - barely a hint of the checkerboarding I've seen in every other recent high ISO conversion from Cap One.
This however, is the same 6400 ISO Canon 7D file as used in my Lr example, converted to the very best of my ability Cap One 6:
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Cap_one_6_6400_ISO_crop.jpg
Most of the "texture" visible in the curtain comes from the demosaic artifact and the fact that the file needs more sharpening to bring out any detail because of the "blunt instrument" luma NR.
And the artifact is so obvious elsewhere that the blue in the logo looks like brickwork..!
Sorry, I'm still not persuaded...0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I find those results surprising to say the least, Rob - barely a hint of the checkerboarding I've seen in every other recent high ISO conversion from Cap One.
This however, is the same 6400 ISO Canon 7D file as used in my Lr example, converted to the very best of my ability Cap One 6:
Most of the "texture" visible in the curtain comes from the demosaic artifact and the fact that the file needs more sharpening to bring out any detail because of the "blunt instrument" luma NR.
And the artifact is so obvious elsewhere that the blue in the logo looks like brickwork..!
Sorry, I'm still not persuaded...
Keith,
I'm not sure, but perhaps some of the difference may be due to how aggressively one applies NR. I tend to be rather gentle and do not mind leaving a fair amount of noise, as long as it is not obtrusive at viewing size. (Grain can be beautiful and can add to the perception of texture.) Is that your approach also, or do you tend to remove as much noise as possible up to the point that detail begins to suffer? Also, with C1-6, I find that if I set the lunimance slider between 10-25 and use the surface noise slider the rest of the way, I tend to get fewer artifacts with most images. At any rate, the NR results from C1-6 are certainly good enough for my purposes, even if they may not be quite as good as from ACR, in dealing with light to moderate noise levels. I rarely shoot above ISO 1600 with my K-7. If you are interested in seeing some of my work, you can find it here:
rgoldsteinphotography.com
In one of the earlier posts, someone pointed out that differences in demosaicising algorhithms may explain some, if not most, of the differences in NR between ACR and C1-6, because one is starting off with different image structures. This certainly may be a key factor, although I am not technically savvy enough to say much about it. Those crosshatch artifacts that you detect in C1 at huge magnification must be the result of how C1 demosaicises. My attitude is that if that is what Phase One's engineers feel is necessary to produce the superior IQ that C1 delivers, then I am willing to live with it, especially since the artifacts are invisible to the naked eye. You obviously feel differently for your type of photography, and I respect that. As I have written elsewhere, if you find that the crosshatching affects a significant fraction of your images, then you will no choice but to use another raw converter.
Drew had requested that you submit a support case to Phase One stating your concerns. Have you done this, and, if so, what has been their response?
Rob0 -
Here is one more ISO 3200 image. It's a challenging one--a fuzzy dark blue sweater with shiny yellow, gold, red and blue embroidery. All done in C1-6. Here are the NR settings: Luminance-20, Color-60, Single Pixel-50, Surface 50. At 100%, it looks reasonably clean, detailed, sharp and without major chock-a-block artifacts that I can see.
Rob
Before NR
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12069392-lg.jpg
After NR
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12069510-lg.jpg0 -
Haha, we could do this forever. We need the same photo side by side with both. 0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
Haha, we could do this forever. We need the same photo side by side with both.
we actually need the raw file, that's it0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
Here is one more ISO 3200 image. It's a challenging one--a fuzzy dark blue sweater with shiny yellow, gold, red and blue embroidery. All done in C1-6. Here are the NR settings: Luminance-20, Color-60, Single Pixel-50, Surface 50. At 100%, it looks reasonably clean, detailed, sharp and without major chock-a-block artifacts that I can see.
in fact the one before NR looks much better - the material of the sweater makes even ugly chroma noise look decent on it w/o any NR at all... 😂0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I suppose that Cap One's apparent target audience (studio-based photographers) deal with less challenging situations and have lower IQ demands: as long as the colours are pleasant and skin looks smooth, job done, eh? And there's rarely a lack of light or a completely uncooperative, fast-moving subject, in a studio.
Sorry if this comes across as "arsey" - it's not directed at anyone here - but I really am ticked-off by the extent to which Cap One's much-lauded IQ has gone backwards in comparison with its competitors: that it was acceptable two or three years ago is no excuse for Phase One not to be looking for significant improvements, and God knows, they're not in Cap One 6.
Yes you do come of as "arsey" and some of us must adhere to professional standards based on the demands of our clients.
So for me high ISO is an effect to be employed when appropriate. Faced with shootimg an AD in a dark parking garage for example we light it! I really can't see how that is less challenging then shooting birds available light?
As to IQ? No offense but a 7d won't cut it in my world so making assumptions about lower IQ demands is foolish.
This whole argument comes down to do the artifacts you object to have a detrimental affect on a print? If so maybe the fault lies with your equipment. Time for a 400 2.8 and an extender? If not the whole argument is pointless.
I certainly respect your right to your opinion and C1 6 is by no means perfect but dwelling on one aspect of a converter created primarily to support Phase One products by complaining about it's supposed shortcomings dealing with Canon files is a bit childish. If you do not like C1 use Canon DPP oh wait, no help there. I am very happy with the IQ out of C1 for my Phase One back and consider it's performance with my Canon 1ds mk3 to be a bonus.0 -
[quote="Zach2" wrote:
Haha, we could do this forever. We need the same photo side by side with both.
Zach,
I'm not really interested any longer in how C1-6 compares to ACR in terms of NR. I just want to know how well it performs at removing noise from my photos. From the samples that I have posted here, I think we can agree that it performs quite well, which is all that I care about. I think that the key to minimizing artifacts is not to be too aggressive with the luminance slider. I'm still learning.
Rob0 -
[quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
Here is one more ISO 3200 image. It's a challenging one--a fuzzy dark blue sweater with shiny yellow, gold, red and blue embroidery. All done in C1-6. Here are the NR settings: Luminance-20, Color-60, Single Pixel-50, Surface 50. At 100%, it looks reasonably clean, detailed, sharp and without major chock-a-block artifacts that I can see.
in fact the one before NR looks much better - the material of the sweater makes even ugly chroma noise look decent on it w/o any NR at all... 😂
I do hope that you are joking.
Rob0 -
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I suppose that Cap One's apparent target audience (studio-based photographers) deal with less challenging situations and have lower IQ demands: as long as the colours are pleasant and skin looks smooth, job done, eh? And there's rarely a lack of light or a completely uncooperative, fast-moving subject, in a studio.
Sorry if this comes across as "arsey" - it's not directed at anyone here - but I really am ticked-off by the extent to which Cap One's much-lauded IQ has gone backwards in comparison with its competitors: that it was acceptable two or three years ago is no excuse for Phase One not to be looking for significant improvements, and God knows, they're not in Cap One 6.
Yes you do come of as "arsey" and some of us must adhere to professional standards based on the demands of our clients.
So for me high ISO is an effect to be employed when appropriate. Faced with shootimg an AD in a dark parking garage for example we light it! I really can't see how that is less challenging then shooting birds available light?
As to IQ? No offense but a 7d won't cut it in my world so making assumptions about lower IQ demands is foolish.
This whole argument comes down to do the artifacts you object to have a detrimental affect on a print? If so maybe the fault lies with your equipment. Time for a 400 2.8 and an extender? If not the whole argument is pointless.
I certainly respect your right to your opinion and C1 6 is by no means perfect but dwelling on one aspect of a converter created primarily to support Phase One products by complaining about it's supposed shortcomings dealing with Canon files is a bit childish. If you do not like C1 use Canon DPP oh wait, no help there. I am very happy with the IQ out of C1 for my Phase One back and consider it's performance with my Canon 1ds mk3 to be a bonus.
Jeff,
This comes across as very elitist, and I am quite confident that Phase One does not share your sentiments. While it may be true that Capture One was originally developed to support Phase One products, it has evolved into something else. Look at the list of cameras that are supported to see the truth of that statement. I don't have actual numbers to cite, but it's a safe bet that most of C1's users are shooting FF or APS-C format. And, believe it or not, those people do care about IQ, even if it does not rise to the rarified level of your set-up. This means that Capture One has to satisfy the needs of that group of users every bit as much as it does the needs of MF shooters. High ISO NR is one of those needs, even if it does not rank high in your list of priorities. To be honest, it's not one of my top priorities either, but the broad marketplace of photographers today absolutely demands it.
Rob0 -
[quote="robgo2" wrote:
This comes across as very elitist, and I am quite confident that Phase One does not share your sentiments. While it may be true that Capture One was originally developed to support Phase One products, it has evolved into something else. Look at the list of cameras that are supported to see the truth of that statement. I don't have actual numbers to cite, but it's a safe bet that most of C1's users are shooting FF or APS-C format. And, believe it or not, those people do care about IQ, even if it does not rise to the rarified level of your set-up. This means that Capture One has to satisfy the needs of that group of users every bit as much as it does the needs of MF shooters. High ISO NR is one of those needs, even if it does not rank high in your list of priorities. To be honest, it's not one of my top priorities either, but the broad marketplace of photographers today absolutely demands it.
Rob
Iam sorry if you read my comments as elitist. In my defense though I was merely responding to Keith's question re: IQ and challenging situations.
I am fully aware that C1 supports a multitude of cameras and formats. As a Phase one hardware user I disagree with the idea that C1 is required to service every supported camera with the same level of quality. For one that just does not seem possible given the variety of formats and Manufacturers supported. Does Lightroom or Aperture provide the same level of quality to all brands or even cameras within specific brands?
I believe all of us have the right to get the highest IQ possible from the systems we use. That said I rarely deliver a file to my clients without a trip to CS5. C1 is part of my workflow and in the pursuit of the highest IQ possible I use many apps.
The part of my post you did not address is the relevance of the entire discussion to actual output. If the artifacts Keith is referencing do not affect the print then I say they do not matter.
As I said C1 6 is not perfect but as a whole it is a huge step forward. This narrow attack on one feature ignores the tremendous improvements made elsewhere.0 -
OK, Zach. Just to make you happy, I ran the same image file through ACR and did my very best to optimize it. I will post it and then re-post the C1-6 version. The only alteration to the latter is an adjustment in white balance to try to get it as close as possible to the ACR version. This makes direct comparison much easier. Both versions were sharpened in the raw stage. This is as sharp as I could go in ACR without producing artifacts, so it is a fair representation of final output.
ACR
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12071471-lg.jpg
C1-6
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/12071472-lg.jpg0 -
[quote="Jeff12" wrote:
Yes you do come of as "arsey"
That seems to make two of us then Jeff - I'm in good company, it would appear.As to IQ? No offence but a 7d won't cut it in my world so making assumptions about lower IQ demands is foolish.
That''s quite a dim thing to say, on a number of levels - I don't know what (or where) "your world" is, but your self aggrandisement ("ooh! I'm a pro!") cuts no mustard with me: some of the worst photographers I've ever known make a living at it.
I also know that - for a lot of photographic genres - what passes as acceptable or even good IQ would not get past first base for bird photography, even at the serious amateur/semi-pro level. That's a fact: I know of no other genre that has such high de facto standards of IQ.
None.
And I have high standards, I freely admit: whatever it is you shoot, if you're happy with Cap One's IQ then it may simply mean we might have different standards, and what's enough for you might not be enough for someone else.
There are no bragging rights available to you there though. For all I know it might simply be you and your clients might be more easily pleased - and given the general standard of "pro" photography I've encountered, and the average level of discernment shown by most clients, "good enough for this pro..." doesn't come close to suggesting I might be on the wrong tack here as far as my requirements are concerned.This whole argument comes down to do the artifacts you object to have a detrimental affect on a print?
Yes, they do. As I've explained several times now, the artifact either mucks up fine detail or requires such high Luma NR to deal with that the NR kills the detail anyway.If so maybe the fault lies with your equipment.
A complete non sequitur - or do other converters have a magical ability to make camera equipment function more effectively? Who knew, eh?
Incidentally, I know of a goodly number of sports and gig photographers who are very happy to use the 7D in a professional context - some actually preferring it to the "pro" 1D Mk III: and as an aside, I have, on numerous occasions, demonstrated that a well-processed 7D file can match or beat any Mk III file - I chose my 7D over a Mk III quite deliberately.I certainly respect your right to your opinion.
Clearly you do not - but that's fine with me, because yours is just another internet opinion, same as mine - and you've given me no reason to regard yours as any valid than mine.0 -
Keith,
I will admit to having a little fun but it would appear after your response that you have a clear advantage in the "arsey" category.
With regards to the IQ issue all I said was making assumptions about the IQ demands of other photographic disciplines was foolish. You have no idea what is high IQ in my genre. Ignorance of the requirements of other genres is not fact. So your vague statement about the high standards of bird photography relative to other disciplines is pure speculation.
With regard to the equipment, raw converters have nothing to do with it. The two extra stops and extra resolving power of a super tele prime like the Canon 400 f2.8 would I believe dramatically reduce or perhaps eliminate the need for excessive noise reduction.
I have no experience with the 100-400 IS zoom that you use but having tested many Canon zooms for potential use in my studio I can honestly say that I shoot all primes because I believe they deliver higher IQ . Many of the bird shooters I know also shoot mostly primes of the super tele variety.
I have no negative opinion of the 7d at all but choose to shoot the full frame 1ds mk3 when shooting a DSLR.
I do respect your opinion but have an issue when anyone attacks other disciplines without provocation and claims superiority based on pure speculation.0 -
I do have to agree with Keith that some of the finest photographic artists that I know are amateurs. This is a subject that Brooks Jensen has written about in LensWork. Professionals generally can afford more expensive gear, but what they do with that gear and how well they edit their own images is another matter altogether. I would not argue that a Phase One camera should be capable of higher IQ than any APS-C camera, all things being equal. Still, the IQ coming from the latest generation of APS-C cameras is pretty astounding and would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. Who would believe that the APS-C sensor in the new Pentax K-5 has 14 stops of DR at ISO 80, according to DxO? That, my friends, is MF territory.
Keith, I would like to hear your comments on the sweater photos. Do you think that C1 has botched the NR? Can a high quality print be made from it? Is the ACR version better in your opinion?
Rob0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
127 comments