Brightness Noise Artefacts
Hello,
does someone have a solution for my problem as seen in the images (first with second without)?
I have already set harware acceleration to "None".
Regards Matthias
-
@ beo,
your image is special as it is not really possible to tell the difference what is real detail and what is noise, it is also not the sharpest so noise works here as a good substitute for detail. this image does not benefit from reducing luminance noise in my view.
what I wanted to demonstrate is how image detail influences how an image is perceived but when you have trained your perception to honour detail even when it is unnatural than it probably does not work.
c1 does as a fact not resolve more real image information it only intensifies certain detail frequencies (by making them look bolder compared to other converter ) but even for landscapes I would prefer more high frequency detail than the c1 effect which fakes it.
@gb
what I have done in pl is not reproducible with c1 as minus clarity destroys fine detail even at very low settings.
The PL version has darker shadows thus giving greater overall contrast
the overall contrast is not so far apart but I added some adaptive contrast to the shadows and micro contrast to the sofa . even when I lift the shadows to match c1 the effect of having zones with higher micro contrast and lower works in my view drawing the attention to the sofa/background and not to the detail in the table and floor which I think contributes to more depth.
0 -
Well, my image is iso 3200 needed a lift of 2 stops in C1 (and smart lighting 50 in PL) so effectively it is rather iso12800 with a 42MP camera hand held 1/30 f6.7 captured on a walk by. Of course it is not sharp, there is noise everywhere.
Fake detail, maybe, but if it looks real and it is not documentary of forensic photography then I welcome it. PL with normal noise reduction (look at the shadows behind / up the lamp) shows somewhat similar detail as C1:
I am testing PL regarding noise (fits to the topic too), not so much regarding optimal exposed images.
I can't argue with you CSP, if you want to achieve depth and have less distraction by detail or palpabitily then it is what you want, and the way how you achieve this is your way. I find it very interesting and helpful to see and hear other perspectives, whether I agree or not.
EtMRS, detail is easily destroyed in a photo editing tool or raw converter, if one likes. It is harder the other way round.
Regarding your castle, I see what mood you want to transport and like it, I would probably have put more detail / sharpness to it, and I am glad to see your image as another idea. Regarding the foreground and the background woods though, this is something I would have tried with aperture, not with choice of raw converter.
Very interesting discussion, and yes, there is no right or wrong.
0 -
myself:
not with choice of raw converter.
That's not completely true though, I also choose the raw converter which best fits my intention, if I have more than one available. Bringing calmness into an image works fine with C1 tools though.
0 -
EtMRS
For sure, working with aperture/speed is the basic of a photographer, but, time to time, I make the wrong choice and I am happy to enhance the picture using a photo editor.
You're right, working with different features in one application, but also switching to another raw converter, are all good tools in our arsenal.
0 -
CSP,
I see the advantages regarding noise reduction here, especially in the white fabric and of course the background, but the second image looks oversharpened (mainly faces, hands, left arm of the suit) with artifacts, to my eyes.
As this example is 200% I downloaded the jpeg to have better control about zooming, and at 33% in C1 (which corresponds about 67%) I see C1 default setting produces a noisier but more natural image than PL dp40. And 67% zoom is still too high if I print. Maybe a different dp setting would be a good compromise between the two.
0 -
never see noise with my eyes even at night with a lot of cabernet sauvignon, so think noise is not natural. we are only accustomed to it and accept it as a kind of fake detail when it is in fact an image artefact / defect ! this image is also not really over-sharped but it looks a bit strange as the edge sharpness is high but it is not accompanied with similar fein detail but you can print billboards with such a file. adding a little bit of grain to the shadows only would improve things.
one reason why large format was used in the past even when 35mm would have provided enough resolution was to suppress grain. think this was also an important reason why professional photography adapted to digital faster than it was predicted. did read a Kodak study in the late 90ies which said that for professional photography film will remain the most used medium for at least 20 years, we know how this ended....
0 -
I didn't mean that noise looks natural but that the image looks more natural despite the noise.
Your last crop: PL shows the same low freq. color noise but finer luminence noise, detail and realism are very convincing.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
67 comments