Noise reduction
0
-
Hi
Your at not doing anything wrong the noise reduction is close to none compered to ACR or PS
i use Nik plugins to do so when i shoot high ISO shoots0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Which is which?
The better one is ACR and the worse one is C10 -
At what zoom level are we looking? Did you try to print it? Or downsample for screen?
The max NR I dial in is 1 for the Color noise, and only when I go over 1600 ISO and need to add exposure. Last week I shot at 3200 and added 2 to 3 stops (needed a fast shutter speed) and lifted the shadows. Color NR at 1, other at 0. OK, the noise is definitely visible, but that's the way it is.
Or maybe it's the Fuji… 😊0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Which is which?
The better one is ACR and the worse one is C1
Maggie,
I don't mean this to sound critical of the image but given the subject matter and the lack of larger context (the whole image) or a reference to the real size, I think they both look "not great" but for different reasons and only if I pixel peep at 100% (of whatever the scale was when loaded to dropbox.)
I would hazard a guess that the top reference is C1 - detail present but typical brown subject colouring noise to deal with via some clever tweaking yet to be fully discovered.
The second one is smoother but has lost a lot of detail in parts.
In the other hand if it is a small part of a large print that would be viewed from several feet away usually - then I would think that either image, as adjusted, would probably fine and fit for purpose.
HTH.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Maggie,
I don't mean this to sound critical of the image but given the subject matter and the lack of larger context (the whole image) or a reference to the real size, I think they both look "not great" but for different reasons and only if I pixel peep at 100% (of whatever the scale was when loaded to dropbox.)
I would hazard a guess that the top reference is C1 - detail present but typical brown subject colouring noise to deal with via some clever tweaking yet to be fully discovered.
The second one is smoother but has lost a lot of detail in parts.
In the other hand if it is a small part of a large print that would be viewed from several feet away usually - then I would think that either image, as adjusted, would probably fine and fit for purpose.
HTH.
Grant
Hi Grant,
This is a small crop of an image viewed in Photoshop at 100%. Of course they are both not great but as there is NR applied and shadows opened up etc. but the point is that one is better than the other. I'm not saying one is amazing and the other is not. Both not great but one is better than the other. Yes, the top one is C1.
I'm not concerned how it will look when viewed from several feet away. There is a reason I view my images at 100%, because I like to see what is going on to the pixels and in my opinion the C1 looks worse than ACR. I was hoping that C1 would eventually work on NR so I could use it for more tasks. This strange paint like filter look that the NR in C1 creates has been like this from I think version 3 or 4 and has not been improved. So I keep hoping that one day it will happen.0 -
Hi Maggie,
But the second example just looks smudged to me at that scale with detail disappearing. A sort of compressed JPG look.
Whether that would really matter ultimately depends on how the image is to be used.
And of course the preferences of the person creating the image!
Ideally I like to try to limit the NR to the darkest parts of the problem areas and any especially notable large consistent patches - like skies for example. It can take a bit of work and is not always worth the effort of course.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Hi Maggie,
But the second example just looks smudged to me at that scale with detail disappearing. A sort of compressed JPG look.
Whether that would really matter ultimately depends on how the image is to be used.
And of course the preferences of the person creating the image!
Ideally I like to try to limit the NR to the darkest parts of the problem areas and any especially notable large consistent patches - like skies for example. It can take a bit of work and is not always worth the effort of course.
Grant
Are you saying that the second example looks more smudged than the first one? Because to me it's exactly the opposite.0 -
Try -15 clarity (top slider) and noise reduction on about 30 (all sliders) 💡
In my opinion Capture One has better image quality than ACR, but the high midtone contrast in Capture One and the default 50 noise reduction can sometimes give a "painterly" look in the shadows.0 -
[quote="J M T" wrote:
Try -15 clarity (top slider) and noise reduction on about 30 (all sliders) 💡
In my opinion Capture One has better image quality than ACR, but the high midtone contrast in Capture One and the default 50 noise reduction can sometimes give a "painterly" look in the shadows.
Which clarity method do I change to -15? Natural? Punch? Neutral? or Classic?0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
[quote="J M T" wrote:
Try -15 clarity (top slider) and noise reduction on about 30 (all sliders) 💡
In my opinion Capture One has better image quality than ACR, but the high midtone contrast in Capture One and the default 50 noise reduction can sometimes give a "painterly" look in the shadows.
Which clarity method do I change to -15? Natural? Punch? Neutral? or Classic?
I switch between neutral and classic to see what works best, neutral is a little more subtle in its effect so maybe i use -20 or something with that one.
"Punch" is a little different, it also affect colors, so i only use that one to boost clarity.0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
11件のコメント