Is it handy to have this additional software: DxO / ON1 /Nik
I am about the make the jump (crawl?) from Apple Aperture to Capture One Pro. I have augmented my Aperture workflow by purchasing DxO, ON1 and Nik. I use a few of the components of these software, when I find Aperture lacking.
I'd like to know if any of these are necessary once I migrate to Capture One Pro? Is there anything that DxO, ON1 and Nik do that Capture One Pro doesn't?
Thanks,
Francis.
I'd like to know if any of these are necessary once I migrate to Capture One Pro? Is there anything that DxO, ON1 and Nik do that Capture One Pro doesn't?
Thanks,
Francis.
0
-
ON1 can stitch panoramas and do HDR from bracketed exposures, neither of which Capture One currently does. I don't know about DxO and Nik.
Ian0 -
Thanks for the feedback. 0 -
[quote="picman2" wrote:
Yes for DxO. IMHO this software has the very best noise reduction system available today (PRIME).
Not even close, I'm afraid - you need to try Photo Ninja. And that's before we talk about the glacially slow application of PRIME. It's a joke if you have a number of files to process.Actually this is the only aspect of C1 that I really dislike, their noise reduction, and I cannot understand why they are lagging behind on this.
They aren't - they're better than Lightroom, much better than AfterShot Pro, better than ACDSee Photo Studio, and at least as good as the non-PRIME NR in DxO.0 -
The question of NR is quite interesting.
My, mainly somewhat old, Canon bodies have relatively poor low light capabilities but C1 NR is OK up to about ISO1600 even for the small sensors and cheaper bodies. After that I really don't think that anything less than very good light allows anything usable at ISO 3200 or above where available.
Recently I downloaded some sample RAW file - very low light and shot with very much higher ISO than anything I have available and the noise reduction available in C1 was, in my opinion, extremely viable for obtaining very usable images.
If only I could justify buying the newer cameras and the larger memory cards and extra storage required to work with them!
Grant0 -
Yep, I agree with you, Grant. Capture One NR is good enough for any situation I have encountered with my camera bodies, except when you go up to 6400 ISO and above. Remember that with analog photography, we couldn't go above 400, 800, 1600 ISO max. And have a look at the Brassaï's pictures in the book "Paris by night".... 0 -
Interestingly some of the shots I was thinking of are from a Canon EOS R and report ISO 6400.
I would say they are very usable.
You have reminded me that I intended to try to find some even higher ISO samples. I'll see what I can come up with.
I would guess that if you are going to set out to do ever finer processing with ever larger files - and of course noisy files tend to have more colour data because they are noisy - one would need to accept a potentially slower processing time and that might suggest having multiple levels of processing depth so that users could choose to refine the noise adjustment at the cost of processing speed where they felt it was beneficial to do so.
Quite how one could successfully explain that sort of option to everyone's satisfaction I am not sure.
Whether the improvement would be entirely obvious is also an interesting things to consider.
Once a process has achieved most of what is possible is will likely become very challenging to make further obvious and consistent quality improvements. And if the cameras are themselves improving and there are fewer users still producing large numbers of high ISO images from older and noisier equipment (or scanners) the effort to develop extreme NR solutions might not be worth chasing very hard - for anyone, not just C1.
For anyone who has not seen the Phase IQ4 150 BSI introduction video it is worth a visit.
It seems safe to assume that all other manufacturers will be seeking to move their own preferred technology in the same direction. Even the phone people although one wonders if the vast majority of image creators out there will notice. (Yes I'm talking about the casual mobile device users.)
Grant0 -
Sorry, getting some way off the immediate topic here, but ...
I found some very high ISO sample RAW files from an EOS R and having experimented briefly, I would have to say they all seemed to be very usable right up to 25600 and 40000 is not looking too bad unless pixel peeping at 100%.
51200 and even 102400 were much better than I had expected them to be and could potentially be usable for smaller outputs if necessary.
Just my opinion of course and certainly if I was shooting fine art or portrait close ups for close viewing or Landscapes not in the middle of the night then these high ISOs would not be an option.
I assume that the New Nikon cameras would produce similar results and Sonys and Fujis too.
Whether or not other applications might be considered better is something upon which I can't comment as I have not looked at them. And I suspect that the subject matter might heavily influence one's opinions about how well an NR engine works.
But for what I have seen so far and some brief experiments with a few of the settings available, for most uses I would see NR as much less of an issue for most digital photography enthusiasts then it used to be - at least as far as the image is concerned.
Chasing technical perfection is a different passtime!
Grant0 -
I'd love to see comparisons of noise reduction.
You can embed images in a post, if the image is located on the web. For example, here's a thumbnail-sized image from my Flickr stream:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4908/44404254440_2609df3386_t.jpg
The code to include the image is:[img]https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4908/44404254440_2609df3386_t.jpg[/img]0 -
The DxO PRIME version looks the best to me. The Noise Ninja is too much. 0 -
Noise Ninja seems the worst to me..... softening all. 0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
10件のコメント