Noise Reduction and Sharpening Settings in RAW conversion
Discussion
If you shoot at base/native ISO (so ISO 200 for my D300) for the best quality, what are your raw conversion settings for noise reduction and sharpening?
I normally have a small amount of noise reduction on (maybe 20% of each), and ramp it up if I shot a higher ISO. And for sharpening I used to use none at all and apply it in PS after all the other post work was done. Now I apply a little in ACR (maybe 25%) after reading an article on it. Then apply some again later in post.
Just wondering what works for everyone else?
On screen everything can look great, but sometimes I find large prints aren't as sharp as they looked on screen, even printed at 300dpi.
I normally have a small amount of noise reduction on (maybe 20% of each), and ramp it up if I shot a higher ISO. And for sharpening I used to use none at all and apply it in PS after all the other post work was done. Now I apply a little in ACR (maybe 25%) after reading an article on it. Then apply some again later in post.
Just wondering what works for everyone else?
On screen everything can look great, but sometimes I find large prints aren't as sharp as they looked on screen, even printed at 300dpi.
Bob_Defly said:
If you shoot at base/native ISO (so ISO 200 for my D300) for the best quality, what are your raw conversion settings for noise reduction and sharpening?
I normally have a small amount of noise reduction on (maybe 20% of each), and ramp it up if I shot a higher ISO. And for sharpening I used to use none at all and apply it in PS after all the other post work was done. Now I apply a little in ACR (maybe 25%) after reading an article on it. Then apply some again later in post.
Just wondering what works for everyone else?
On screen everything can look great, but sometimes I find large prints aren't as sharp as they looked on screen, even printed at 300dpi.
Hmm.I normally have a small amount of noise reduction on (maybe 20% of each), and ramp it up if I shot a higher ISO. And for sharpening I used to use none at all and apply it in PS after all the other post work was done. Now I apply a little in ACR (maybe 25%) after reading an article on it. Then apply some again later in post.
Just wondering what works for everyone else?
On screen everything can look great, but sometimes I find large prints aren't as sharp as they looked on screen, even printed at 300dpi.
Can of worms Bob.
So many sub-dependencies not least the processing software - especially where largish prints are involved.
I'm looking forward to learning from the responses.
LongQ said:
Can of worms Bob.
So many sub-dependencies not least the processing software.
^^^^ This So many sub-dependencies not least the processing software.
(Not always the same treatment, but quite often: (Lightroom) try not to touch the NR (even if I do (currently) live with a D2X) but always hit clarity or selectively brush in some (and maybe also brush out some). For screen output I use sharpening at export stage only. Prints are usually LAB conversion and aggressive sharpening trick.)
Found with my D300 that shadow noise was a problem at silly ISOs. Tried the likes of Noise Ninja etc, but Lightroom noise reduction seems to be the best.
I don't bother changing sharpening settings in the RAW conversion, other than the defaults as it's the last few steps of editing for me. I try to edit for contrast in localised areas which will help perceived sharpness as well. Depends on what you want and how you want the end image to look. Sometimes I'll run unsharp mask flicking through the blend modes, and layer mask that for the bits I want. Other times smart sharpen is fine, I've used Apply Image with a blend mode change, or high pass set to overlay
Most of the time some sharpening is needed, but it's really specific in a lot of cases.
I don't bother changing sharpening settings in the RAW conversion, other than the defaults as it's the last few steps of editing for me. I try to edit for contrast in localised areas which will help perceived sharpness as well. Depends on what you want and how you want the end image to look. Sometimes I'll run unsharp mask flicking through the blend modes, and layer mask that for the bits I want. Other times smart sharpen is fine, I've used Apply Image with a blend mode change, or high pass set to overlay
Most of the time some sharpening is needed, but it's really specific in a lot of cases.
OK, two more questions.
For Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), what are the default settings? I must have changed them ages ago.
Secondly, do you have a std workflow, i.e. not for single images, but for when you have to process a few at a time. So assuming you don't have time to paint masks and the like for each shot. Do you have a default "this should work for most of the shots" kind of setting.
For Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), what are the default settings? I must have changed them ages ago.
Secondly, do you have a std workflow, i.e. not for single images, but for when you have to process a few at a time. So assuming you don't have time to paint masks and the like for each shot. Do you have a default "this should work for most of the shots" kind of setting.
For the first question, i am only familiar with LR, I'm afraid ACR just looks plain scary after LR's comforting cosiness so wouldn't have a clue! 
For the second: No.
Every shot or set of shots tends to arise with something particular in mind, and some shots will end up B&W or "toned B&W", some will be cropped a bit or treated a bit differently, so I rarely have a one size fits all and if I have ever tried using one of the LR presets on import I have always regretted it.
It's the one reason why, up until now, I have never, ever managed to set the camera up for jpegs in-camera processing. Trying desperately to get into the mindset. I bought a compact, thinking I would look for those more instant results, and now have that spewing out RAW files.......
For the second: No.
Every shot or set of shots tends to arise with something particular in mind, and some shots will end up B&W or "toned B&W", some will be cropped a bit or treated a bit differently, so I rarely have a one size fits all and if I have ever tried using one of the LR presets on import I have always regretted it.
It's the one reason why, up until now, I have never, ever managed to set the camera up for jpegs in-camera processing. Trying desperately to get into the mindset. I bought a compact, thinking I would look for those more instant results, and now have that spewing out RAW files.......
As Beano says, although I can't really comment on the first point since I don't use ACR and never have done.
I have LR at V1.4 but have not used it for a long time.
These days most of my RAW conversion work is through Capture One. The default settings it provides are different for each camera. (Canons in my case.)
The main 'profile' that deals with colour interpetation and stuff during the de-mosaicing phase does not offer many obvious specific settings in the tools other than some values in the NR sliders and some default sharpening that seems to be related to sensor/pixel size I would guess.
I tend to tweak the sharpening settings up a tad - literally just a fraction. Maybe my eyes are getting tired.
I think if I was working in a controlled environment - say a studio or with a lighting set up that was quite constant - or I had a particular look in mind it would be relatively easy to establish a standard workflow that delivered much of the desired result on import. Maybe two or three saved 'styles' would be the starting points. (Perhaps adapted for each lens and ISO setting though ... it's arady starting to get complicated.
But I've rarely been in that situation so the best I can hope for is a sort of foundation value and that work with that and tweak it as I work through the shoot adapting from frame to frame if required. I sometimes get batches where the settings will hold well enough for a block of images - maybe even the straightening and crop as well! But more often than not that will be a small block compared to the number of shots taken.
One thing I hardly ever play with is colour. Exposure is fair game, WB too from time to time although I tend to let C1 do it's stuff on 'Auto' mostly unless giving a shot some special attention. I'll look at colour if I'm going to print the shot and the initial results look like they might be improved. Or if there is an undesirable colour cast of course.
I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site that follows his workflow for a shoot that involved some preset studio work to his regular 'shoot against white' style and then some non-studio shots and an outdoor outdoor session. It's interesting to see how he deals with each requirement, looking for a 'baseline' of settings and then applying those to a selection of similar images in preparation for individual tweaking before exporting to jpg after which he performs the final graphics editing bits in PS.
I usually shoot RAW + JPG and really would like to be able get a standard jpg setting that I think is always OK for posting to the web en masse (for example) but when shooting outdoors all day in UK style weather and light I can't find a 'one style fits all' that really works for me. Try as I might - it would save days of work sometimes - I'm just not always with pre-cooked results in a number of ways. I think it goes with the territory when primarily taking action shots outdoors. There are too many compromises to work around. Maybe I need to find another approach to the capture stage rather than PP tweaking but total comfort with that has eluded me so far.
I have LR at V1.4 but have not used it for a long time.
These days most of my RAW conversion work is through Capture One. The default settings it provides are different for each camera. (Canons in my case.)
The main 'profile' that deals with colour interpetation and stuff during the de-mosaicing phase does not offer many obvious specific settings in the tools other than some values in the NR sliders and some default sharpening that seems to be related to sensor/pixel size I would guess.
I tend to tweak the sharpening settings up a tad - literally just a fraction. Maybe my eyes are getting tired.
I think if I was working in a controlled environment - say a studio or with a lighting set up that was quite constant - or I had a particular look in mind it would be relatively easy to establish a standard workflow that delivered much of the desired result on import. Maybe two or three saved 'styles' would be the starting points. (Perhaps adapted for each lens and ISO setting though ... it's arady starting to get complicated.
But I've rarely been in that situation so the best I can hope for is a sort of foundation value and that work with that and tweak it as I work through the shoot adapting from frame to frame if required. I sometimes get batches where the settings will hold well enough for a block of images - maybe even the straightening and crop as well! But more often than not that will be a small block compared to the number of shots taken.
One thing I hardly ever play with is colour. Exposure is fair game, WB too from time to time although I tend to let C1 do it's stuff on 'Auto' mostly unless giving a shot some special attention. I'll look at colour if I'm going to print the shot and the initial results look like they might be improved. Or if there is an undesirable colour cast of course.
I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site that follows his workflow for a shoot that involved some preset studio work to his regular 'shoot against white' style and then some non-studio shots and an outdoor outdoor session. It's interesting to see how he deals with each requirement, looking for a 'baseline' of settings and then applying those to a selection of similar images in preparation for individual tweaking before exporting to jpg after which he performs the final graphics editing bits in PS.
I usually shoot RAW + JPG and really would like to be able get a standard jpg setting that I think is always OK for posting to the web en masse (for example) but when shooting outdoors all day in UK style weather and light I can't find a 'one style fits all' that really works for me. Try as I might - it would save days of work sometimes - I'm just not always with pre-cooked results in a number of ways. I think it goes with the territory when primarily taking action shots outdoors. There are too many compromises to work around. Maybe I need to find another approach to the capture stage rather than PP tweaking but total comfort with that has eluded me so far.
Major Bloodnok said:
K12beano said:
i am only familiar with LR, I'm afraid ACR just looks plain scary after LR's comforting cosiness
Lightroom is just ACR with makeup and a posh frock...LongQ said:
Lots of "stuff" including....
I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site
That looks quite interesting. Always good to have a fresh look at what you're doing, I reckon.I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site
K12beano said:
Major Bloodnok said:
K12beano said:
i am only familiar with LR, I'm afraid ACR just looks plain scary after LR's comforting cosiness
Lightroom is just ACR with makeup and a posh frock...LongQ said:
Lots of "stuff" including....
I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site
That looks quite interesting. Always good to have a fresh look at what you're doing, I reckon.I stumbled across an interesting (and long - it runs to an hour) video on the Zach Arias site
His offspring stays just about OK on the soundtrack - it you have started and found it annoying, stick with it. If you like the kid you'll love the vid.
Arias is one of the more visible examples of success (afaik) in parts of the modern photographic scene so seeing how he deals with stuff is probably useful guidance.
K12beano said:
I've learnt something new 
I now understand the Alt + use in the Develop module of LR. Thanks LQ 
Very interested on how he tweaks WB and tint - it seems so beautifully unscientific - too. But noticeable he uses minimal sharpening.
I kept thinking - "Is it really that easy and (almost) random"? I now understand the Alt + use in the Develop module of LR. Thanks LQ Very interested on how he tweaks WB and tint - it seems so beautifully unscientific - too. But noticeable he uses minimal sharpening.
The minimal sharpening may be something to do with style and target usage for the shoot along with the expectation of the kit he uses being pretty sharp to start with. It also occurs to me that the entire shoot is, basically, a portrait session and whislt sharpness is important sharpening is unlikely to be flattering for portraits. Traditionally portraits were often the territory of softfocus lenses or filters.
Ultrasharp may not be useful asset for a colour glossy mag in the 'celeb' field not their adverts, except perhaps for watches and stuff.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff