Imagemaster,
An example of typical internet babbling is the 2 step NR workflow and suggested values which are no better than the default values found in the RAW converters and NR plug-ins. Repeating truisms is a necessary waste of time when “budding discoverers” are peddling a ticket to heaven to the lazy and gullible.

There is nothing more pathetic than watching a group of people insisting they’re right and everyone, with different experience and opinion, is wrong and flaming.

The theory of skipping sharpening in the 1st step and using it in the 2nd step is a waste of time. The NR and sharpening is a balancing act (another word of wisdom - without any doubt) and applying it sooner or later doesn’t matter.
I haven’t seen a single application, including specialized NR tools like NN or NM, which would suggest that the two step approach yields benefits. All have sharpening and NR.

What may make a difference is a case of using two different applications in the two step process. However the final result is always unpredictable depending on a particular file and combination of the algorithms in these applications.
My experiments with many converters show that the DPP with optimum NR and Sharpening gave consistently superior looking output (“superior output” meaning the look and feel of the photograph) followed by some fine tuning in the PS as required.

Stating that there is no panacea is both: the fact and a word of wisdom which is more valuable contribution and time saver for many than the preceding theories.

Meh, I just open it up in LR4, push a couple of sliders and print or push it to CS for resizing for web (although I do that more in LR4 now to be honest).

Lan11 wrote:

My experiments with many converters show that the DPP with optimum NR and Sharpening gave consistently superior looking output (“superior output” meaning the look and feel of the photograph) followed by some fine tuning in the PS as required.




Would love to see some samples/crops from your experiment.

+1

Liquidstone wrote:
Lan11 wrote:

My experiments with many converters show that the DPP with optimum NR and Sharpening gave consistently superior looking output (“superior output” meaning the look and feel of the photograph) followed by some fine tuning in the PS as required.




Would love to see some samples/crops from your experiment.

Yeah, me too, because I have never been able to reproduce such behaviour. The one area I find DPP better is when I have a back lit subject and I need to use a lot of fill light. DPP produces cleaner shadows IMO.

Lan11 wrote:
Imagemaster,
An example of typical internet babbling is the 2 step NR workflow and suggested values which are no better than the default values found in the RAW converters and NR plug-ins. Repeating truisms is a necessary waste of time when “budding discoverers” are peddling a ticket to heaven to the lazy and gullible.

There is nothing more pathetic than watching a group of people insisting they’re right and everyone, with different experience and opinion, is wrong and flaming.

The theory of skipping sharpening in the 1st step and using it in the 2nd step is a waste of time. The NR and sharpening is a balancing act (another word of wisdom - without any doubt) and applying it sooner or later doesn’t matter.
I haven’t seen a single application, including specialized NR tools like NN or NM, which would suggest that the two step approach yields benefits. All have sharpening and NR.

What may make a difference is a case of using two different applications in the two step process. However the final result is always unpredictable depending on a particular file and combination of the algorithms in these applications.
My experiments with many converters show that the DPP with optimum NR and Sharpening gave consistently superior looking output (“superior output” meaning the look and feel of the photograph) followed by some fine tuning in the PS as required.

Stating that there is no panacea is both: the fact and a word of wisdom which is more valuable contribution and time saver for many than the preceding theories.


What is more pathetic is your holier-than-thou, mine-is-the-only-way ranting. You preach that other methods of reducing noise are inferior, yet serve up no examples or proof.

Why don't you serve up some pudding instead of theories

And in case you haven't noticed, the "look and feel of the photograph" is a matter of personal taste, not some written-in-stone formula.

Is it possible that Lan11 is a troll?

I've been hooked way-deep by similar dialogue. More than once! I'm just sayin'.

I'm getting better at...

How many times have you gone to a gallery and seen work and thought, man those would be great except for all that noise in the print, man that just ruins it for me!

If the photograph has great lighting and composition then I doubt anyone except gear heads are going to be looking at the image and thinking about the noise.

That said my experience with the 7D is that the files are a bit noisy. I don't worry about it to much, but I certainly would like to see some improvement in the mark II.

What is kind of heartening though is that Nikon is able to make a 24mp APS-C sensor that still has significantly better dynamic range and noise performance.... so clearly we haven't reached the technical limitations of the APS-C sensors, it's just a matter of if Canon can get their head out of the sand and actually move their technology forward.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
How many times have you gone to a gallery and seen work and thought, man those would be great except for all that noise in the print, man that just ruins it for me!

If the photograph has great lighting and composition then I doubt anyone except gear heads are going to be looking at the image and thinking about the noise.



Ditto. All that matters is the final image and the individual viewing it.

For me, photography has always been a two-step process, capture the image, process the image.

Not a single complaint about noise in this image, even when printed to 20" x 30".

Wonderful shot
shows what I'm beginning to realise that the camera body is only a small part of getting a great shot

beautiful shot as always, Tony.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
What is kind of heartening though is that Nikon is able to make a 24mp APS-C sensor that still has significantly better dynamic range and noise performance.... so clearly we haven't reached the technical limitations of the APS-C sensors, it's just a matter of if Canon can get their head out of the sand and actually move their technology forward.

Slight correction; Sony is able to make a 24MP APS-C sensor.

And while it has better DR it does NOT have better noise based on the Sony NEX-7, haven't checked the D3200.

Well yeah, Sony. I was comparing noise to the 7D based on Dxo testing results.

Frankly if I was starting over from scratch I would buy the new full frame Sony and be done with it. Killer sensor, IS built into the body, and Zeiss lenses. Can't beat that.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
How many times have you gone to a gallery and seen work and thought, man those would be great except for all that noise in the print, man that just ruins it for me!

If the photograph has great lighting and composition then I doubt anyone except gear heads are going to be looking at the image and thinking about the noise.

That said my experience with the 7D is that the files are a bit noisy. I don't worry about it to much, but I certainly would like to see some improvement in the mark II.

Ummm, maybe images with a lot of noise or plasticized details just don't make it onto the gallery walls. Could that be why you never notice these artifacts in the gallery photos?

Imagemaster wrote:
andyjaggy82 wrote:
How many times have you gone to a gallery and seen work and thought, man those would be great except for all that noise in the print, man that just ruins it for me!

If the photograph has great lighting and composition then I doubt anyone except gear heads are going to be looking at the image and thinking about the noise.



Ditto. All that matters is the final image and the individual viewing it.

For me, photography has always been a two-step process, capture the image, process the image.

Not a single complaint about noise in this image, even when printed to 20" x 30".

It is a beautiful shot no doubt, but there is something a little strange with the image. To me, it looks too smooth, to plasticky, maybe too perfect. Whatever it is, I am sure it looks good up on a wall.

Hello

ISO 200 is about the only one on the 7D that is relatively clean, so the 'plasticky' feel could be a stiff wind that is giving that blurred look to the trees and grass, or the result of panning. It could also be a artifact of downsizing.

I do think that a lot of the images I see on this and other sites, do have a sort of 'CGI' look, due in most part to a lot of post production and NR.

Mike Engles

andyjaggy82 wrote:
Well yeah, Sony. I was comparing noise to the 7D based on Dxo testing results.

Frankly if I was starting over from scratch I would buy the new full frame Sony and be done with it. Killer sensor, IS built into the body, and Zeiss lenses. Can't beat that.

Sure if you are a landscape/portrait shooter. Otherwise the Sony lens lineup is pretty crapulent. You're not going to be shooting the sort of stuff most users of the 7D are shooting.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
andyjaggy82 wrote:
Well yeah, Sony. I was comparing noise to the 7D based on Dxo testing results.

Frankly if I was starting over from scratch I would buy the new full frame Sony and be done with it. Killer sensor, IS built into the body, and Zeiss lenses. Can't beat that.

Sure if you are a landscape/portrait shooter. Otherwise the Sony lens lineup is pretty crapulent. You're not going to be shooting the sort of stuff most users of the 7D are shooting.

What is it that most 7d shooters are shooting? I've seen this camera used as a one shoe fits all camera for all types of photographs.

chez wrote: It is a beautiful shot no doubt, but there is something a little strange with the image. To me, it looks too smooth, to plasticky, maybe too perfect. Whatever it is, I am sure it looks good up on a wall.

mikeengles wrote:ISO 200 is about the only one on the 7D that is relatively clean, so the 'plasticky' feel could be a stiff wind that is giving that blurred look to the trees and grass, or the result of panning. It could also be a artifact of downsizing.


That last shot is a composite of two images, plus the addition of various filter effects in post-processing. I don't constrain myself to just images straight out of the camera. That is too boring for me and I like to have a little fun with PP now and then.

It does get rid of any noise though, doesn't it?

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm