Of course I'm not denoising TIFFs if I have a RAW file and it's not much work after that.
It's natural that many people don't denoise processed images but I weant to.
An example would be an image that is composited from multiple frames, retouched, dodged/burned locally, some kind of filter applied, etc. Redoing many hours of work from 15+ years ago is not what I want to do and even if I have the old RAW files it would not be the same result.
In many cases the originals would be film scans (real scans, not digital photos of film), and the film is long gone. How would do you denoise 2004 scans from the Hassleblad 503CM? Again they might need retouching of subject matter.
I don't normally follow ByThom because he is primarily a Nikon user, not the Sony I use. But his discussion about Adobe is very well thought out. Just a bit short of answers, as he himself acknowledges. Thanks to @Beagle64 for the shout out.
There's probably a longer discussion to be had here, and in the post-processing forum rather than the Sony forum. But as Thom says, is there a clear answer which makes revisiting this perennial topic of any value??
There’s only the solution that fits the individual best, I use Adobe, not perfect but I’m able to get where I want images to be easily enough. I sometimes get bored and look around but other solutions just bring different compromises although being aware of my options as software evolves seems sensible to me.
rob_ww wrote:
I don't normally follow ByThom because he is primarily a Nikon user, not the Sony I use. But his discussion about Adobe is very well thought out. Just a bit short of answers, as he himself acknowledges. Thanks to @Beagle64@ for the shout out.
There's probably a longer discussion to be had here, and in the post-processing forum rather than the Sony forum. But as Thom says, is there a clear answer which makes revisiting this perennial topic of any value??
I too went and read Thom’s writing recently. I found I enjoyed it and the points he makes seem considered and interesting. I liked his analysis of why Adobe is having trouble finding ways to grow.
As a long-time Adobe subscriber I resent being locked in to their ecosystem. I experimented for a while with shooting only JPEGs on my Fuji (really shooting RAW in camera and then exporting JPEGs), with modest success; I found that I preferred the JPEG output from the camera more than the results I got from Lightroom. However, I was then tempted by an excellent deal on a Nikon Z5II and while it also has a very competent jpeg editor on camera, the UI is just fiddly enough that I don’t like to use it — and I find myself generally liking the results from Adobe Lightroom a little more than the camera’s JPEG output. And so it is that I remain with Adobe.
I don’t need much, though. Lightroom really offers more than I need. I’m not a pro and don’t particularly care about the cataloguing features, as handy as it can be. My needs involve taking family photos, selecting the picks out of the bunch, creating a pleasing edit, and exporting them. It so happens that Apple has an app that approaches what I need, which is their basic photos app: but it is severely lacking in the editing capabilities. Shame they abandoned Aperture, which I understand was once a Lightroom competitor.
It might be worth looking at the two apps from Gentlemen Coders which enhance the capabilities of Apple Photos. Apparently written by the original designer of Aperture.
shinyobject wrote:
I too went and read Thom’s writing recently. I found I enjoyed it and the points he makes seem considered and interesting. I liked his analysis of why Adobe is having trouble finding ways to grow.
As a long-time Adobe subscriber I resent being locked in to their ecosystem. I experimented for a while with shooting only JPEGs on my Fuji (really shooting RAW in camera and then exporting JPEGs), with modest success; I found that I preferred the JPEG output from the camera more than the results I got from Lightroom. However, I was then tempted by an excellent deal on a Nikon Z5II and while it also has a very competent jpeg editor on camera, the UI is just fiddly enough that I don’t like to use it — and I find myself generally liking the results from Adobe Lightroom a little more than the camera’s JPEG output. And so it is that I remain with Adobe.
I don’t need much, though. Lightroom really offers more than I need. I’m not a pro and don’t particularly care about the cataloguing features, as handy as it can be. My needs involve taking family photos, selecting the picks out of the bunch, creating a pleasing edit, and exporting them. It so happens that Apple has an app that approaches what I need, which is their basic photos app: but it is severely lacking in the editing capabilities. Shame they abandoned Aperture, which I understand was once a Lightroom competitor. ...Show more →
Beagle64 wrote:
It might be worth looking at the two apps from Gentlemen Coders which enhance the capabilities of Apple Photos. Apparently written by the original designer of Aperture.
shinyobject wrote:
I too went and read Thom’s writing recently. I found I enjoyed it and the points he makes seem considered and interesting. I liked his analysis of why Adobe is having trouble finding ways to grow.
As a long-time Adobe subscriber I resent being locked in to their ecosystem. I experimented for a while with shooting only JPEGs on my Fuji (really shooting RAW in camera and then exporting JPEGs), with modest success; I found that I preferred the JPEG output from the camera more than the results I got from Lightroom. However, I was then tempted by an excellent deal on a Nikon Z5II and while it also has a very competent jpeg editor on camera, the UI is just fiddly enough that I don’t like to use it — and I find myself generally liking the results from Adobe Lightroom a little more than the camera’s JPEG output. And so it is that I remain with Adobe.
I don’t need much, though. Lightroom really offers more than I need. I’m not a pro and don’t particularly care about the cataloguing features, as handy as it can be. My needs involve taking family photos, selecting the picks out of the bunch, creating a pleasing edit, and exporting them. It so happens that Apple has an app that approaches what I need, which is their basic photos app: but it is severely lacking in the editing capabilities. Shame they abandoned Aperture, which I understand was once a Lightroom competitor. ...Show more →
Given what you say about how little you need, you should look at Photoshop Elements, which would do what you want plus a lot more. It is $99 for a 3-year subscription--$2.75 a month. It is easy to use and is designed for the casual user.
That’s interesting too — I hadn’t thought of that. I haven’t used Photoshop much, and learned my photo editing skills in Lightroom (though my colleague at work loves Photoshop). Thanks for the suggestion.
chiron wrote:
Given what you say about how little you need, you should look at Photoshop Elements, which would do what you want plus a lot more. It is $99 for a 3-year subscription--$2.75 a month. It is easy to use and is designed for the casual user.
For me the lock-in is the non-destructive editing. If I migrate my photos can I take them with me as raw+edits or do I need to export them as TIFFs ... etc.? I have not seen any migration offers which mitigate this problem.
I can cope with the catalogue challenges as the underlying files and folders are all sensibly organised. I don't use the search function or tags. Its just about preserving thousands of edits over 20 years which would be a massive effort to re-do.
