| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2012 01:23:18 PM · #1 |
Hello guys and gals, I have a story to tell and questions to ask.
Before we get into the story, let me explain that i purchased a Canon 5d MKiii for a marked increase in performance and usability over a 60d a few months back. Thanks in part to that, I have the ability to shoot darker venues with cleaner files. I also have in place a fairly rapid workflow to sift through several files which starts by directing them from camera to LR.
So i was happy as could be with my Straight from camera to LR processing for getting done things quickly. Until one day...
For High ISO pics (6400 is the specific sample in question), I noticed more grain than i would expect from a camera of this caliber. I thought maybe I'm spoiled, but on a hunch, i decided to process the same files from Canon DPP. I noticed a massive improvement from Tiffs I generated from DPP. I went a step further to compare apples to apples and got both different processed files into their common DNG formats (i know it may not matter much, but i did it to be sure). Holy crap batman. I can't believe there was such a massive difference between the processing done by LR to convert from CR2 vs what Canon DPP does. There's a difference in color that i didn't anticipate too!
Now i m set on adding an extra batch process step for all my Camera needs, but i really want to know if there's a way to eliminate this extra step and still get that awesome quality straight into Lightroom. Is it possible that Lightroom is applying some heavy sharpening+temp adjustment or is the the way it reads the file just inferior? I m praying there are lightroom features i don't know about that can fix this simply... Ps yes i reset all settings on LR.
I've made near identical crops for you guys to view, and left them untagged so you can be sure that you're seeing a difference between the two and easily point out the grainier one. If you want to see the originals, feel free to PM me. I would really appreciate any help on the matter. Shaving steps off my workflow has been an integral to my recent efforts.
 
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 13:29:37. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 01:30:14 PM · #2 |
I don't have any advice for you, but I am one who tried LR after hearing people rave about it. I sold my copy and went back to using DPP. My only minor complaint is that DPP can send an image directly into Photoshop, but not to PaintShop Pro, which is what I use.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2012 01:35:05 PM · #3 |
It's not that Lr is incapable of doing as well as DPP; in fact, IMO it can do a superior job. The defaults, though, can introduce exactly the effect you are seeing. This is, IMO, a problem with how the defaults are set, but that's another topic. In the Detail section of the Develop Settings move "detail" back toward zero, heck, all the way to zero. Do this for Sharpening and for both the Luminance and Color noise categories. This will completely kill the added "grain." Now adjust both the radius and amount of sharpening for your specific camera/Lens/ISO combination, and adjust the NR amounts. Now, and only now, move the detail sliders from zero if you wish, and watch out for that artificial grain effect.
ETA:
Forgot about the color. Remember that DPP reads and understands the color profiles set in-camera, so the initial processing of the RAW file should look like the camera LCD, which is displayed using the embedded JPEG, with the Picture Style selected applied. If this is what you want, look for color profiles for Lr that imitate Canon Picture styles. I believe they are out there, but I have not (and don't want to) use them.
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 13:38:20.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2012 01:39:17 PM · #4 |
Thanks Spiff.
I think I'll stick with LR in general for a few reasons.
Very quick organization and culling,
Rapid quick edits to images that don't need extra work (i'll edit images that are quite similar in terms of exposure/mood and then basically copy paste those edits on the rest of the batch and then make 5 second adjustments) Of course the heavy work still goes to PS.
Quick multiple preset outputs. I can set my computer to do Web ready/ Print ready/ proof quality output in a few clicks and let it all happen.
If you don't work with a large cluster of files on a regular basis, LR may not be the tool for you, but if you do - it can be a massive time saver.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2012 01:53:24 PM · #5 |
Thanks Kirbic,
Playing around with these settings does help, but doesn't completely bring it to the same level as the DPP version of the file. Maybe i need some practice with adjusting these details. I'll play around with them to try and get as close as possible.
I assume LR doesn't "treat" tiffs, but it does treat raws? At the very least, the files are halfway back to normal, if not all the way. The LR file seems to need luminance noise correction but a reduction in detail 0.o
Please feel free to throw more ideas at me |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 02:10:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
Please feel free to throw more ideas at me |
The best advice I can probably give is "experiment!" While DPP is in fact a very capable RAW processing engine, Lr is capable of pulling every bit as much detail out if files, and of excellent handling of noise. The key to being efficient with this is setting up your camera defaults in Lr. Figure out what produces the basic conversion results you want, and set it as the default; it will automatically be applied when files are imported from that camera. Then process from there.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/02/2025 01:25:44 AM EST.
