Figuring out ready made Noise Reduction

(Revised after I noticed a purple colour cast). 

It's an interesting time in image processing technology. There are genuine improvements in easy to use (read: hands free, almost) digital noise reduction features of consumer, off the shelf, software. I purchased Topaz Labs Denoise AI, like it a lot, use it a lot, for my photos.There are two algorithms - the standard and the Low Noise option. There are adjustment sliders for them. I've an affiliate link here if you want to buy it and also reward me.

DxO has just released version 4 of their PhotoLab - this has been a well known, well regarded general purpose raw processing program - the Elite Edition has an enhanced noise reduction feature named Prime Noise Reduction. Now there's Deep Prime. 

I'm just testing at the moment. Below are crops of .tiff files from an Olympus E-PM2 raw file, shot at, ahem, ISO 25,000 - yes rubbish ISO, pretty much only useful for a snapshot rather than a polished professional photo. The full .TIFF files are downloadable via links.

When I first made the Topaz Denoise AI images, I ran Topaz Denoise as standalone, loading the Olympus .ORF raw file directly, then saved as .TIFF - for some reason there's a purple cast in the images, I didn't see any Colorspace option.  Then I ran Topaz Denoise as an Adobe Photoshop plugin, loading the raw first through Adobe Camera Raw. This time there was no colour cast. 

Hope this is useful.

Olympus Workspace - Standard Noise Filter - .tiff file

Olympus Workspace - Noise Filter Off - .tiff file

Topaz Denoise AI (Low Light Mode) directly loading the raw .orf file - .tiff file

Topaz Denoise AI directly loading the raw .orf file - .tiff file

DxO PhotoLab 4.0 HQ - .tiff file

DxO PhotoLab 4.0 Prime - .tiff file

DxO PhotoLab 4.0 Deep Prime - .tiff file

Topaz Denoise AI through ACR / Photoshop - tiff file

Topaz Denoise (Low Light mode) through ACR / Photoshop - tiff file

Topaz Denoise (AI Clear mode) through ACR / Photoshop - tiff file

So I was thinking about Composition…

Most of us spend a lot of time obsessing about the technical aspects of gear. Discussion groups, forums and communities attract a majority of people who are tech obsessed about resolution, high ISO noise,  dynamic range, sensor size, bokeh, autofocus efficacy and the most important thing in life, the big sensor. These often translate into modern tech which translates into new gear that you can buy. And we believe that somehow, all these technical details will make the great shot.

Of course, it is also easy to provide evidence that a more expensive, higher performing piece of gear, immediately gives you a sharper picture in more successful shot. Buy a new lens and/or a new camera, and voila, here is the picture to prove the success.

There’s precious little discussion about how Composition, which is an artistic concept, makes an image impressive. Because Composition is springs from the human behind the camera and (currently) not so much the camera. Since Composition is subjective and personal, discussing or critiquing that aspect of an image is felt as an intrusion, an invasion of personal space. It’s easier to say that so and so a lens has discernible purple fringing. That provokes a response as well, but imagine if the critique had been of the artistic content of the photographer.

So why was I thinking about Composition?

There was this cone on a fir tree. I thought I had a good Rule of Thirds on it.

But then I consulted Camera51 and it said to do this:

I think Camera51 made a good choice. The subject is central and more in-your-face – it is a big bigger but the importance of location in the image makes it dominant.

Should I say the images are technically not that evenly lit or nor specifically detailed in depth of field so that we can discuss the composition?

Food for thought.

The Four Stages of Exposure Awareness

Stage 1: The first thing that newbies learn about is that there is an Exposure Triangle. Some Peterson guy is said to have wrote about it in a book. I haven’t read it. I’ve seen his videos. Maybe his intentions are good and he knows what he’s doing. But a heap of newbies don’t “get it”

Stage 2: Eventually it dawns on people that the Exposure Triangle has a Fourth Side.

Stage 3: After rummaging around, comparing effective techniques of whether to use P A S M or figuring out which metering pattern is better – Evaluative Matrix vs Centre Weighted vs Spot vs the classical Sunny 16 rule vs Interpreting the Histogram vs ETTR and asking themselves where the hell they put the white towel / Kodak 18% Neutral Gray Card or the XRite thingamajig, someone mentions that Adams chap who wrote about the Zone System. And bang! Smack on the head. There is no Correct Exposure. There is what the camera measures as an instrument and what the artist (you) choose to convey and interpret. The two are not and do not have to be the same thing

Stage 4: So far, so good. People are shooting decent shots. But they’re not spectacular. Like those gorgeous smooth skin tones and sharp, clear irises of the girls in the portraits. And so on. So we ask, how on earth does so and so get this shot with his iPhone but we can’t and we’ve almost spent as much as a Nikon D3s? And the penny drops. We can’t. If we REACT to the scene. Often times, the pros don’t react, they’re pro-active. They light up the scene the way they want. Or gain a vantage point if they can’t control the light. And having done their utmost to light the scene well, they touch up with Photoshop. Delicately and Emphatically. Not the other way around.

12MP is enough (or was that 640k?)

del.icio.us Tags: Olympus,DSLR,FourThirds

Image via Wikipedia

The forums at DPR are going a bit ga-ga over the CNET PMA interview with Akira Watanabe, manager of the SLR planning department. He said - "We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System".

It is quite common in conversations with self appointed gurus, to moan about how the small sensors in cameras keep being pushed into higher Megapixels whenever a new model is released. These people say that manufacturers of cameras should voluntarily step back from the Megapixel race. And now, when one manufacturer says so, the same people or other doomsayers step forward and say that staying at a plateau of 12MP for the Four Thirds sensor signifies the beginning of the end.

What people choose to skip, is the following remark by Watanabe-san - “Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting”.

It is also well espoused by reviewers and by the anti-Four Thirds opinionists, that the weak points in the Four Thirds cameras is about a stop of dynamic range and earlier onset of digital image noise (graniness). So Watanabe-san is simply stating that the company does recognise the challenges in this sensor size and they want to improve the performance of these aspects on a higher priority.

Certainly, if Panasonic (or less likely, Kodak) comes to the table and brings an even denser Megapixel sensor, it would not be logical to sweep such a gift into the rubbish bin.

Much is also made of Watanabe-san’s statement: "We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 20 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models”.

Again, nothing surprising in that. Lots of people don’t need the 20MP. Look at the long sales life and service life of the redoubtable Nikon D40 – a 6MP camera. And routinely still recommended as a useful camera – with punchy colours, low image noise. Many people, including myself, seldom print now (again there are aged, veteran photographers who frown on this and insist that the object of photography IS PRINTING) – and certainly web images or screen images, as a output result, uses less than 2MP.

So, why the angst? Why the neurotic chest thumping? It’s because someone practical and pragmatic stood up and announced that there is a finite limit to real sensors and real optics and the Four Thirds design as at the time of the interview.

Will there be electronic and optical improvements? Sure. By how much and how soon?

Should aspiring pros and pro-like fans abandon Four Thirds as of now so that they can fill their bag with CaNikZeiss lenses? Maybe. If you must have the huge Megapixel, the wafer thin DOF, the super creamy bokeh that an 85mm f/1.2 lens will deliver, the ISO 2500 without digital image noise, then they should have left the station like, oh, a year ago.

For the rest of us, the practical niceties of the Four Thirds system daily proves it’s worth. And when the time comes, when the legendary 24x36mm “full frame” sensor DSLR sells at today’s entry level price, we’ll take our options then. Until then, Carpe Diem – don’t burden yourself with the perceived loss of assets that aren’t.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Daily deal - Nikon D40 Digital SLR camera + 18-55mm lens + 4GB memory card for $392 (gadling.com)
• Tests show ups and downs of Four Thirds cameras (news.cnet.com)
• Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 12Mp Micro Four Thirds camera (reghardware.co.uk)
• Leica's S2 Is What You Get When You Crossbreed a Tank With a 37-Megapixel Pro Camera [Tomorrow's Cameras] (i.gizmodo.com)
• Nikon breaks the D3x's cover (crunchgear.com)
• Olympus Unveils Non-working Concept Model At PMA (ubergizmo.com)

The knowledge and skill of the photographer plays a vital part in the picture

We know there is a size difference between point and shoot compact camera, Four Thirds, APS-C and 35mm Full Frame.

We know that we can see some noise at ISO 400 and more above that.

We continually reply to newbie DSLR owners that it's the photographer and his skill that makes the primary difference and secondly the equipment.

Sometimes people laugh and say that a pin hole camera is a pinhole camera and a top DSLR is a top DSLR - surely the equipment makes a difference.

Well, sometimes, knowledge and skill does make the difference.

We ALL go through a learning process.

Ancora Imparo - Abbiamo Tutti Qualcosa Da Imparare

del.icio.us Tags: newbie,photography,DSLR,beginner,tips

Photographic Terminology Part 2

ETTR - Exposing To The Right - is about setting your exposure such that your histogram right toe touches but does not get chopped off by the vertical right axis of your histogram. This way, you capture the maximum amount of light that your digital sensor and in-camera electronics processing can take. This gives the highest Signal to Noise ratio for your photo.

Above is a 2 MP Nikon 775 shot. The light was "right", you can see good grass colour, blue sky and clouds. Capturing a both sky and ground tones with this camera can be quite difficult - the sky usually gets burnt to white.

Stu Maschwitz of the Prolost blog argues that there is no one blanket philosophy for exposure (dead link).  If your real scene is of such high dynamic range that it the histogram is so wide that it spans and exceeds both the left and the right axes, then, you're between a hard place and a rock. You either call it a day or come up with a James T. Kirk solution to the Kobayashi Maru.

Luminous Landscape is a well known reference website for photographic detailers. They have an article on ETTR. Emil Martinec writes a scholarly discourse on Image Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs - his webpage is at the University of Chicago.

On the other hand, spotted at the DPREVIEW Sony forum ...

del.icio.us Tags: Photography,Dynamic Range,Image Noise,RAW Convertors,ETTR