One particular raw file I was having trouble with in PE5 so I added Neat Image as a plug in several months ago and to my amazement the image began to look like a 100 ISO image.
Last night I decided to see if I could replicate it in LightRoom. I worked on it for hours and could not do so using the same monitor and printer I used to create it in PE5 plus NI.
I even tried editing the image through LR to PE5 as a .tif and back again using NI while in PE5. Awful!
LR is 16 bit minimum and PE5 only works with 8 bit....is this the problem in all probability with this situation, and would CS3+LR give me a one stop solution once and for all? I don't do anything with pictures other than take them, ''develop them'', store them, and occasionally print one for a family member. Most of the CS products I'd never use and I've avoided putting out that much cash for items I'd rarely or never use, but the noise remover in LR is glaringly weak it appears.
As bizarre as this seems I'm finding that in some cases I'd be better off to develop in PE5 with some plug-ins and catalog with LR. I can't believe I'm typing that, but several files seem to dictate that to me.
Any comments would be appreciated, especially if it comes from developers who hint that noise problem enhancements are on the way.
Frustrating that I can clean up noise...
Ray-
%26lt;br /%26gt;While not a developer, or an Insider, I feel pretty confident that LR will be showing up with both better sharpening and NR, as well as third party modules or plugins. And, yes, for now, if you need to remove high ISO noise, your workaround is the way to go.
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;As to flash, a bit of bounce may do the trick.
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;span style=''color: rgb(102, 0, 204);''%26gt;%26lt;/span%26gt;
%26lt;font br='''' /%26gt;%26lt;/font%26gt; color=''#600000'' size=''2''%26amp;gt;~~ John McWilliams
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;MacBookPro 2 Ghz Intel Core Duo, G-5 Dual 1.8; Canon DSLRs
Frustrating that I can clean up noise...
Thanks John...but too often the ceiling is too high and the wall too far away! LOL!
But of course! That's why I always take a $100/hr. assistant to hold up a nice big reflector behind me! ;)
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;Are you the Ray Brown with a radio show here in the Bay Area?
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;span style=''color: rgb(102, 0, 204);''%26gt;%26lt;/span%26gt;
%26lt;font br='''' /%26gt;%26lt;/font%26gt; color=''#600000'' size=''2''%26amp;gt;~~ John McWilliams
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;MacBookPro 2 Ghz Intel Core Duo, G-5 Dual 1.8; Canon DSLRs
%26gt;LR is 16 bit minimum and PE5 only works with 8 bit....
If you have only the 8 bit plugin version of neatimage, then you can't use 16 bit in PSE. CS3 won't help.
I have the 16 bit plugin of noiseninja in PSE4 and it works fine.
There are rumors in several threads, better noise reduction and sharpening are under development.
Juergen
NI is 16 bit, but PE5 will only work with 8 bit depth files so LR adjustments are not being recognized by PE5 or at least I can't get them to in a raw format. When you send a .tif from LR to PE5 the PE5s only adjusting at a 8 bit level it appears or either LR only renders an 8 bit tif as it sends it over to PE5 since it knows where it's going.
My problem is not with NI or PE5, but seemingly with LR. My comment here is that I can clean up noise better with PE5 and NI than I can with LR no matter how I try...and that's a disappointment even if I can still get it done!
LOL...no, I'm on the east coast and far from a radio personality.
Lot's and lot's of Ray Brown's in this world. I'm merely one of the multitude! Some play football, some are jazz musicians, some obviously are on the radio. There's a fishing guide in Australia by the name and a few of us merely sell for a living.
Photography is a fun and yet frustrating hobby for this version of Ray Brown, but down the street from me is a retired Methodist Minister of the same name. I'm often left voice messages asking me if I'll preach for a homecoming or revival. One day I think I'll not say a word of difference and just go and see how I'd do in the pulpit!
Er, good luck with that, and make sure the wife takes along both your dlsr and video cam....
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;:).
%26lt;br /%26gt;It' s a great time to be into digital photography!
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;span style=''color: rgb(102, 0, 204);''%26gt;%26lt;/span%26gt;
%26lt;font br='''' /%26gt;%26lt;/font%26gt; color=''#600000'' size=''2''%26amp;gt;~~ John McWilliams
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;
%26lt;br /%26gt;MacBookPro 2 Ghz Intel Core Duo, G-5 Dual 1.8; Canon DSLRs
Just to be clear folks, specialty applications and plug-ins such as NeetImage and Noiseware will almost always do a better job on the specific function thay are designed for as the applications that may host them. Camera Raw and Lightroom do a decent job, but the higher the ISO (and the more noisy the camera) the less likely CR/LR can compete with specialty apps.
Even if CR/LR are improved a lot, you will still want the option to turn to the specialty apps %26amp; plug-ins for particularly noisy images.
Jeff,
Adobe bought Pixmantec. Pixmantec had a marketing relationship with Imagenomic (maker of Noiseware). If Adobe could somehow figure a way to get hold of that technology and incorporate it into ACR and the LR imaging pipeline, that would be really impressive as I think Noiseware is on par with, or better than Neat Image and Noise Ninja.
Actually, I talked to the guys from Imagenomic and they are very interested in working with %26amp; in Lightroom...but stuff takes time.
(Tap-dancing here!)
Jeff....just open LR to the same popular plug ins that Adobe has allowed in other products and it would be fine. I hope you understand my trying to be suggestive rather than hypercritical.
But if LR is to be a true piece of developing software of a basic photograph then it's got to be able to clean up noise and do most things required of a new digital image. Cleaning up scans and old film scans is something all together different, but its gone to be start to finish in 99.5% of the cases with new digitially captured images from a camera...don't you think?
I will come, but PS plugins simply won't work with LR, and never will, as is. Must be a noobie, to the LR world....
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
''.just open LR to the same popular plug ins that Adobe has allowed in other products and it would be fine''
Yeah, well, that's a bit of a problem, don't ya know. Lightroom is a ''parametric image editor'', meaning it doesn't edit ''pixels'' only parameters that WILL be applied upon export or printing. So, Photoshop ''plug-in filters'' simply can't be incorporated-not in the manner people seem to understand plug-ins. There aren't any ''pixels'' in Lightroom to operate on-just parameters...
This is an entirely new approach to image editing-well, kinda...there was an old application called Live Picture that worked in a slightly similar manner and while LP eventually got ''plug-ins'' to work, it required rendering, plug-in application and re-editing back in LP. Which kinda defeated the purpose.
When Lightroom gets an SDK (coming eventually) there will be an ability for third parties to write ''modules'' to do things in Lightroom. But that's gonna take some time. In the meantime, if ya just gotta use a 3rd party plug-in, then there's really no option besides the pixel edit in Photoshop (or Elements).
Thanks Jeff....we live in a world of instant coffee, instant tea, and instant disbelief so I realize that I and others often think the ''fix'' is, or should be imminent which of course in most cases it can not be.
At least the Adobe team can see where folks are finding frustrations from this forum and adjust to the most frequent concerns I suppose. Our patience however shouldn't be taken as a signal that time is not of the essence.
Somewhere in the back of my mind there is that old feeling that I paid for something that had implications of being a start to finish product comparable with other such items available. That feeling pops up each time I realize what will be a $300 program designed for ''pros and advanced amateurs'' will not ''clear up'' a photo as well as a $49 Element and a $49 plug in combined that was created for the amateur masses.
Jeff: On a related note, is PK Sharpener available in final form for CS3? Or, is it still beta?
Thanks...Frank
'' is PK Sharpener available in final form for CS3? Or, is it still beta? ''
Wrong forum...
''Somewhere in the back of my mind there is that old feeling that I paid for something that had implications of being a start to finish product comparable with other such items available. ''
Actually, the aim was to be an 80/20 or 90/10 solution...Lightroom simply can not take over EVERYTHING a photographer may need to do to an image. But if it can take over 80% of the tasks, then at version 1.0, it's done something. And, remember, Lightroom is only at version 1.0. It has a _LONG_ way to go before its ''finished''...
:~)
Thanks Jeff...I'll try to be patient!
I don't want to rain on the parade but I have PE5 as an editor with neat image. If I move a tiff file over to pe5 and use neat image, yes it converts to an 8 bit file and go back to LR, I have a good image. No problem.
It would be better if neat image was a LR plug in. But for me it still works. Andy
No comments:
Post a Comment