eritho Posted December 19, 2014 Share #1 Posted December 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having the new D-Lux a week I'm struggling to get a good result. Coming from M9 and RX100 ii I'm used to shoot Raw and process in LR. Now I can't get a decent result. Too much noise if I'm not using a lot of noise reduction. Even in ISO 200! Having compared shooting in Raw/JPG fine I must say I find the JPG's better. The noise is much less even I have used NR -5. What are your experiences and what setting can you recommend when developing the Raw files? What settings are you using when shooting fine JPG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 19, 2014 Posted December 19, 2014 Hi eritho, Take a look here D-Lux (typ 109) RAW contra JPG. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted December 19, 2014 Share #2 Posted December 19, 2014 Would you mind to post a pic (or the raw file preferably) to illustrate the noise you're referring to? I've got no noise issue with my LX100 so far but i don't shoot higher than 1600 iso normally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted December 19, 2014 I'm not sure how to attach a RWL file of 14 MB. Is it possible at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Share #4 Posted December 19, 2014 Having the new D-Lux a week I'm struggling to get a good result. Coming from M9 and RX100 ii I'm used to shoot Raw and process in LR. Now I can't get a decent result. Too much noise if I'm not using a lot of noise reduction. Even in ISO 200! Having compared shooting in Raw/JPG fine I must say I find the JPG's better. The noise is much less even I have used NR -5. What are your experiences and what setting can you recommend when developing the Raw files? What settings are you using when shooting fine JPG? using only JPG fine / resolution only "L" modus "standard": >> "NR" - 3 / -4 - >> "sharpness" +1 / +2 - >> others +/- 0 best regards, mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 19, 2014 Share #5 Posted December 19, 2014 I'm not sure how to attach a RWL file of 14 MB.Is it possible at all? You may wish to drop it in a dropbox for free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 19, 2014 Share #6 Posted December 19, 2014 This sounds really strange I own the d-lux4 since the start and never felt the need to upgrade to 5 or 6, neither for noise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted December 19, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Would you mind to post a pic (or the raw file preferably) to illustrate the noise you're referring to?I've got no noise issue with my LX100 so far but i don't shoot higher than 1600 iso normally. OK, I tried. Let's see if it works! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/91833795/L1010084.RWL This is a really bad ISO1600 file. Hope you can open it. Best regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 19, 2014 Share #8 Posted December 19, 2014 But you said it noised at 200ISO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 20, 2014 Share #9 Posted December 20, 2014 Thank you eritho. Capture One is not updated for LX100/DL109 yet so my colours are probably out here but it makes a better job than LR in noise rendition. Given the low shutter speed (1/8s) at 75mm eFoV, i would not expect much better results with any 4/3 camera. http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3774631531_DF9G5ps-D.jpg (RAW converted to DNG by LR5, DNG converted to TIF by C1v8, TIF converted to JPG by CS3. 7 MB file) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share #10 Posted December 20, 2014 Thank you eritho. Capture One is not updated for LX100/DL109 yet so my colours are probably out here but it makes a better job than LR in noise rendition. Given the low shutter speed (1/8s) at 75mm eFoV, i would not expect much better results with any 4/3 camera.http://lctphot.smugmug.com/photos/3774631531_DF9G5ps-D.jpg (RAW converted to DNG by LR5, DNG converted to TIF by C1v8, TIF converted to JPG by CS3. 7 MB file) Hi, and thank you for helping. Your result is, except for the colors which I have warmer, maybe because of X-mas :-), very close to my JPG. http://yngwe.smugmug.com/Family/Julavslutning-2014/i-Q5zJ3Xw/0/XL/L1010084-XL.jpg Somehow I’m relieved that you don’t find it too bad taking the conditions in consideration. As mentioned I’m coming from M9 and lately RX100ii and I was of the opinion that the D-Lux had a lot more noise or that LR was doing a lousy job with the RWL files. I shall make some cooperation between these cams when I get more time but now I at least know that there is nothing wrong with the cam or LR. Thanks again and merry X-mas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted December 20, 2014 But you said it noised at 200ISO No I said "even in ISO 200" and I see more noise than in the files from M9 and RX100ii and I need to use more noise reduction in LR to get the same result. However I hope that LR has not yet finished their profile for the RWL file! May see if the next update from Adobe will bring something or I will have to try another developer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 20, 2014 Share #12 Posted December 20, 2014 I find the examples completely normal for ISO 1600. C1 could do only a bit better I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopaco Posted December 20, 2014 Share #13 Posted December 20, 2014 My version with Camera RAW 8.7.1 and PSC6 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/238692-d-lux-typ-109-raw-contra-jpg/?do=findComment&comment=2732070'>More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share #14 Posted December 21, 2014 My version with Camera RAW 8.7.1 and PSC6 Hi and thank you for helping. This looks good, maybe a little oversharpened to my taste, but then again taste is subjective! I do not have PSC6 only LR5 but I should appreciate if you would share you settings. Best regards and seasons greatings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted December 21, 2014 Share #15 Posted December 21, 2014 My version with Camera RAW 8.7.1 and PSC6 Hi and thank you for helping. This looks good, maybe a little oversharpened to my taste, but then again taste is subjective! I do not have PSC6 only LR5 but I should appreciate if you would share you settings. Best regards and seasons greatings I will leave Eritho to speak for himself but what I will say is that C1 Pro is generally considered to have the best sharpening formulae of any professional RAW converters. To my taste this converted image looks just fine to me, but as you say whatever we might think, photography is not an exact science and the results are viewed subjectively. The 109/LX100 is a very fine little camera for what it was designed to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted December 21, 2014 Share #16 Posted December 21, 2014 I find the CameraRAW and PS6 version too cool and too bright, which gives a low credibality to me. In general, it is for me not done to lighten up shadows that in reality were real shadows Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eritho Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share #17 Posted December 21, 2014 I will leave Eritho to speak for himself but what I will say is that C1 Pro is generally considered to have the best sharpening formulae of any professional RAW converters. To my taste this converted image looks just fine to me, but as you say whatever we might think, photography is not an exact science and the results are viewed subjectively. The 109/LX100 is a very fine little camera for what it was designed to do. Don't have C1 Pro so I can't judge if it is better than LR. I also think the converted image looks good, at least far better than my result. However it is difficult to judge the sharpness from this resolution and I thing the RWL files need a lot of sharpening but on the other hand I don't like it oversparpened. This is why I asked for settings. Seasons greetings to you all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.