Digilux 2 and low-light

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

D'oh!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jrethorst]

Both got post-processed in Nik Dfine 2.

 

Do results from the various noise plugins, e.g. Noise Ninja and Nik Dfine, vary from one camera to another? Have many people here gotten different/better results from one plugin than another?

[John Thawley]

Do results from the various noise plugins, e.g. Noise Ninja and Nik Dfine, vary from one camera to another? Have many people here gotten different/better results from one plugin than another?

 

Very much so. In fact, with Noise Ninja you can (and should) create profiles for each ISO setting on your camera. It's a fairly straight forward process.

 

I wrote about it here:

 

http://www.johnthawley.com/journal/2008/12/2/managing-noise.html

[jrethorst]

Very much so. In fact, with Noise Ninja you can (and should) create profiles for each ISO setting on your camera. It's a fairly straight forward process.

 

I wrote about it here:

 

 

Very helpful, John. Thank you.

[gearoido]

If you are without a tripod and don't have noise reduction software, I found it helpful to use the neck strap as a brace - just hold the camera out away from you with pressure on the strap while you compose and shoot. A quicky version of the string with a tripod screw method.

[jrethorst]

Some posts in this thread refer to Noise Ninja, others to Nik Dfine, and there are several other choices among noise reduction software.

 

Many posts in the forum about the Digilux 2 say that, in relative terms, the camera’s noise is pleasantly film-like, with the grain of e.g. Tri-X, when compared with other digital output.

 

Since all digital noise is not the same, I wonder if forum members have had better luck with some software than others, when used specifically with the Digilux 2?

[John Thawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some posts in this thread refer to Noise Ninja, others to Nik Dfine, and there are several other choices among noise reduction software.

 

Many posts in the forum about the Digilux 2 say that, in relative terms, the camera’s noise is pleasantly film-like, with the grain of e.g. Tri-X, when compared with other digital output.

 

Since all digital noise is not the same, I wonder if forum members have had better luck with some software than others, when used specifically with the Digilux 2?

 

I want to help here. I honestly think you're spending a lot of energy pursuing the wrong path... and I think you're going to be disappointed. Noise reduction is the absolute LAST DITCH option. Period. It's awful. If it were that easy, they'd just put it into the firmware and be done with it. Think of it as sharpening. Yes, you can tweak a good in focus image. You can't sharpen an image that's out of focus. Period. You can "clean" up a picture with a touch of noise .... you can't remove noise.

 

For the Digilux 2, "clean" up would be the noise at 200 ISO. At 400 ISO, it's gone. It's seriously not an option.

 

This camera's files won't hold up to a lot of post processing. You're looking for a miracle and it doesn't exist. You can't "wish" things into reality through software. Not with any camera.

 

The camera (except in black and white) is useless above 200 ISO. We're not just talking about noise. We're talking about detail or in actuality, loss of detail. You can't recreate detail. It's either there or it's not. ISO noise in a digital camera is like listening to a radio station that won't tune in properly. That's not an analogy. That's EXACTLY what is happening.

 

If you really NEED a shot, then you've got to just bite the bullet and live with the noise. You might coax a little bit out of it. But beyond a little bit, the file (read image and detail) will simply fall apart. It will look like a xerox copy of a newsprint at best.

 

If you really want to shoot in low light and have images that are fantastic, then you need to shoot at low ISO with long exposures and you need to "expose to the right." In other words, expose for the shadows.

 

Everything else will be a compromise. It will be mediocre at best. Why punish yourself?

 

If you find ways to support the camera properly, you end up with fantastic opportunities for superb shots.

 

There's not sense trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

 

 

[AlbertoDeRoma]

If you find ways to support the camera properly, you end up with fantastic opportunities for superb shots.

[/img]

 

Great explanation. Great suggestions. Great pictures. JT - Master of Darkness .

 

Alberto

[jrethorst]

If you really want to shoot in low light and have images that are fantastic, then you need to shoot at high ISO with long exposures and you need to "expose to the right." In other words, expose for the shadows.

 

You mean low ISO?

[John Thawley]

You mean low ISO?

 

Yes... sorry. Fixed now.

[krabat]

John, very nice shots. My favourite is no. 2, with the red sky.

 

Best regards, Peter.

[krabat]

By the way, how do mean it - "expose for the shadows"? Frequently, I use exposure correction of -1 or so, to keep the dark areas really dark.

[John Thawley]

By the way, how do mean it - "expose for the shadows"? Frequently, I use exposure correction of -1 or so, to keep the dark areas really dark.

 

Let me see if I can make sense of this for you.

 

Film accepts light evenly across the entire spectrum of dark to light. It sees it all the same... it's linear. Whereas a sensor does not... it will act differently to bright and dark in degrees.. even across the same scene. Early digital cameras (real early) would react very strange to strong light... it wouldn't just overexpose as we know it, it would distort colors along the way. So just as film manufacturers had the challenge of going gradually and smoothly from dark to light, sensor manufactures have a different challenge and try to "selectively" modulate the light hitting the sensor. At least that's how I understand it.

 

So... when you shooting a scene and light is fading, the darker it gets the more you should lean toward over exposing. Looking at the histogram, you'd want to see the peaks and the weight of the graph shift more to the right of center.

 

I shoot several races a year that run into darkness. When the sun goes down I have to steadily increase my exposure time exponentially... so if I'm shooting slightly underexposed when the light is good, I'll be shooting overexposed once the sun is down.

 

The reason is, anytime you attempt to bring up and underexposed (digital) image in post processing, you're going to bring out the noise. Any noise that exists will rear it's ugly head has you attempt to retrieve shadow detail.

 

So when shooting, in bright light, you'll want to expose for the highlights. In low light, you'll want to expose for the shadows. Obviously, it's a sliding scale in-between and only experience will help you know how to negotiate the scale.

 

Even with my Canon 5D MK11 which is nothing short of amazing at high ISO, if I don't expose the image properly, there can be a huge disparity in the noise produced in the image. I can easily shoot at 3200 ISO and produce images better than (regarding noise) than the Digilux 2 at 200 ISO. They can be SCARY good. But if I underexpose, they can be just as ugly as the Digilux 2 at 400 ISO.

 

Lastly, think of a street scene at night. You can't expose for the street light... right? You have to let the streetlight bulb "blow out"... you have to make that trade. Just like shooting back lit... you have to let the background blow out. It's the trade of to properly exposing your subject. If you photograph your subject wearing a black ski outfit standing against a snow covered ski slope, you don't expose for the snow... you expose for the black ski out fit.

 

It's all a matter of learning the personality of your camera's sensor... or more importantly, it's light meter.... and knowing when to dial the exposure down or dial it up. It's only accurate in a perfect scene. The minute things aren't perfect, you have to step in and guide it along.

 

Hope that helps.

 

JT

[daveleo]

John T. ..... thank you for these insights .... i also have been exposing the wrong way apparently, I always go 2/3 - 1 stop underexposed for a night shot (so the camera does not make it look like a day shot !!) .... and i am not getting good results.

 

must try it your way and over-expose.

 

thanks again for you remarks.

 

PS .... *beautiful* photos !!

[chkphoto]

Because most reflectance values of a scene exceed the latitude of a film or sensor, in traditional film terms, a rule of thumb when shooting B&W film, was to expose for the shadows then develop for the highlights. This was even more important in a low light scene with areas of strong highlights.

 

In practical terms this meant you were giving more exposure to insure you recorded adequate detail in the shadow areas, but if the film was developed for the normal recommended time, the highlight areas would block up (or blow out in electronic terms) What you then had to do is pull process the film or Normal minus (-) process the film to insure the highlights retained detail.

 

You can do this when shooting digital, but it really only works with the RAW file, where you have the ability to manipulate the "development" of the image.

 

Find a low light scene with shadow area with detail you want to retain and highlight detail you want to retain. Shoot the first exposure at the indicated meter exposure (normal) Then one at 1 stop over (normal +1), then n+2 and n+3. Bring those into your RAW processor and pull process each overexposed frames by n-1, n-2 and n-3. See what you end up with and what the camera can give you.

[krabat]

John,

 

Many thanks for your explanation. I think the way to expose in darkness is strongly depending on what should be the result, and of course on personal taste.

In most cases, I cannot stand over-blown lamplights, and I do not want to look night shots as if they were in daylight.

It is clear if try to lighten up dark parts of the image, e.g. by Photoshop, that you receive horrible noise, in particular with the Digilux 2.

 

Best regards, Peter.