Digilux 2 at High ISO

[jrethorst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Much as we love the D2 -- I will never part with either of mine -- high ISO gets noisy. In the thread Digilux 2 and Low Light, noise reduction was called a last-ditch option, as indeed it is. We are fortunate not to need it too often, with an f2 lens and almost silent, vibrationless shutter, but making pictures can require compromises, so NR is nice to have. But I was astonished to see this ISO 400 picture on the huge distinctive look thread:

 

 

In response to several posts admiring how clean the photo was, the OP said

 

It was post-processed in Lightroom 2 - settings are +10 Luminance noise red. and +75 color noise reduction.

 

It might be helpful if we all compared notes on different NR apps or plugins and settings therefor, plus relative advantages of raw v. jpeg and contrast/saturation/sharpness settings in the camera, to deal with high ISO. Apparently we don't yet realize how good the D2 is. Let's find out!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lesh]

Where are all the recipes?......

[jrethorst]

Where are all the recipes?......

 

There may be a few out there. A post in another thread (cat) suggests Noise Ninja or Lightroom works OK with raw, and a subsequent post has a superfine jpg night shot at ISO 400 with a little NR applied.

 

If you know (or suspect) you'll be doing NR, is it better to shoot RAW?

[jrethorst]

Do you change in-camera sharpness, contrast and saturation settings when going up in ISO?

[Jon Schick]

First point to note is that high ISO on any camera is likely to look better in good lighting conditions, and worse in poor light/shadow areas. That may explain in part why the photograph posted above looks really quite good.

 

I've also been deliberately pushing my LC1 to ISO400 recently to see how bad it gets. The following shots are both ISO400, and neither of them were taken in particularly good lighting conditions (1/15 second fairly wide open even at ISO400):

 

 

 

In both cases for me, I shot in RAW (contrast, sharpness and saturation all reduced, but probably makes no difference to RAW files?), and PP with Elements 7. Aside from checking the white balance in ACR, I used the NeatImage plug in to process out half of the noise, bumped up vibrance and contrast a little, and then applied some conservative unsharp masking. I think the results are really quite good - certainly OK up to an A4 print - and definitely better than I was expecting

[jrethorst]

I shot in RAW (contrast, sharpness and saturation all reduced, but probably makes no difference to RAW files?)

 

I had thought those settings, and white balance, did not apply to raw. But I just searched the electronic versions of the D2 and LC1 manuals, and found no mention that these settings did not apply in raw.

 

and PP with Elements 7. Aside from checking the white balance in ACR, I used the NeatImage plug in to process out half of the noise, bumped up vibrance and contrast a little, and then applied some conservative unsharp masking. I think the results are really quite good - certainly OK up to an A4 print - and definitely better than I was expecting

 

They certainly are good.

[jrethorst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This post in the Distinctive Look thread, Indian city at night, says the only PP for the ISO 400 shot "was an ever so slight modification of the curves to get rid of some of the noise in the sky." It looks like, depending on conditions, not that much PP may be needed to make high ISO shots acceptable.

 

Does it matter which software was used to modify the curves?

[Jon Schick]

Fiddling with curves is possible even in something like Elements, but you have more control in Photoshop and, crucially, can do the work in a separate layer for non-destructive editing.

 

I have the LC1, but wonder if the software that came with the D2 may also do curves? Someone else will have to advise here.

[jrethorst]

[From another thread]:

I leave everything at factory settings. And, I don't shoot RAW.... unless I know I'm going to have some issues in low light.

 

Often I will adjust white balance to suit... but I feel that's a normal setting... not necessarily and "in camera adjustment."

 

Shooting raw in low light lets you bring up the exposure in PP better than shooting jpeg. Is this more important at high ISO than low?

 

Does white balance setting play a more important role with raw than with jpeg? Does ISO matter here? Thanks.

[John Thawley]

[From another thread]:

 

 

Shooting raw in low light lets you bring up the exposure in PP better than shooting jpeg. Is this more important at high ISO than low?

 

Does white balance setting play a more important role with raw than with jpeg? Does ISO matter here? Thanks.

 

The important thing shooting high ISO... RAW or JPEG is shooting to the right of the histogram. You've got to expose for the shadow or low light area.... even slightly over expose. The minute you start trying to pull detail from the shadows you're going to reveal noise.

 

So, given that philosophy, I think it's safe to assume it is relevant across either scenario in low light, high ISO, RAW or JPEG. And, yes... anytime you're dealing with less than ideal lighting conditions, RAW will provide you with a better chance of recovery.

 

Nothing will ever surpass getting it right in the camera, though.

 

JT

[jrethorst]

My D2 files typically get (in Aperture) a little bump up on the Exposure slider. Some reduction in Brightness. Slide the Details adjustment up to about 30-40%. Then I'll click the Noise Reduction in default settings. Edge sharpening in default settings and often the Vignette setting in default positions.

 

Do you use NR even at ISO 100?

 

BTW I tried to watch your video, but it keeps breaking up on my G4 iMac. Videos from some sources do that. I'd sure like to see it -- any chance you could post it to Youtube? Those play fine, and you'd get more "exposure" there, so to speak . . . :-)

 

But without seeing your video, I wonder whether NR in Aperture is equivalent to PS, or whether a plugin like Ninja or Nik with PS (I have CS3 and am just learning it) is worthwhile. I know that the less NR the better, and I try to get it right in the camera, but sometimes we need tools . . .

[John Thawley]

Do you use NR even at ISO 100?

 

BTW I tried to watch your video, but it keeps breaking up on my G4 iMac. Videos from some sources do that. I'd sure like to see it -- any chance you could post it to Youtube? Those play fine, and you'd get more "exposure" there, so to speak . . . :-)

 

But without seeing your video, I wonder whether NR in Aperture is equivalent to PS, or whether a plugin like Ninja or Nik with PS (I have CS3 and am just learning it) is worthwhile. I know that the less NR the better, and I try to get it right in the camera, but sometimes we need tools . . .

 

 

The noise reduction in Aperture is virtually non-existent. Pushing the sliders will make it apparent on a Digilux 2 file.... not on a Canon DSLR file. It's just not that aggressive. Regardless, I use it strictly in the default setting.... you'd be hard pressed to see what it's doing. But, there's an old theory that combined with edge sharpening, it can smooth out the sharpening a bit.

 

IF and when I use noise reduction for real, I use Noise Ninja. But honestly, you're far better off shooting and exposing properly and avoiding any of them. They just destroy detail.

 

As I said, get the histogram exposing to the right and embrace the grain.

 

JT

[jrethorst]

embrace the grain.

 

I always liked Tri-X, but used Pan-X about five times as much.