-
Workflow for (Canon) cameras with small pixels
I’m posting this I’ve had a few queries about my processing approach, specifically why I’m applying noise reduction to relatively low ISO images and why I use Digital Lens Optimiser (DLO). DLO is one of the tools in Canon’s RAW processing software Digital Photo Professional (DPP). It increases sharpness but at the expense of adding some noise. As this is about workflow, I’m posting it here and would value any comments.
Note that my workflow is aimed at the particular problems of cameras with small pixels – this means very high pixel count full frames like the Canon 5Ds cameras or crop sensor cameras with relatively high pixel counts like my 24 megapixel Canon 80D. At the pixel level, these are noisier and much more prone to show up sharpness and other deficiencies in the optics.
So here’s what I do. I convert my RAW files in Canon DPP where I apply DLO, invariably at the default setting of 50. DLO applies deconvolution to the RAW image. In short this means it uses proprietary data from Canon on the lens, focal length (if a zoom), focus distance, aperture and camera sensor to correct precisely for the optical artefacts they introduce. Access to DLO isn’t the only reason I use DPP for RAW processing. There is a body of evidence that DPP produces cleaner and significantly less noisy images than tools like Adobe Camera Raw. DPP and DLO enable me to get the sharpest, lowest noise images from my RAW files. But as noted, the sharpness gain from DLO is offset by some additional noise.
After generating a 16 bit TIFF from DPP, I clean up the noise in the image with Neat Image. This software works as a plugin to the Adobe products like Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. For those unfamiliar with Neat Image, it essentially provides the best of both worlds by reducing noise in a way that detail is hardly affected. There are equivalent tools like this including the free Dfine tool provided as part of the Google Nik suite but that another story. These NR tools are much more refined than generic NR tools found in common image processing software where application, particular for luminance noise usually is at considerable cost to image detail.
It’s probably more useful to jump to some examples at this point. The image below is a 1:1 crop processed through DPP and Photoshop Elements with Neat Image. The panel on the left shows no DLO and no NR in Photoshop Elements. The mid panel shows DLO but no Neat Image NR. The right panel shows DLO combined with Neat Image NR. In this case, the NR has been applied globally and at very modest levels designed to treat noise without significantly affecting detail.
![Name: One-One-crop.jpg
Views: 864
Size: 390.4 KB](http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/attachment.php?s=607d7d39b8b7d14160151d413995231d&attachmentid=171037&d=1503276597)
For posting heavily downsided images, as required on BPN, the effects seen on a 1:1 crop are not going to be as apparent so I’ve done a similar set of three panels (in the same order as above: No DLO and no NR, DLO only, DLO and NR). In this case, I’ve applied very modest NR to the bird and much stronger NR to the background.
![Name: BPN-size.jpg
Views: 865
Size: 386.2 KB](http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/attachment.php?s=607d7d39b8b7d14160151d413995231d&attachmentid=171038&d=1503276625)
In the above case, the benefits of applying DLO and Neat Image NR are harder to see but I still think the image on the right is noticeably better than the left panel. Note how good detail is still preserved in the in-focus leaf just above the bird’s head even though it has had much stronger NR applied. The other benefit of applying NR in the way I have here is that it considerably reduces the amount of compression required for jpg images posted to BPN. Even modest noise especially in the background generates much larger jpg files and results in stronger compression being needed to keep files under 400KB file limit on BPN.
-
Post a Thank You. - 3 Thanks
-
Macro and Flora Moderator
Glen you make a compelling argument for the cameras you a refer to. Your comments regarding compression are something I had not considered so I see merit in your approach. Looking at the images after a while I can perceive differences, I wonder however if NR is required on the subject, perhaps this is me being slightly biased but in your latter 3 images I would say the background is cleanest on the 3rd and the detail in the parrot is slightly better on the 2nd. Maybe I should revisit, Neat Image. I used to use DPP all the time but for the last nine months or so I switched back to ACR because I found it much quicker and less likely to stall, I also found the functionality better. I was utterly convinced that DPP produced better files in terms of cleanliness but less so of late, I doubt if I will ever make my mind up! The latest images I posted have been with ACR PSCC unless indicated otherwise and this is often after preparing an alternative with DPP. I cannot say in all honesty which is the better I am finding ACR colours more acceptable and with less manipulation than DPP, and for some reason I am not noticing much difference in noise between either converter, I suppose the skill of the operator in using either is really the biggest defining issue.
-
Thanks for your comments and insights on your own workflow, and for your PM on this. Regarding the issues you raise:
1. On the question of whether NR is really needed on the subject, a lot of the time especially for lower ISO shots, it isn't especially for posting at small size. However, I incorporate in my workflow anyway because at the levels I apply Neat Image NR to the main subject, the impact on detail is virtually imperceptible. I think most people would be hard-pressed to see the impact even in a large high res print. I'm very impressed with Neat Image but it I have been very careful to create a lot of custom noise profiles for my camera at different ISO settings and different levels of under and over exposure as it isn't always possible to use the auto-profile feature that is built into this tool.
2. On DPP versus Adobe Camera Raw, there are a few things to think about here. First, I think the benefits of DLO are very much camera and lens specific. For your 1DX, I'd be surprised if there was much benefit (although DLO will fix sharpness loss that results from the anti-aliasing filter on your sensor). Similarly, for a low noise full frame like the 1DX, the benefits of the better noise performance of DPP are going to be harder to see. So I can understand your dilemma. The workflow really needs to consider the gear you are using and that's why I prefaced my comments by saying they are really more relevant to small pixel cameras like mine. BTW the lower noise results from DPP versus ACR are based on quantitative measurements from a number of different and popular Canon bodies like the 7DII and the 5Ds. These comparisons are easy enough to do yourself and I can post instructions if anyone is interested. They show roughly 50% lower noise for images processed through DPP versus ACR (this is with all default NR in both converters turned off).
3. As for colour rendition, ease of use, stability etc, a lot of that will come down to personal preference. I do see a lot of benefit in settling on a workflow and becoming so familiar with it that it is quick and efficient to implement and the familiarity enabling the best possible to be extracted from an image in the shortest time. Having said that, it's also worth know about the alternatives as 'back pocket' options for those (hopefully rare) times, when an image poses particular problems.
I have been also been asked by PM for the techs for this shot (note, the original image was posted on the 'Eager to Learn' forum a few weeks back)
Canon 80D with EF 100-400 MkII at 400mm handheld. Manual exposure 1/640 sec, f6.3, ISO 1000.
I've also been asked to post some 3 panel comparisons at different (higher) ISO. I'll have a dig around my archive and see what I can find and post hopefully in the next few days if I find something suitable. I usually don't work with my camera above ISO 1600 though in deference to the noise and dynamic range issues the higher ISO creates.
-
BPN Member
Hi Glenn i always love to discuss about technical stuff ,when it comes to photography and image editing to get the best possible quality from your images .
So this is good thread for me and maybe others .
I do use DPP exclusive for my raw conversions ...using 1Dx and 1Dx II.
I tried to use the DLO function ...but do not see any benefits from it , well personally .
I prefer just use the sharpness slider for input sharpening , i feel you hammer the image with two step sharpening when using DLO and sharpness/USM already in the raw stage . This will add noise and you have to counteract that with excessive NR ....?
How do you use DLO ? With sharpening set to 0 ? When you use the DLO tab you have to turn off the sharpening panel beforehand !!!!
How are your NR settings in DPP ....? Do you use the settings that DPP is giving you ?
In my WF i drop the NR to 50 % of the value that DPP is giving me for that camera / Iso combo ( i.e. 8 i drop the NR value to 4 )
I do also use neat Image ( great piece of software ) and use the auto values , but mask out where i do not need it .
In your posted examples i see two main issues ...the feathers do look over sharpened to me ( the white sharpening fringe is two strong for my taste , reducing the white fringe by x% will help ) .
The clearly visible noise in the bill is not removed , even after you used Neat Image ....?
Not knowing the 80 D and its noise levels ... i am surprised to see that high noise level at Iso 1000.
The key is shooting ETTR ....
I do shoot up to 12800 with little effort of getting rid of the noise , i went to extremes of 51200 Iso with acceptable results ....see hear... Canon EOS 1Dx II at 51.200 Iso
Cheers Andreas
-
BPN Member
Thanks for taking the time to do this Glen. Much appreciated.
Will
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Thanks Andreas for your views and experience with the 1DX cameras.
![Quote](images/BP-Light/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Andreas Liedmann
I do use DPP exclusive for my raw conversions ...using 1Dx and 1Dx II.
I tried to use the DLO function ...but do not see any benefits from it , well personally .
I prefer just use the sharpness slider for input sharpening , i feel you hammer the image with two step sharpening when using DLO and sharpness/USM already in the raw stage . This will add noise and you have to counteract that with excessive NR ....?
How do you use DLO ? With sharpening set to 0 ? When you use the DLO tab you have to turn off the sharpening panel beforehand !!!!
As noted in my earlier comments, the workflow needs to consider the gear being used. In your case, with a large pixel camera (ie many fewer pixels in per unit of sensor area compared to a crop sensor cameras like my 80D), I'm not surprised you see much less benefit from using DLO. So thanks for confirming this. My camera is much more demanding of the optics and will show blur where your camera might not. The smaller pixels also mean more photon shot noise: an unavoidable law of physics. So I have to customise my workflow to maximise sharpness and control noise in the inevitable most effective way. I don't find the noise added by DLO a big problem, especially with Neat Image to fix this. As for how I use DLO, usually at default setting (50). I stopped setting sharpness to zero before applying DLO as I always reset it afterwards (usually to 3; I don't use USM). While Canon *recommends* turning Sharpening off before using DLO, they do not say it is mandatory. I think you will find their recommendation is purely so you can see how much sharpness DLO is adding before adjusting the sharpness slider. Once you are familiar with what's likely to work, there's really no point turning Sharpness to zero than back again. It should have no impact on the final result.
![Quote](images/BP-Light/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Andreas Liedmann
How are your NR settings in DPP ....? Do you use the settings that DPP is giving you ?
In my WF i drop the NR to 50 % of the value that DPP is giving me for that camera / Iso combo ( i.e. 8 i drop the NR value to 4 )
I do also use neat Image ( great piece of software ) and use the auto values , but mask out where i do not need it .
I use default NR. I do occasionally change them but have not done a lot of experimentation there (for example, to see if I'm better off reducing DPP NR and increasing Neat Image NR). Again, I'm not surprised for your 1DX cameras, with their beautiful low noise performance, that you find you need less NR.
![Quote](images/BP-Light/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Andreas Liedmann
In your posted examples i see two main issues ...the feathers do look over sharpened to me ( the white sharpening fringe is two strong for my taste , reducing the white fringe by x% will help ) .
The clearly visible noise in the bill is not removed , even after you used Neat Image ....?
Comment noted on shot looking over-sharpened. I'll keep a watch out for this but generally not noticed an issue in most images. Also dependent on the subject and what it actually looks like in real life. I don't aim to totally eliminate noise with Neat Image except in the backgrounds where I apply it much more strongly in my normal workflow (the 1:1 crops are not my normal workflow but just to show the effect of the three options). My aim is to reduce it to the point where it's not really going to be noticeable (except when pixel peeping).
![Quote](images/BP-Light/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Andreas Liedmann
Not knowing the 80 D and its noise levels ... i am surprised to see that high noise level at Iso 1000.
The key is shooting ETTR ....
I do shoot up to 12800 with little effort of getting rid of the noise , i went to extremes of 51200 Iso with acceptable results ....see hear...
Canon EOS 1Dx II at 51.200 Iso
I do try to capture with ETTR settings where possible but light and the limited high ISO performance of my camera do limit me sometimes. I certainly can't shoot at ISO 12,800 and get acceptable results with my camera. I try not to work over ISO 1600. But it is a crop sensor and a fraction of the cost of the 1DX. I got what I paid for! But I actually enjoy seeing what I can extract from it and pushing it sometimes. Most people wouldn't bother - they'd just go out and buy a better camera.
-
BPN Member
Hi Glen ...thanks for your detailed answer , much appreciate your effort to keep the thread running .
If you like, you can fire me the raw . i would be interested to have a play with the images . I have only experience with the 1D series from the beginning , starting with the 1D , well apart from my first DSLR EOS 10 D back in 2004 .
Cheers Andreas
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
As requested, here is a panel at ISO 1600. Same order as original post: No DLO; DLO but no Neat Image NR; DLO plus Neat Image NR. Default levels of NR applied in DPP. I haven't yet found a shot at higher ISO and my camera is currently away with Canon so I can't go out and take one! This is a 1:1 crop and I've only applied modest levels of NR with Neat Image - just enough to render the noise much less obvious but not remove it entirely. That's how I'd normally use it in parts of my images where I was worried about saving the detail. I think the story is much the same here as the OP - just the noise levels a little higher to start with.
-
A really interesting series, Glenn so than you for taking the time.
In the last series, I think I prefer the DLO/no noise reduction on the area of the bird, but obviously with noise reduction on the OOF background. It is minimal but without noise reduction the the detail on the bird is better and the noise is (to me) not very discernible
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
BPN Member
Hi Glen, A nice explanation on your workflow for me personally I would not apply NR to the subjects in your examples I do not find the noise objectionable at 100% and once the image is downsized for web viewing or printed it would be invisible I would prefer to maintain as much detail as possible on the subject. In the end the general viewng public will judge the images on its artistic merits and not on the fact that there might be noise when viewed at the pixel level.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks
-
Thanks Don. The reason I apply NR (lightly) to my subject is mainly to deal with noise in areas of relatively smooth tone, like eyes, bills and some OOF parts of a bird, for example. In my experience, doing this does visibly improve the image appearance, even scaled down at small size as needed for BPN. However, the impact on detail is minimal and frankly not easily noticed especially in scaled down images. I think your argument about noise at 100% not being objectionable also applies to the minimal loss of clarity from very most application of NR (but I would not try it unless I was using Neat Image or similar which is exceptionally good at preserving detail while effectively treating noise in areas where detail is absent if used correctly)... but just my personal view after having tried different things in recent years and finding what works for me. But I may well review my position on that after more experience and learning from the posts here I may at BPN!
-
BPN Member
![Quote](images/BP-Light/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Glenn Pure
Thanks Don. The reason I apply NR (lightly) to my subject is mainly to deal with noise in areas of relatively smooth tone, like eyes, bills and some OOF parts of a bird, for example. In my experience, doing this does visibly improve the image appearance, even scaled down at small size as needed for BPN. However, the impact on detail is minimal and frankly not easily noticed especially in scaled down images. I think your argument about noise at 100% not being objectionable also applies to the minimal loss of clarity from very most application of NR (but I would not try it unless I was using Neat Image or similar which is exceptionally good at preserving detail while effectively treating noise in areas where detail is absent if used correctly)... but just my personal view after having tried different things in recent years and finding what works for me. But I may well review my position on that after more experience and learning from the posts here I may at BPN!
No you are right either way it is hardly noticeable the NR programs today are better then what was around when I started digital so my workflow is a little dated.
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks