Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: noise

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have been shooting in raw and jpeg because i didn't want to trust raw to start with lol. Well the raw shots seem to have more noise in them than the jpegs - is it just me?















  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Billericay,Essex, UK
    Posts
    11,340
    Post Thanks / Like
    id like to know what you do with raw never used it yet

    have you got a something to show us brit?
    Mick

    Sunridge Woods Villa Oct 2000 & 2002
    Esprit/Calabay Parc Oct 2004
    Sunset Ridge Oct 2008



  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ukwdwnut, post: 90574
    id like to know what you do with raw never used it yet

    have you got a something to show us brit?
    no because it's hideously embarassing















  4. #4
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by britchick, post: 90572
    I have been shooting in raw and jpeg because i didn't want to trust raw to start with lol. Well the raw shots seem to have more noise in them than the jpegs - is it just me?
    yep that's almost certainly true

    The in camera JPG has been extensively processed by the camera before you see it to have things like sharpening, some noise reduction and so on.

    Your RAW file has just the data from the sensor there with nothing done to it. Hence you're seeing basically a digital negative and it can be quite surprising when you see how much work the camera must have been doing behind the scenes to get your jpgs looking like they do.

    It basically comes down to workflow. With jpg you ought to be able to take the photo and use it, with RAW you absolutely HAVE to come up with a set of steps to "develop" your photo and the first of those should when needed be noise reduction
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    doh, thanks Keith, i had read that but hadn't connected it if you see what i mean. Of to do research on work flows thanks















  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Whoooooooooooooooooosh! Gets colouring book out......

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    :
    Quote Originally Posted by britchick, post: 90578
    no because it's hideously embarassing
    Reheally?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher, post: 90598
    :

    Reheally?
    the quality of the photo


    anyone used noise ninja?

    i've just read to save the photos as 16bit tiffs instead of jpegs- will i be able to upload these to blogs/websites or will i have to then convert them to jpegs?















  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    cries..... I not understanding :(

  10. #10
    Administrator keith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    20,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by britchick, post: 90604
    anyone used noise ninja?
    yep its very good! have a look at http://www.bibblelabs.com/

    bibble is a fast raw converter with noise ninja built in!

    i've just read to save the photos as 16bit tiffs instead of jpegs- will i be able to upload these to blogs/websites or will i have to then convert them to jpegs?
    It's really a question of what you're doing with the end product. The reason people are suggesting saving to a TIFF is this.

    A JPG is so small because it uses a form of compression called Lossy compression. That is, certain information is thrown away and lost forever during the conversion. So when you get that jpg out of your camera, you've already thrown away an amount of detail.

    A compressed TIFF uses a compression technique known as Lossless, meaning it's usually smaller than a RAW file although not as small as a JPG and still has all the detail in the file.

    So, when you do your conversion from RAW, if you're still going to work on the file to sharpen it, change colours, levels and so on, it would be better to convert the file to a TIFF so that you're working on the full range of the photo if that makes sense?

    Of course, eventually if you're going to output the photo to the web or whatever, you'll probably have to convert it again into a jpg but the point is that it's better to work on the full detail rather than throw it away early on
    Disney information? Try our online guidebook at http://wdisneysecrets.com
    Get your own Disney Countdown at http://toys.wdisneysecrets.com









Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •