A77- High ISO colour cast

Hi everyone,
I am a proud owner of a shiny A77 and was greatly pleased to see LR3.5 supporting this camera.
General impressions of the LR conversions are very good until I get to ISO6400 or higher. No problems with grain or noise (except that it's high ISO, of course there is some grain!) but the LR conversions start to show an increasingly obtrusive red/pink colour cast which is particularly noticeable in darker parts of the picture.
I've shot 'RAW+JPG' and compared the output from the camera's JPG engine to what I can get out of RAW in LR3.5 and at ISO6400, the LR conversion has a hint of pink. At 12800, the LR is definitely pink and at the ultimate ISO of 16000, LR is positively rose tinted! The out-of-camera JPGs are not showing this colour cast.
I've tried resetting the LR develop settings all to zero, then reimporting files with no develop presets, tried the built in 'zeroed' preset. I even tried using my colorchecker passport to build a one-off colour profile, but it still comes out pinkish.
Is this because the camera Adobe Standard profile is quite new and needs a bit of tweaking? My A55 colours are handled quite nicely in LR by comparison. I had a sneaky peak at the Adobe Camera profiles folder on my computer (c:\documents and settings\all users\application data\adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles\AdobeStandard) and noticed the file "Sony SLT-77V Adobe Standard.dcp" is 115kb along with the A65's equivalent and most others are only 55kb or 56KB.
In fact, the only large (115kb) .dcp files are all dated 15/9/2011 and belong to recently launched cameras. (Ricoh A12, Panasonic FZ150, Pentax Q etc).
Can anyone give me a clue?
Has Adobe invented a new type of .dcp file? Is it not handling high ISO colour very well?
Cheers

mikey: Lr does not currently adjust the black point for very high ISO images (any differently than low ISO images). So, you may see a magenta cast in the shadows at very high ISO. You can partially compensate for this by adjusting the "Shadow Tint" slider in the Camera Calibration panel.

Similar Messages

E-pl1 yellow/green colour blotches at high iso

Hello to all members and Adobe Team.
i use lightroom 3.3 and i have made a comparison between my 2 cameras with the same sensor , e-p1 and e-pl1 and e-p1, and while they have identical grain like pattern and rendering at high iso (which is what i was expecting since they have the same sensor and only the Anti-Aliasing filter is lighter in e-pl1), colour rendering at high iso is very different (at low iso its different but i have profiles with colorchecker and the differences are minor).
So i will post raw files in tungsten lighting (the most demanding for high iso-.-- 1600 i mean and even at 800 i can clearly see the problems i am describing).
Olympus e-pL1 white balance is really, but really bad.. everything turns green (its really bothering to adjust and affects low iso images too... i spent so much time correcting the green cast but there is something that i can never get right).
There are green/yellow/orange and purple/blue blotches at high iso.... it happens in tungsten lighting and fluorescent (less so at fluorescent, but still), those green/yellow blotches appear in uniform color areas that are in shadows its like a tint and there is nothing of this sort in e-p1 at iso1600 and even much higher isos have this kind of noise well distributed by all colour channels (they are usually small blotches/spots a little to the irregular round shap but sometimes have big size and very irregular shape).
I believe its something in the blue channel but in the green channel also!
Reds and colours at high iso are much more saturated in e-pl1 than in e-p1 (and from imaging-resource samples and dpreview e-pl1 its one of the cameras which has more saturated colours at high iso which sometimes it looks they are clipping channels).
By the way this is not something just related to these testfiles it happens in almost all high iso files i believe different colour rendereing/demosaic would do much better.
Here are the raw files, the first one is Olympus e-pl1:
http://hotfile.com/dl/117408120/41b0f01/P5109784.ORF.html
The second one is Olympus e-p1:
http://hotfile.com/dl/117408591/5eab708/P5107466.ORF.html
Notice in the blue trip Samsonite bag there are much more blue blotches with the chroma noise slider at 0 (even at 25 there is a difference in Dynamic range between e-p1 and e-pl1, when all review sites clearly say that e-pl1 is a little better at high iso even in raw, and its not just because it has more detail that you can use to kill a little grain and make things equal).
Please dont post or use this photos as examples as they are not flattering... they are just for Adobe engineers or private testing by users not for posting in other forums.
So Olympus cameras and Panasonic camera sensors all exibiht this problem but i have never seen something like this.... the cameras are quite good at iso1600 except all shadows have that tint even with chroma noise sliders at 40 they never disappear ... is it possible to solve the colour demosaicing and left intact the luminance one?
Please be kind to m43 cameras since they are selling very well and i think they dont have proper support... ( i bet if this was a problem with Canon or Nikon it would be corrected in a time... we dont have coustum profiles but there is a solution for that... although for this problem we dont have better solution since its too selective and only in shadows).
By the way in Rawtherapee i have made adjustments in channel mixer (the levels of green that the blue channel has are very high; so i took a little green (and just a tiny bit of red) and the shadow areas start getting rid of the green dots, so here it is a HINT) and there were many improvements almost making them disappear... however i want to use lightroom not rawtherapee with AMAZE demosaicing.
Oh by the way look at Rawtherapee way of removing colour moiré with AMAze algorithm its fantastic it gives you detail back and no colour moire which shows a lot with e-pl1 in lightroom (but i know its because of lighter AA filter and its not a priority).
Thanks for your help!

Well if you search in the middle of the image you will see at 100% that the open bag has those green spots where it should be gray! and near the door at bottom left of the image you will see those green spots that are very distracting because they happen in shadow areas... (and by the way the red cloth is not the same red as the e-p1 image and its noticeable even at small size).
What white balance did you use?
I know these are just test shots but they appear in people shots too..
Im going to prove that ACR interpretation of olympus auto white balance in olympus e-pl1 is just horrenduos with this raw file (by the way i use this one since its one of the ones with less publicity and with the most straight forward uploading, if you know one that is better to upload tell me please).
http://hotfile.com/dl/117520711/fceaefb/P4248867.ORF.html
Now try white balance at 2850 and tint at 0 (things improve).
Now look at the clock.. it has a contour with the wall that is green/yellow its that kind of problem (i have noise reduction in teh color at 50 and in the detail at 25 to try to mitigate its effect but still not much luck).
Next i will go to the HSL tools in lightroom and select yellow color and select saturation tab and dial in -30 for yellow and voilá! it has reached the kind of performance that i see with e-p1 (a little worse but almost unnoticeable),.. adobe should correct this problem in lightroom 3.5 please.
then i used the split toning slider and in the shadows i dial in hue at 340 and saturation at 10 and there was a bigger reduction in the yellow spots so its the default rendering that is a mess (by the way sometimes if i reduce saturation in the green and in the blue channel it helps a little too like -30 in each) so try to correct these please, if possible by not dessaturate the channels but with an algorithm that detects only those kinds of spots and not all yellow info like you do in the red channel so well!!
Thanks

ACR v4.1 vs v4.0: baseline high ISO NR - Part 1

Hi there,
I have been participating in a couple of threads in both this forum and the Lightroom forum with regards to additional "baseline" noise-reduction that appears to be happening on high ISO Canon files. To start, here are the links to the other threads:
ACR Forum (I started that thread):
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc4323e/
Lightroom Forum:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc44a00/
Here is a summery of the issues as I see them so far:
1) I, and numerous other photographers, are objecting to what appears to be additional baseline smoothing being done to high ISO raw files in ACR v4.1, even with the luminance NR slider at zero. Most users complaining appear to be shooting with Canon.
2) At issue is the (apparent) smearing of some micro-detail due to noise-reduction and an overall artificial looking rendering of detailed scenes when examined closely. In addition, out of focus details can start looking a little posterized and indeed, I have seen that all of the above effects can be worsened by the new sharpening controls, if one is not careful in their application.
3) Not all users are unhappy with this new processing.
4) I asserted that previous versions of camera raw did not appear to do additional ISO dependent smoothing but was corrected by Thomas Knoll who indicated that they did. Regarding this, I now have confirmed that indeed he is absolutely correct (as he should be!), but the effect is far more subtle in comparison to what ACR v4.1 is doing.
6) While this might all be construed as "pixel-peeping", several of us have confirmed that the effect is also visible in larger prints. In addition, some users (myself included) are unhappy with this apparent new "direction" that Adobe is taking since many felt that in the past that ACR produced the best compromise raw conversions - lots of fine detail preserved without any *obvious* smoothing. Without the ability to disable (or minimize) this smoothing, one is now forced to live with the default levels of NR on high ISO files in ACR v4.1.
7) While I claimed that I could not see this smoothing effect in other raw files from a Fuji S5 Pro, a Nikon D2X and a Leica M8 at higher ISO's, I am now beginning to think that the "chunkiness" of the noise in some of these other cameras might simply be making the new high-ISO smoothing less effective and thus less visible than it is on Canon raw files since ISO 1600 noise it quite tight and fine on my EOS-30D and most other Canons tested.
8 ) Further to point 7, Thomas Knoll also indicated that it was only Bayer-pattern sensors that "benefited" from this new raw conversion. That is why my initial testing did not show the Fuji S5 Pro (which has a complex hexagonal array Super CCD and not a simple rectangular array sensor) to suffer these same effects.
9) I presume this ACR comparison to hold true for Lightroom v1.0 compared to v1.1 as well.
In any case, what I have done is take a several ISO 1600 images from my EOS-30D and one ISO 1600 image from a D2X and make two versions of each image. One is the original CR2 or NEF file and the second, I used "exifedit" softare to modify the EXIF "iso-speed" field so that it no longer reads 1600, but rather 100. Opening these two versions of each raw file will show if there is any additional high-ISO-dependent differences in the raw conversions.
Indeed both ACR v4.0 and ACR v4.1 show a greater degree of noise reduction on the original ISO 1600 versions than when they are "tricked" into thinking the raw was shot at ISO 100. The effect is much greater in ACR v4.1 however and was immediately apparent to me within seconds of opening my first high ISO raw file. However with previous versions of ACR, it was so subtle that I never noticed it at all.
[...continued, with samples in next posting]

[Part 2 ...continued from previous post]
I have assembled several PSD files, each with 4 layers labeled as such (with description following the -->):
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> same raw file but with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.1
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 1600 --> original ISO 1600 raw file converted with ACR v4.0
ACR v4.0 - ISO 1600 as 100 --> raw file with EXIF edited to read ISO 100, converted with ACR v4.0
In both versions of ACR, the luminance NR slider was at zero, the chroma at the default of 25 and all the sharpening off or minimized. I have not found the chroma NR slider to have any visible impact to actual image detail, at least not in any of these samples, so I left it at 25. White balance was As-Shot and other controls at default/zero. No additional processing or sharpening was applied to any of the samples, apart from cropping the image to make it smaller for download.
Here are the samples:
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/D2X_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.39 Mb) An ISO 1600 D2X raw comparison. I use the word "blur" since we are looking at an out-of-focus background portion of the shot. Sadly the shot has no truly sharp detail to compare.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Blur_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(6.06 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. Included to have a similar image to compare to the Nikon.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Outdoor_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(13.14 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The outdoor shot I had linked to in my other posts.
http://www.beauphoto.com/galleries/images/30D_Statue_Compare_crop.psd.zip
(5.79 Mb) An ISO 1600 30D raw comparison. The indoor Las Vegas statue shot I had linked to in my other posts.
The above files are just crops from the original full images. Decompress the zip and open them up in Photoshop, either at 100% or 200%. Simply check and uncheck each layer as needed to make comparisons between the different versions. When comparing, you might try to apply a small amount of sharpening (one pass of "Sharpen" for example) equally to each layer as the differences might become more apparent. Also, people viewing the samples on a CRT might find the differences less obvious than those using an LCD display.
My conclusions are as follows:
1) I believe that ACR v4.1 is indeed doing additional "baseline" smoothing of high ISO files. This is most apparent on the Canon examples but the noise is so coarse on the D2X file that is hard to be certain whether (a) there is no additional smoothing on the high ISO version, or (b) whether the smoothing is of insufficient strength (or radius?) to be clearly visible.
2) I personally believe there to be a slight reduction in "micro-detail" when using "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600". On some images more so than on others. In addition, there is a "smoothed" and "edge-detected" look to small details as well as some slight "furriness" where the NR algorithm appears to be deciding where edges of detail are and where smoothing should occur.
3) More to point #2, I prefer all three other versions of the converted files. That is, to my eye, the worst looking ones are "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 1600", at least on the Canon files.
4) However the very best version, when all aspects of image quality are being considered, is the "ACR v4.1 - ISO 1600 as 100" version! The ever-so-slight reduction in overall noise does not appear to affect micro-detail to any significant extent, yet there is a significant reduction in "white-specks" in darker areas (especially after post-sharpening) and certain areas of color in the images are identified and rendered better - the last item being really hard to describe. Look at the dark engraved lines on the head of the statue: ACR v4.0 fills them in as slightly "reddish" whereas in ACR v4.1 they are black and look more "normal" to me. On the outside shot, looking and the red brick colour of the wall in the distance (the one with all the patios on the right), ACR v4.1 seems to better identify where the colour should be, whereas ACR v4.0 slightly desaturates portions of that wall between floors.
5) Further to point 4 is that indeed there is obviously some very complex processing going on, and if one could reduce the level of NR on an ISO 1600 file, down to the level which ACR uses when fooled into thinking it is an ISO 100 file, I would certainly be quite happy with the results. I imagine many others would be too...
6) Finally, this effect will certainly not be visible in smaller prints however the more you push a file (for example a 20x30 print from a 30D will have a source resolution of about 117dpi) or if you end up cropping an image, thereby increasing the overall magnification and thus also the defects, well then those processing artifacts can become visible upon close and critical inspection - large prints of landscapes for example.
My humble request:
In ACR v4.2 or LR v1.2, please have the luminance NR slider, when set to zero, have the same degree of effect as when an ISO 1600 file is processed as though it were ISO 100. Alternatively, put in a "Preserve all texture detail" checkbox in the detail section that does the same thing. That way we'll have the best of both worlds: for some types of images, one can use this new-found intelligent NR but for those where the most natural look and finest detail is of utmost importance, we can turn it off - or at least reduce it to more-or-less the same level as previous versions of ACR.
In general, the new NR processing does seem quite "intelligent" and is a big step up from the previous version's crude luminance slider. I certainly do not want to change back to the old system as there are many real and visible benefits to the processing in the new ACR! In addition, the new sharpening controls are also a big step up from previous version, offering much more fine control and less artifacting, when used judiciously.
However, please leave the majority of sharpening and noise-reduction decisions to the individual user. That way, one can selectively apply these effects in layers or by using the history brush. I would be equally unhappy if suddenly there was an aggressive new baseline sharpening applied to all raw conversions, when the sharpening controls were at zero!
I realize now that maybe there never was a true "zero" in NR and sharpening, but with previous versions of ACR, this processing appeared to be very subtle and lent itself very well to post-NR and post-sharpening. This is why, even after trying out virtually every other raw converter made, I always came back to Adobe Camera Raw, time and time again.
Please don't give up on progress and on new and innovative ways to improve ACR, but also please don't take away those qualities that have made a legion of photographers use Adobe Camera Raw as their raw converter of choice!
Best Regards,
Mike Mander
http://www.sublimephoto.com

New Camera Profiles and very high ISO files

I am having some difficulty directing this 'beta' comment as there no longer seems to be a Labs forum for the new Profiles. My apologies, if necessary, for therefore intruding on a user-to-user.
Also, to add to my misdemeanours, I previously posted the following (slightly amended here) in the LR forum - which again may be not the ideal place.
"I have been really impressed with the camera profiles - in my case the Standard NEF for a D3 - and posted a complimentary message to that effect on the Labs LR beta2 forum under the pseudonym Rockshead.
The revelation that each profile is camera specific raises a particular question about that for the D3. Whilst the conversions at 'normal' ISO ratings are - as I said - stunning; the same cannot be said of those for the very high ISO numbers available with the D3; compared to the conversion of the same in View/CaptureNX. Applying LR noise reduction - by the bucket load - cerrtainly aids the definition, but has little effect on the colour differences.
I suppose my question is, is this something that we have to live with; or is there hope for the future that this will be able to be sorted by further tweak of the profiles. I can quite understand if this is element of the conversion is another ingredient of Nikon's secret sauce, and therefore outside of Adobe's future thinking? Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know the thinking.
Let me hasten to say, I am content to live with it for the relatively few ultra high ISO pictures I deal with. No complaints at all from me on the brilliant way Adobe has tackled the camera profile upgrade. Nevertheless, regular use of high ISOs is coming, and so it is a legitimate question,"

> Whilst the conversions at 'normal' ISO ratings are - as I said - stunning; the same cannot be said of those for the very high ISO numbers available with the D3; compared to the conversion of the same in View/CaptureNX. Applying LR noise reduction - by the bucket load - cerrtainly aids the definition, but has little effect on the colour differences
1. Can if you can provide a documentation for such color differences in form of a raw file and pointing out some differences caused by the conversion?
2. "Very high ISO numbers" is not very specific. I wonder if you are aware of the fact, that your camera's highest real ISO setting is 6400. The settings 12800 and 25600 are eye-wash, meant only for those creating JPEG in-camera.

High ISO color changes between LR and PS?

So I came across this anomaly after taking some test shots. There's a pretty drastic shift in colors when I bring a high ISO RAW from LR into PS and then save it to bring it back into LR. This file hasn't been edited, just saved as a tif through PS. Changing my working profile does nothing, and I don't think it's calibration related because it doesn't happen with my lower ISO (3200-) pictures. What I do know is it's being converted from 24 bit to 48 bit depth and changing color representation from sRGB to uncalibrated. From researching, I understand that the file info stating 'uncalibrated' just means that there is an embedded profile (which is what LR shows). Something is going on, but my attempts to fix it haven't worked. I've tried adjusting profiles (LR/PS are matched btw), assigning profiles, converting to profiles, and my monitor is callibrated. In detail, here is the issue I'm seeing:
LR RAW > PS TIF - everything is awesome > TIF LR - goes bad
Re-import tif edit to PS - everything is awesome again
Export tif edit from LR to JPG - looks like it does in LR (bad)
Export same tif edit from PS to JPG - looks like it does in PS (perfectly fine)
I just can't wrap my head around why this is only happening with high ISO images. Originally I suspected my monitor profile, but can't see how that would make sense if everything below 3200 ISO looks perfect between both programs. Is the tiff doing something with the noise? Is LR missing some information in the tiff? Is this to be expected? It basically seems to be diluting the contrast/vibrancy, which is easy enough to fix, but a bit of an annoyance anyway.

SpottedMeLR wrote:
That's what I was trying to show with my examples. The issue I have with this is the reliance of having to use it to get identical colour results. I don't necessarily want to remove noise that I don't find is all that visible in the first place (without pixel peeping). I get okay results with milder luminance noise removal and extreme sharpening, but it's still something I don't think should *have to* to be done in every high ISO image.
Even when shooting below ISO 3200 where this LR anomaly doesn't occur you should be applying both Color and Luminance NR. My 21Mp full-frame Canon 5D MKII "default" NR setting is Luminance 0 and Color 15, and at ISO 3200 I typically use Luminace 25 and Color 25, or higher. Feel free to change any of your default settings in LR using Develop> Set Default Settings on the toolbar. You can also create Develop Presets for 'High ISO' images using Develop>New Preset. Make as many as you need based on your shooting needs. You can also quickly adjust one (1) image file and apply a unique NR setting across all the images shot at the same high ISO setting using Settings>Copy Settings and Paste Settings or 'Sync' button at the bottom of the Develop tools panel. Check just Noise Reduction>Color & Luminance in the Synchronize Settings' panel. And yes, a 1:1 (100%) view is the only way you should be making NR and Sharpening adjustments in LR.......they will only look better at lower view settings.
SpottedMeLR wrote:
Stubborn, maybe? I try to shoot below 3200 as well, but it's nice to be able to keep my options open when need be and know I won't run into oddities like this when it comes to editing. Am I asking too much?
IMHO - Why not properly use these tools in LR all of the time, since it can be done for you almost automatically.

Disappointed in the quality of the 1.1 raw converter at high isos

I've been using Lightroom since the first Windows beta, and the very first thing that jumped out at me was the wonderful way it handled digital noise at high isos. It seemed to convert it to a unique kind of grain -- I thought of it as digital grain.
I started shooting at ISO 1600 intentionally just to get that look. ISO 1600, jam the color noise reduction up to 100 percent, and leave the luminance slider at 0. Ah, heaven!
I upgraded to 1.1, and since I've been doing some high-key work at lower isos recently, I didn't notice a change. Then, a few weeks ago I was editing some old stuff, and I zoomed in, and thought "That's odd. It looks like there is some luminance smoothing going on." I checked the luminance slider, and it was still at 0.
I was absolutely positive I found a bug, so I googled, and that lead me here, where I read numerous threads on the subject. OK, I get it, the new de-mosiacing algorithms can reduce the level of noise for a certain level of perceived detail. I've checked it out, and in some of my images I can see what that means. I'd have to say I like the new look in 3 out of the 250 or so ISO 1600 images I've looked at so far. I tried just living with it -- maybe I was being too afraid of change, and maybe I would get used to it over time. Sadly, that wasn't the case.
The fact is, even if the overall level of noise has gone down since v. 1.0, the
type of noise changed, and it's something that I can clearly see in my larger prints. Do I see it in my smaller prints? Not really. But every time I zoom in to 100 percent on an image, I grate my teeth, and become just a little bit more resentful.
For me the whole point of Lightroom is that I'm able to process my images, come back in six months, and have them be exactly the same as they were before. If my older images start shifting around and changing themselves behind my back every time I upgrade, what's the point?
I butt my head against this every time I process stuff at high isos, and I get extremely frustrated when working with some of the 1.5k+ shots I intentionally shot at 1600 just to get the wonderful luminance noise look.
So I'm going to plead with the development team here:
please give me my old noise profile back! Don't make me downgrade my entire library to 1.0 and live with version 1.0 on Windows forever. Give me some hope!

I knew about this issue with the version 1.1 but, sincerely, I was quite happy with the new improved sharpen and noise reduction tools, and also with the clarity tools and all the improvements... until now.
I just have printed a more or less big print (20x25cm), I looked at the print and... "what's that?". My print seems a paint. It just seems this kind of pics you get after applying some "oil paint" filter in your favorite image editing software. HORRIBLE. I don't know if the print interpolation (I just added some resolution in the print module) also accentuated this effect.
Definitively I don't like this "look". It's too different from any other raw converter. It doesn't seems a photograph, digital or not. Version 1.0 had some issues, maybe it was too noisy and the sharpening wasn't good but you could use your favorite noise reduction sw or your editing sw and improve noise/sharpen. What can I do with this "paint"?.

Why do my black and white prints have a colour cast?

I've been trying to print some old black and white photos that I've scanned into iPhoto. Last year this worked fine, but now all the prints have a pinkish-brown colour cast. As a check, I opened the same photos in Preview and printed from there and they all printed perfectly, so the problem is in iPhoto. I've been through all the colour-related options in the iPhoto print menu but to no avail - no setting makes any difference, not even ticking the greyscale printing option. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm using iPhoto 09.

A good general step for strange issues is to renew the iPhoto preference file - quit iPhoto and go to "your user name" ==> library ==> preferences ==> com.apple.iPhoto.plist and trash it - launch iPhoto which creates a fresh new default preference file and reset any personal preferences you have changed and if you have moved the iPhoto library repoint to it. This may help
This does not affect your photos or any database information (keywords, faces, places, ratings, etc) in any way - they are stored in the iPhoto library - the iPhoto preference file simply controls how iPhoto works - which is why renewing it is a good first step.
LN

Is the 70D significantly better than the 7D at handling high ISO situations?

I have a 6D and it has really spoiled me with it's low noise high ISO capabilities. I'm wondering if the 70D is significantly better than my 7D when it comes to handling high ISOs. It has the same sensor as the 6D and I really like that view screen on the 70D.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

The 6D has a "full frame" sensor - physical dimensions are close to the 36mm x 24mm size of a 35mm film negative frame.
Both the 7D and 70D have APS-C sensors - physical dimensions are close to 22mm x 15mm and close to the same size of a negative frame from "Advanced Photo System - Class" size film.
While the 7D and 70D have sensors which are roughly the same size, the sensors themselves are very different because the 70D has the new dual-pixel AF technology.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

Pink colour cast when printing from iphoto

When I try printing from iPhoto to a Canon MG6150 I get a pink colour cast. The preview shows correct colour and I'm running out of paper with my attempts to sort it!
What has gone wrong as everything else seems fine?

Do you get the same results if you print the same photos from Preview? If not then it's definitely an iPhoto issue. If you get the same it's possibly more of a system issue or printer adjustment.
Check the Color Options (Printer) and Color Matching (iPhoto) settings in the print window. You might try tweeking some of them.
Your print window should have something similar.

How much can high ISO RAWs really be improved?

Hi everyone,
I've taken some test pictures with my new Panasonic FZ150, some of them in difficult conditions (night and/or lens at full tele) and at various ISOs. I then tried to see how much of an improvement can be brought about by the processed RAW file, in comparison with the JPG that was produced by the camera at the same time. I did this test because, in my opinion, the JPGs of the FZ150 at high ISO are too noisy to be of any use, and to see whether the (already good) low ISO ones can be improved even further.
Howver, after playing around with the Develop settings in LightRoom 3 (lum/hue NR, sharpness, detail, etc), I did not manage to get the RAWs to really look any better than their JPG counterparts, at least in terms of the trade-off between noise and detail. So I am now wondering if this is really the limit of the camera's RAW pics and/or of LightRoom (in other words: whether it's worth even bothering with RAW), or whether I am simply not using LightRoom skillfully enough!
Therefore, if anyone enjoys a RAW challenge, I'd be very curious to see just how good the following RAWs can be processed to become, particularly the high ISO ones. Many thanks in advance!
http://www.2shared.com/file/y20QhJHX/observator3200_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/GDWtbYlG/observator800_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/qI1xsZC0/P_ISO100_16s_RAW.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/7ebRkMrI/cladiri800_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/AopjNfPz/night_ISO100.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/WePPfmbb/day_ISO100.htmld
http://www.2shared.com/file/zRT_oTwt/cladiri3200_P.html
http://www.2shared.com/file/eGK68E1U/P_ISO3200_RAW.html

Been playing around with LR some more, as well as with RawTherapee, but still can't obtain a significant improvement in terms of noise/detail. Any input from more experienced RAW users out there would be very much appreciated

Colour cast using auto White Balance in ACR 7.4

I am experiencing a yellowish colour cast when I set the White Balance to Auto in Adobe Camera Raw. This happens with pictures taken with the Nikon D7100 and also the Nikon D50.
Here is an example,
White Balance set to "As Shot":
White Balance set to "Auto":

RASouthworth wrote:
So I would conclude the ACR auto wb process is apparently not as reliable as the camera determination, and certainly inferior to direct measurement on a neutral object.
Oh, Auto WB is reliable for what it was designed to do...take the image colors into consideration when determining the auto white balance. It's doing exactly what it's supposted to do...the fact that it's often not what you want shouldn't be a surprise. The way a camera determines WB is by using a WB sensor (either the sensor itself or an external sensor) which is much more accurate than measuring image colors after capture. I've seen Auto WB help in certain cases where there simply is not white neutral in which to measure but I've found manually adjusting WB the best solution in most cases.

Correcting for white balance in high-ISO images

I just started using a Whibal card, and have a number of high ISO images that I'm having a hard time correcting in Aperture. Because of the grain, the white balance varies widely as I move my dropper across the card.
Whether I use a white balance reference or not, how are others extrapolating gray data across multiple pixels in an image in Aperture?
In the future, can I take a low ISO shot of a white balance reference area, even if it is out of focus or exhibits camera shake across that area?

Yes, you can take a lower ISO shot with motion blur and get your white balance settings that way.
I'm surprised though that with the grainy area it would make such a difference that you can't even get an accurate white balance number.

Problems sharpening high ISO-files from Sony A700 in ACR 4.2

According to the reported problems with sharpening/noise-reduction high ISO-RAWs from Canon-cameras, the same issue seams to appear on ARW-Files of the Sony alpha 700.
Many of A700-users claim, that the pictures show a sort of watercolour effect. These effect will be the more recognizable, the higher the ISO-setting at the camera was. To explain what I mean, heres a 100%-crop of an shot at ISO 1600:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The writing seems somehow rough; there are a lot oft artifacts at the edges. Settings were:
Basic: Dynamic/Vibrance 0
Detail: Amount 33%, Radius 0.6, Detail 0 (!), Masking 20, Luminance 14, Color 10.
(The edges would have been much rougher, if I had set Detail to 25 (default) ore more.)
And here is what the Sony Image Data Converter did:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The edges are clear, I cant see any artifacts.
Now my questions:
Is this problem typical for the Sony A700 or does it appear to other cameras too?
How can I avoid this problem using ACR 4.2? I really dont want to use the Sony-Converter, because its slow and complex to handle.
Which are the best settings for sharpening and NR files from the A700 in ACR 4.2?
Please excuse my English Im German.
Anna

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

In-camera high ISO noise reduction & ACR

I've been involved in a discussion over on DPReview where someone believes that, when shooting with a Nikon dSLR (in this case a D7000, but the model isn't really important) high ISO NR is automatically applied in-camera directly to the raw file, and this will be carried over to any raw conversion software, including third-party software such as ACR/LR.
Now I do agree that even with NR switched off, Nikon do automatically apply some limited NR to high ISO images in-camera, but I'm pretty much 100% certain that this is not something that ACR would interpret, and so it would not actually have any effect on the appearance of the raw file when it's processed. In fact, if the high ISO NR is somehow embedded into the raw file, that would go against my whole concept of how a raw file works in a convertor such as ACR! Surely any "default" high ISO NR is just added to the proprietry part of the EXIF, and is therefore only factored in when using Nikon conversion software (ViewNX, etc)? Otherwise, the file could not truly be considered to be 'raw'.
I think I'm right, but wanted confirmation from some of the experts on here! And of course, I'm also quite happy to be proven wrong!
M

Noel Carboni wrote:
By the way, the reference I found for D7000 shows that the High ISO NR can be disabled. See this page: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/D7000A7.HTM
What camera do YOU have, Molly?
-Noel
Hi Noel,
Wow, I'm impressed with your efforts here! Your point about blurring being a potential sign of whether or not NR has been applied to the high ISO raw files is a good one, and I agree that, based on that thinking, the examples you've found don't really seem to show much evidence of that, particularly the shots of the focus/resolution target.
I do have a D7000; I replied as such back in post three ("yes I do" in response to your question "do you have such a camera?"), but I can see how that may not have been as clear as it should have been! I'm going to try some test shots myself to see if I can pick out any evidence of softening/blurring that may indicate NR being applied during the processing of the raw data. However, unfortunately my PC is currently being fixed as I've been having some hardware issues, so that testing won't be happening until I get it back (hoping within a week, missing it already).
Regarding your reference that indicates that high ISO NR can be switched off, yes it can, but apparently only up to a point - here's what it states in the Nikon manual (and what has in turn sparked off this discussion over on DPR):
"High ISO NR - option: off - Noise reduction is only performed at ISO sensitivities of ISO 1600 and higher. The amount of noise reduction is less than the amount performed when low is selected for High ISO NR" (as the article indicates, there are three options apart from off: high, normal, and low).
As I've said previously, my understanding was that all of that had zero bearing on the raw file once it was loaded into ACR: regardless of any NR settings applied in-camera, either by the user or by Nikon bypassing the user, they were all thrown away by the Adobe raw processing algorithms, as are things like picture controls, sharpening, contrast, etc. But following my recent discussion, I started to wonder if my understanding of the raw capture process was incorrect, hence this thread.
Thanks again for your work here. Above and beyond the call of duty!
M

Colour cast in ACR from Canon G11

Hi all,
I recently posted this question on the Lightroom Forum where I did recieved some useful answers, but unfortunaly the solution is not really workable in the long term. As the issue I am having is almost certainly related to ACR, I thought I'd post the question here too.
I bought Lightroom 3 a month or so ago, mainly to work with the RAW output from my Canon G11. The majority of the shots want to process are taken underwater around the UK coast. When imported into LR3 the shots take on a very strong green colour cast, even though I set the manual white balance at regular intervals. By comparison, Canon DPP imports the RAW files correctly (what I consider correct), and I get the same correct results with Raw Therapee, GIMP and Capture 1. I do, however, get the same colour cast problem importing in to Photoshop Elements 8, which convinces me ACR is at the root of the problem. I am using ACR 6.1 for both LR and PSE8. I would expect Canon DPP to be correct as it is processing it's own RAW files, but as the other RAW converters match the Canon output, this too points at an issue in ACR.
I've scanned both the Adobe LR and ACR forums, but can not see any posts where people are having similar issues to me. I did find several post's saying that ACR's support of the Canon G11 was now finished, maybe it has just been tuned for land based shots, not underwater. I tried to install the Release Candidate of ACR 6.2 at the weekend, but got a message on the lines of 'Not for this product' (I forget the exact words), so gave up on that.
A short while ago I did a test import with a RAW file taken in similar conditions to my shots, but using a Canon 5D MkII. This imported correctly, which implies the issue is related to the G11. I was not able to do a test import my shots as the person helping has an older version of ACR which does not include the G11 support.
I have tried using Adobe DNG Converter, to no avail, and I have also tried all the white balance pre-sets within LR3. The custom white balance picker does not give sensible results, it just changes the shots to a slightly different shade of green. Being aggressive with LR3 setting can make improvements (Camera Calibration RGB hue's plus the tint and temperature for the white balance for example), but it's a slow, shot by shot process, and still does not produce a usable finished product, or even a reasonable starting point for fine tuning.
As a work around I can open the RAW files in Canon DPP and output to TIF, which LR3 then opens correctly. I believe, however, that as I'm not working directly with the RAW file, I'm not going to get the best out of LR3's features.
I have tried raising a call directly with Adobe to ask about this issue. Unfortunatly is not practical as they need direct access to the PC running LR3, which is my home desktop, and I am at work when their call lines are open.
I've attached example output from LR3 and DPP. Both use white balance of 'As Shot', and neither have had any processing done on them. The LR3 shot looks less green that it does at home, I assume thats because I've saved it as a low res JPG.
Thanks for any advise people can give.
ACR/LR3 output
Canon DPP output (Same result for Raw Therapee, GIMP and Capture 1)

Can you please provide the raw file corresponding to the image shown in the original post? You can use YouSendIt.com with a target email address of [email protected] Thanks.

A77- High ISO colour cast

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for