Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
Many thanks,
Cesare

Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

Similar Messages

  • Aperture RAW conversion and noise

    I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings.  Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
    Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera).  Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different.  I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
    Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
    Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2.  I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
    It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79.  This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I  discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
    If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
    But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'.  Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras.  Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'.  But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed.  It's much better! 
    Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit.  I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4.  This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor.  By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views. 
    That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders.  It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
    So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful.  I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
    Some related web pages:
    http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
    http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
    PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default.  It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat!  The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case.  So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image.  By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast.  I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so.  I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings.  Maybe they are a but strong for my liking.  Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights.  Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit.  Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
    PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges.  I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening.  I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening.  I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
    Hope this helps
    Chris.

    Nice observations, Chris.  I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience.  I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25.  I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments. 

  • Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

    All,
    I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
    Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
    1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
    2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
    Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
    Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
    I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
    1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
    2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
    My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
    Your opinons are valued!
    Brad
    Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.2)   PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

    ">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
    of finals:
    Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
    Hi Brad,
    If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
    1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
    2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
    3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
    So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
    If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
    All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
    Regards,
    fp

  • PS5 will not open camera raw pictures...all made with Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 5D Mark II

    PS5 will not open Camera Raw Pictures made with Canon 5D Mark III

    What version of camera raw do you have?  You should have at least 6.7 for PS to open Canon 5D Mark III raw images.

  • When will Camera raw be available for processing Canon 7d Mark two in Photoshop Elements 12

    When will Camera raw be available for processing Canon 7d Mark two in Photoshop Elements 12?

    Hi,
    Probably never.
    PSE 13 is now out and updates are usually only compatible with the latest version - ACR 8.6 didn't even make it for PSE 12.
    ACR 8.7 for PSE 13 should probably include support but we don't know when it will be released.
    Brian

  • Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

    I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
    I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
    I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
    Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
    Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

    >Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
    Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

  • Aperture 2 raw conversion very bad with some subjects (like sunsets)

    Please take a look at this composite:
    http://amrosario.com/rawsun.jpg
    These conversions were done in Aperture 2 using only the three different raw conversion engines and no other adjustments. As you can see, the 1.1 version is more yellow than the other two. What, in fact, the scene actually looked like is closer to the 1.1 conversion. The other two are way off. Not to mention the extreme banding visible. What the heck is going on?
    The only way I was able to get something close to the 1.1 version using the 2.0 converter was to whack out some saturation to an extreme with not so goo results. I also processed the pic in ACR 4.1 and, even though I got a little banding around the sun, the initial color was correct. Also, the white balance is the same setting for all three images (including the one I processed in ACR).
    I mean, what's with all the red/pink in these conversions. I know Aperture 2 does away with some yellow in pix, but this is crazy. And the banding is quite unacceptable.
    Any thoughts?
    Antonio

    Yeah, thanks for that tip. I boosted and it helped, but I think it could be better. The color still runs a bit on the pink/magenta side. I'll keep trying and see what happens. Still, the change can be a little jarring if not expected.
    Antonio

  • Colour profiling with Canon ip6600d

    Hello can anyone please help me?
    I am using the above printer on Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy with Canon original inks.
    If I let PS (CS6) manage the profile and set the printer driver colour correction to NONE the driver set itself back to Driver Matching setting straight away. The result is extremely saturated colours in some areas.
    If I dont allow PS to manage the profile but let the driver do it automatically the colour results are much better but... surely it would be better to have PS managing the colour profiles.
    Why does it keep changing the setting please?
    Sorry if I have not explained this clearly.
    Trish

    That sounds like a bug in the driver -- when the application is managing color, the driver should disable it's color controls (and get out of the way).

  • RAW Processing problems with Canon 5D Mark iii

    I am having problems with the RAW files coming from my new 5D Mark iii in Aperture. I have the latest version of Aperture (and update) installed. Selecting a picture style on the 5D doesn't seem to yield any results because when I import the photo into aperture all the images go very dark. I have to pull the exposure levels up all the way to get a decent exposure. The histogram on my camera looks perfect but when imported into Aperutre the histogram changes. I have my custom picture style set to give me a very flat image (contrast off, sharpening off, saturation -2, color tone 0). The images looks very flat and perfect in my LCD but once imported into aperture the RAW processing makes it very dark. I even tried shooting the exact photo in three completely different picture styles but they all look identical once they are in aperture. What's going on??

    Here is a side by side comparison of a RAW image in the latest versions of Aperture and Lightroom. I have never had these issues with the 5D Mark II only the Mark III. As you can see Lightroom produces a nice flat image while Aperture is under-exposing the image. Any thoughts? I really want to continue to use Aperture but with my recent camera upgrade to the Mark III I don't see how this is possible. Anyones help would be much appreciated.

  • CS5 Raw with Canon 5D Mark III and Canon 6D

    I have CS5.  I recently upgraded my 5D Mark II to a 5D Mark III.  I also have a 6D.  I can't open my images in RAW.  Am I forced to purchase CS6?

    Hi,
    You should be able to open the Canon 5D Mark III files into photoshop cs5 by updating to camera raw 6.7
    (Help>Updates from within photoshop cs5)
    For the Canon 6D,  the 8.1 DNG converter should work by converting your 6D camera raw files to dng
    copies which should then open in photoshop cs5.
    mac:
    http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5596
    wndows:
    http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5597

  • Camera Raw 7 does not recognize Canon 5D Mark III RAW files

    Hello,
    I have Adobe Creative Cloud installed and I use Adobe Photoshop CS6 with Camera Raw 7. Photoshop nur Bridge CS6 do not recognize the RAW files from the Canon 5D Mark III, though it says on the Adobe support site that the camera is supported since Camera Raw 6.7
    When I try to open the .cr2-File I get the message "Photoshop cannot open the file".
    I use Win7 (64 Bit).
    Any help?
    Thanks in advance,
    Robert

    Hi Robert,
    Its a known issue as the PS CS 6 was launched with ACR 7 however the support in Photoshop CS 6 would come with ACR 7.1 update which will be live soon.
    You are completely right in saying that Canon 5D Mark III was supported in ACR 6.7 but it was only intended for >PS CS 5 & 5.1.
    In the meanwhile if you want you can download the RC version of ACR 7.1 from labs.adobe.com.
    Thanks
    Mandhir

  • Camera Raw Support: how to open Canon 7D Mark II Raw files in CS5.5?

    I bought CS5.5 only a year ago and a Canon 7D Mark II a couple of months ago.  CS5.5 won't read raw files and I can't find a camera raw update that works with CS5.  Did Adobe quit supporting CS5.5 only a year after they sold it to me or is there a way to update camera raw so it will work with my camera?

    CS5.x is obsolete software and is no longer supported by Adobe ever since CS6 was released.  The last version of the Camera Raw plug-in to run with CS5.x was ACR 6.7.1. There will be no further updates for CS5.x.
    You need to look for, download, install, launch and run the free, stand-alone Adobe DNG Converter 8.8 on each batch of raw files that cannot be opened in ACR 6.7.1.
    Adobe DNG 8.8:
    Adobe DNG Converter Windows
    Adobe DNG Converter Mac
    You are not addressing Adobe here in these user forums.  You are requesting help from volunteers users just like you who give their time free of charge.

  • Dark pictures with canon 5d mark 3 and 600ex flash, night indoors in Auto Mode and flash on.

    I have purchased a new canon 5d mark 3 and speedlight 600ex-rt flash. While testing it indoor at night , the room lights are on and I was using the Auto Mode with Flash on. The pictures are Dark with the Flash on and when the flash is turned off the pictures are brighter. I am confused. How to get the AUto mode working with the Flash on.

    Automatic mode, it it's attempt to be reasonably foolproof, is going to lock you out of having any control over the exposure.
    The E-TTL metering system on your camera & flash are attempting to find the correct exposure for your subject.  
    Due to laws of physics (the inverse-square law), light has "fall off".  It's not actually possible to use a single light source and expose a large room with that single light.  Either the subject is nicely lit but everything else will probably be too dark.  OR... the background is nicely lit but the subject is heavily over-exposed.  (BTW, there are two ways to get around this.)
    The amount of fall-off is based on the relative distance from the light.  Every time the distance increases by a factor of 1.4 the amount of light is cut in half.  This means if you have subject 10' away, but you have a foreground object only 7' away and a background object 14' away, and the flash is exposed for the subject at 10', then the foreground object will be over-exposed (with twice as much light as needed) and the background will be under-exposed (with half as much libght as needed.)  Incidentally... if you "double" or "halve" the distance then the light difference will be 4x or 1/4 (depending on if you are getting closer or farther.)
    Here's a video which both explains and then later demonstrates the concept in a way that makes it very obvious to see and easy to understand.  If it seems confusing at first... stick with it.  The video is only 12 minutes long.
    In fully automatic mode the camera wont let you control anything (except how far away you stand from your subject). 
    If you switch to "Program" mode, it essentially works like automatic mode EXCEPT it will actually allow you to override settings or set compensations.  
    When you use a flash in a room with some ambient lighting (but otherwise dimly lit) there's a technique called 'dragging the shutter' (which the camera can actually do for you somewhat automatically).
    To do that, set the camera to Tv mode (Tv = Time value... which is shutter priority mode).  Dial in a slow-ish shutter speed... say around 1/60th of a second.  Use a moderately boosted ISO (400 would probably work well... you might even go up higher).  
    The camera is going to evaluate the exposure needed for the room as though you don't have a flash... and it'll set the camera settings accordingly.  However... since it knows you have a flash, it'll still perform the E-TTL II exposure metering and will use the flash anyway.  What you end up with is a shot that has a nicely exposed primary subject (because the camera used flash) AND... a nicely exposed background which was primarily illuminated with ambient light -- but looks pretty good because the camera used an exposure that was adequate for the ambient light.
    The reason I suggest using Tv mode and NOT Av mode is because you can control the mixture of flash vs. ambient light by controlling the TIME that the shutter is open.  But this does NOT work if you control either the aperture or ISO.  
    Here's why:  The flash is "momentary" but the ambient is constant.  If you were to adjust the aperture settings, that will increase or decrease ALL the light sources that contribute to the exposure... so it increases (or decreases) the amount of flash AND the amount of ambient light ... and it does them in the same proportions.  If you want to bright up the background lighting WITHOUT over-exposing your foreground subject, then you don't want to increase both... you only want to increase the amount of ambient light.
    Since the flash is a momentary burst of light, if you leave shutter open longer you wont actually collect any more light from the flash (because the flash was providing illumination for only a tiny fraction of a second.  Extending the amount of time that the shutter remains open means the camera will _only_ collect more of the ambient light... and that helps bring up the dark backgrounds.
    One way to get around the flash fall-off problem is to greatly increase the distance between flash and subject.  You still get "fall off" but now the distance you have to change to notice the fall off really increases.  But this method usually isn't very practical because you'll be standing much farther then you'd prefer to be to get the shot.
    The second way (and much more practical) is to "drag the shutter" (deliberately use longer shutter times so that the camera can collect more ambient light long after the flash is done.).
    Tim Campbell
    5D II, 5D III, 60Da

  • How do you guys reduce noise in Canon 5d mark II video?

    I am really interested to know if anybody could give me leads on how to reduce noise in 5d mark II videos. First off - Canon 5d mark II stock HD bitrate is not really nice. Even shooting in day time I have color noise and a lot of noise in shadow areas. Its only after I played with ML 2.3 and tried to shoot 1080p vid on CBR 1.4x mode (thats the maximum bitrate supported by my present CF card but planning to buy a new one).
    How do you guys deal with it?

    Tests have been done that show ISO settings in multiples of 160 produce the least amount of noise on video. Starting at 160 the 5Dmkii produces less noise than even at lower ISO settings of even 100 ISO.   160, 320, 480(500), 640 and so on. If you need ISO settings of a lot higher and the noise becomes obvious there is video noise reduction software that could help.

  • EXIF and "Flash" field with Canon 1D mark III

    Hi,
    I have two Canon 1D mark III.
    I'm shooting RAW without a flash attached to both cameras.
    But if I look in Aperture in the EXIF data of the two cameras, then one camera is showing the value "16" in the "Flash" EXIF field the other is showing "0" as the value in the "Flash" EXIF field.
    What does this field mean, why are there different values for the same shooting conditions?
    Thanks
    JO

    Joachim Frey wrote:
    But there was no flash on any of these two cameras, so how can this then be different?
    Most cameras will let you change some flash settings whether there is a flash attached or not.
    Ian

Maybe you are looking for