Noise reduction only on shadows

Would be great if we had noise reduction adjustable only on shadows in camera raw & LR ?

Yes. But it would be better if we had an easy way to select only shadows, so we could then apply any changes to them (noise reduction, color, tone, ... ).
Ditto for highlights, and all the dark blue stuff, and all the ... stuff.
Nik software supports this via U-points, and I hope Adobe invents a similiar auto-masking technology that blows U-points out of the water .
Cheers,
Rob

Similar Messages

  • Why is Noise Reduction only available with some raw files

    I  have been going through my CRW, CR, and CR2 raw files and have noticed that some, when opened in ACR, do not allow me to adjust all the parameters in Noise Reduction.  I thought it might be ISO related, but with a group of identically created raw files, some have full Noise Reduction adjustments while the next file will not.  The only group that offers full adjustment with all files are the newer CR2 files captured with a 5D Mark II.  Older 5D and 10D raw files are a hit and miss.
    Am I missing something?
    Thanks,
    Kim

    Another way is to just go into the Camera Calibration tab and select the 2010 process.
    -Noel

  • Lousy noise reduction

    I find that the noise reduction in LR 3 has absolutely no effect whatsoever. Whenever I use it I see no change in the photo at all, as opposed to other products I have used, such as Corel Paintshop Pro, and Nikon Capture NX2, where you see the effect on the photo immediately. Has anybody else noticed this? It's not that my photos have a lot of noise to begin with, but when some noise is noticeable, I want it gone, and LR3 does not do it. I'm not sure if there is any difference between this version and the earlier one (LR 2), since this is the first time I am using Lightroom.

    LR3b has noise-reduction so I'm not sure why you say there is none.  It helps to be zoomed in to 100% to see what is actually happening with the noise and sharpening.
    Using Process 2, the new LR3/ACR6 processing, noise-reduction only has a Color NR slider available in the beta and it works quite well.  With Process 1, the older way, does both Luminance NR and Color NR and both work similar to the way LR 2 does.
    You can switch between Process 1 and Process 2 on a per-photo basis using Settings / Process Version in LR3b.

  • Improvements: Noise Reduction Shadow Details, Geometry Correction & More

    Loving what I'm seeing so far. Experimented with this last night and was very pleased what I could do in 10 minutes:
    http://frontallobbings.blogspot.com/2012/01/lightroom-4-beta.html
    Almost negated any need for HDR bracketing. I'm impressed. That said there's a few things I'd like to see still:
    1. Noise Reduction shadow weighted areas. It would be nice to selectively control noise in only areas that really need it. Especially in terms of shadow recovery, only that area needs the noise reduction applied. It would be nice to have a dark/light slider to apply to that specific function.
    2. Geometry Correction. This needs a serious update guys. It fixes a few things, but there's many other applications that do it way better (DxO Optics for one). It's a little too basic and could use better keystoning controls. I get better results from DxO Optics rather than use a Tilt-Shift lens.
    3. The publish modules are still very antiquated and limited. No control over profile selection and still no way to update folders from previously published images. You guys need to really hire Jeffrey Friedl to do your modules. He's done amazing work with most of his plug-ins.
    Good work so far with this version, looking forward to the release.

    terrylam wrote:
    1. Noise Reduction shadow weighted areas. It would be nice to selectively control noise in only areas that really need it. Especially in terms of shadow recovery, only that area needs the noise reduction applied. It would be nice to have a dark/light slider to apply to that specific function.
    This, please!
    Selective NR with brushes it great, but trying to use that to do NR in shadows is a real pain. Just a slider to weight NR to shadows would be a real boon. Ultimately it would be nice to have a full set of NR controls for shadows with a threshold slider to adjust when it kicks in.

  • Noise reduction visible only in Develop area.

    My Lightroom 5.4 for mac has a bug in noise reduction. The noise reduction is visible only in the develop area, and while switching to library it disappear. This affects also exported files and published files like flicker's one. I work with raw files taken with my nikon D5100. Is there any way to fix this bug?

    Are you viewing these at 1:1 / 100% Zoom or smaller?  Can we see screenshots of what you’re seeing at 1:1 zoom?  Are you apply Export sharpening?  Are you resizing smaller?  Flickr does add its own sharpening, I believe.

  • ACR 6.2 noise reduction settings shown only after zoom in or pushing sliders

    Hi!
    I Believe its an operator error, but still, i need your help, either to correct the situation ou learn how to work around it!
    Begining:
    to properly adjust noisre reductions settings we have to zoom in to about 100%, however, when zoom to fit in screen... the changes dont apear... unless i slghtly slide one adjusting button, the image will show the the changes until i release the slider.
    i have the "preview check" marked.
    if i export the images to jpg or tiff they present the changes, but if i click "done" to keep only the raw files + xmp  and open the files in bridge on full screen, it doesn´t show the noise reduction changes, and once again, if i zoom in, it magicly changes while still zooming in....
    Can someone help? i would like to keep only the raw files, having them exported only when needed...
    Thank you in advance for your patience and time!
    Mikroben.

    hi MadManChan2000!
    Thank you for your reply!
    here you have a screen shot from my "basic" ACR settings, and as you can see, the darker part of the facem presents some noise color and grain.
    on this second screen shot, you can see how the image should be showing.... however, for the noise redution changes to appear when the image is in "fit in view" mode i have to push a slider from de "Basic" menu (in this case i was pushing the exposure).
    You can pretty much see the diference!! this is how i wanted images to show.
    in this next screen shot you can see my NR Settings.
    Thank you for your patience!!
    Have a great weekend!!
    tzSantos

  • Adaptive noise reduction filter only applying to parts of a clip

    MAC 10.9.4
    3.5 Ghz 6-core
    16GB ram
    AUDITION CC
    PREMIERE CC 2014
    This is happening over and over to me, along multiple projects and multiple clips.
    I apply Adaptive Noise Reduction, and tweak the properties. It sounds great but then when I 'apply', the filter is only applied to about 50% of the clip.....meaning it sounds great when tweaking the filter, but after when it is actually applied, only parts of it will apply.
    IE, If I have a 15 second and apply noise reduction.......It sill sounds while tweaking parameters. Then after I hit apply, seconds 1 - 4 will sounds great (filter applied) seconds 5-9 will sound awful like no filter has been applied, and seconds 9-11 will sounds great again, and 12-15 will sounds awful again.
    There is def something wrong here., This never used to happen in CS6, ever. Only when switching to CC.

    Hi,
    I have little use for/of the adaptive version of the noise reduction filters only because I want it ALL cleaner, so here is what I suggest: I left a very-detailed posting about "batch processing" in which I outlined using the the process version in the Waveform Editor. Give that post a read Re: How Do You Apply Process Effects To Multiple Clips In A Multi-Track?
    Let me know if you need more help.
    -CS

  • Noise reduction vs de-noise?

    Can someone explain to me the difference between these noise reductions?  The former (immediately below) is located in RAW Fine Tuning and seems to do quite a bit of noise reduction. 
    The latter (below), is its own adjustment and I fine does virtually nothing. 

    I fully agree, Kirby.
    The latter (below), is its own adjustment and I fine does virtually nothing.
    John, You are probably seeing no effect because of the very high value of the "Edge Detail" slider you have set. Try, if using a lower edge detail value will help.
    The noise reduction does essentially do a kind of smoothing by analysing the image within the area described by the radius setting. This will blur the image if the radius value is high. The "Edge Detail" prevents smoothing out the edges. If your image has areas with a lot of texture, a high value for "Edge Detail" will prevent any smoothing at all, because textured areas have edges everywhere.
    For example: two sections from Canon EOS MK II RAW images:
    Left: Edge Detail= 4.0, Radius=4.0;  Right: Left: Edge Detail= 0.0, Radius=4.0;
    With a high edge detail value (left) only the homogeneous regions (the hull of the ship) has been smoothed by noise removal, but the textured regions not. The image is still sharp, but the sea surface is still noisy.
    With a low edge detail value (left) noise reduction has been applied everywhere, also across strong edgest. The image is looking blurred.
    The setting for "edge detail" is your choice between scylla and charybdis - set it high enough to get the noise removal you want, but low enough, to prevent the strong edges from being blurred.  I usually apply it selectively to the shadows, and only, if the signal to noise ratio is very poor.

  • Poor quality noise reduction for Canon G10

    I recently bought a Canon G10, and I am disappointed at the quality of RAW conversions done by ACR/LR at anything approaching a high ISO. The out-of-camera JPEGs show much superior noise reduction to what I can get from RAW files, no matter how I tweak the noise reduction settings.
    At ISO 80-100 both look essentially identical.
    At ISO200 JPEGs show less and tighter grain than I can manage with RAW (unless I nuke the details with luminance reduction), but both are still very good.
    At ISO400 ACR/LR's RAW conversion starts to fall apart. Chroma NR in RAW is still handled well, the grain size in RAW is much larger than the camera's JPEGs. I need to apply a lot of luminance NR to reduce the RAW grain to match the JPEGs, and when I do that I lose a lot of detail. And even then, the larger grain isn't as attractive as the JPEG.
    At ISO800 this problem is even worse. Big ugly blobs abound in the RAW conversion. The JPEGs don't look great, but they're very usable, especially if you're willing to dip the shadows a bit to hide the worst of the noise.
    ISO1600 is interesting. The JPEGs don't look great; there's a healthy amount of noise, and NR kills a lot of fine details. But the image is usable for 4x6's or sometimes even an 8x10. But the RAW files are awful! Even cranking chroma NR to 100, there's color noise to be seen. And even with very careful use of luminance NR and sharpening I can't results that are anywhere close to JPEG's level of detail and noise.
    I understand that P&S cameras like the G10 are very noisy by DSLR standards and so this might not be a focal point of ACR/LR development, but I'm surprised and disappointed that the JPEG engine in the G10 can do a better job handling noise than ACR/LR. I guess my hope is that ACR/LR will at some point offer improved NR so I can create photos using RAW that look as good as JPEGs straight out of the camera. As it is right now I'm in the unfortunate position of shooting JPEG at high ISO to get usable noise performance. My dilemma is whether to even bother shooting RAW+JPEG when this IQ might be the best I ever get from ACR/LR for the G10.
    I suppose my favored solution would be to either implement or license NR technology that matches NeatImage/NoiseNinja/NoiseWare. That feature alone would be worthy of justifying a 3.0 version for me. :)

    Jeff, I won't debate that the output from the G10 at ISO800+ is poor.  It most certainly is!  And I know that simply eliminating the scads of noise in a G10 high ISO shot won't restore the detail the noise killed in the first place.  But with every other camera I've used with ACR and LR, the color noise slider eliminates all color noise at or before the "100" setting.  So I was surprised when that wasn't possible with the G10.
    I don't currently own a camera that puts out an image quite as noisy as the G10 at ISO1600, but what about the A900 at ISO6400?
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA900/AA900hLL6407XNR.HTM
    Or the 50D at ISO12800?
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DLL12807XNR.HTM
    Both of those are horrifically noisy.  Worse than the G10 at ISO1600, I'd say.  But those cameras certainly aren't crap. They just offer ISO settings higher than some consider acceptable. But then again, some people consider anything higher than ISO200 on a 5D unacceptable, so it's obviously all relative. Point being, I would expect ACR to do the best job it could for any camera it supports, not just the best job it can do for only some of the cameras it supports.
    In any case, I want ACR to be able to remove the color noise from my G10's images, just like it can with my other cameras.  I know the images are sub-standard when measured against a DSLR, but at least to my eyes, even very noisy images can look decent in small prints so long as there aren't big color blobs all over the place.
    As for the luminance noise, I'm happier to live with that.  I'd be happy to eventually pay for a LR upgrade that gives me NR similar to what the high-end third-party apps do, because that feature would make each of my cameras geniunely more useful--and retroactively!  But a simpler request it seems is to recalibrate what "100" means for the G10.  At least then I could dispense with the JPEGs and still make an 8x10.

  • LR 2.5 / Sony A700 / Noise Reduction

    i there,
    I have tested LR 2.5 with Sony raw files (>= ISO 1600).
    My experience is, that
    - there are improvements in color noise reduction ( no more color spots)
    - but another problem is still unsolved:
    The Sony "Image Data Converter SR" has a much better noise handling comparing to LR (YES, i made a new import to LR).
    The problem is, that in areas of "nearly the same color", i.e. in black shadows,  LR is producing ugly structures, which are missing in the sony converter.
    Any experiences from other A700 users?
    Best regards

    It would be easier to comment if you posted a screen capture and attached it to your forum message so people can comment based on what they see.
    I am not famliiar with Sony's software, but Lightroom is non-destructive and so has to do all of it's processing on the fly every time you make an adjustment to the image so it will never do as good as software that takes seconds per image to reduce noise using sophisticated algorithms that only run once and then the changes are baked into the image.
    Sony's software is likely tuned for the particular camera's noise-characteristics which is something LR will be, because it supports 100s of cameras and doesn't do something different from one to the next.
    That said, my general complaint is that LR doesn't allow enough sharpening or noise-reductoin...the sliders need to be allowed to go much higher for particular situations.
    I have Photoshop and use NoiseNinja or NoiseWare plug-ins as a post-processing step if NR is really important, but tend to get ok results with most things wtihout resorting to Photoshop.

  • Is Lightroom really better for noise reduction than Adobe Camera Raw?

    That's what I keep hearing from Lightroom users (who don't use Photoshop or barely touch it).
    Which is better? or are they exactly the same? I'm not referring to a specific version, but I am personally using the latest Cloud versions of everything. I haven't tested it visually, I'm just now getting familiar with Lightroom.

    Given the same version number, Lightroom and Camera Raw have the exact same sharpening and noise reduction. The only differences in ACR and LR are usability or UI aspects, the controls and rendering are the same.

  • Microfon problems s400 with noise reduction

    Hello people,
    have a problem with the microfon sound.
    This recording is either noisy (without HD driver and with HD drivers without noise reduction) or it is distorted (with HD drivers and noise reduction).
    Drivers I've tried from the Lenovo page and also from Realtek already.
    here are a few tests
    Noise: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1182020/test% 20HD% 20with% 20the%% 20treiber 20nachhallred.wma
    distortion: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1182020/test% 20with% 20HD% 20treiber% 20with% 20rauschunterdr% C3% BCckung.wma
    in the device manager for microphone stands for the version: 6.2.9200.16384 Microsoft.
    Use Windows 8 Pro which I installed by myself.
    Would be grateful for suggestions, I can not skype otherwise.
    greeting

    Dark areas have less bits to encode their values so a single bit of noise is a higher proportion of the total value.
    For the basis of the default processing, to match the human eye’s response to dark and light, darker areas are brightened more than bright areas, using a non-linear gamma curve.  This magnifies the noise in darker areas.
    If you boost the brightness of dark areas using Shadows or Clarity, you are making that noise even more visible.   Think of brightening as digitally increasing the ISO. 
    Adobe’s noise-reduction is calibrated to the original photo’s ISO setting, not how much you have digitally increased the ISO by brightening it, so if you have magnified the noise by extreme processing, you may be beyond what maxing out the NR sliders are calibrated to remove.
    Exporting sharpening will sharpen any remaining noise.
    Are you using the Mask slider in sharpen to keep from sharpening the noise grain in the Detail section?  Use the Alt key while moving the mask slider to determine the optimal Mask level for a particular photo, where you can’t to have the edges indicated but not the wide areas of little detail.
    It’s hard to guess what you’re seeing without seeing a screenshot.

  • Missing noise reduction feature in iMac 2012, Do you all know if that feature was available in previous iMacs??

    I have been having some issues in my iMac 2012, with the noise reduction feature. I have a MBP retina display that in system preferences has the noise reduction feature. However, in the new iMac 2012, I don't see that feature. Plus, I have been having issues with facetime, people that I call are telling me that they hear feedback whenever I talk to them. Does any of you know if the new iMac is supposed to have the noise reduction feature?

    I was trying to find the "use ambient noise reduction" option in my new iMac, but in the new iMac I don't have that option. I was wondering if in previous iMacs versions had the "use ambient noise reduction" option available because I have an issue with facetime, people that I am calling are telling me that they hear feedback or static sound and they can't hear me well. I believe that with the "noise reduction" option, that problem will be solved. However, in my iMac, I don't have that option only in my MacBook pro. The reason that I am asking if in previous iMacs versions had that option is because I believe that there might be a bug that Apple needs to fix in order to have that option available in iMac.

  • Upscaling and noise reduction in ACR

    I've been thinking about upscaling images and the best time to do so (if I need to of course) in my workflow. As I understand it, it's always best to carry out any noise reduction prior to upsampling an image, as this helps avoid increasing the size of any noise that may be apparent in the image.
    However, I'm thinking that in ACR, this in theory would not be neccessary as ACR would carry out any noise reduction and upsampling in a pre-defined processing order. So put simply, I could increase the image size and then carry out any NR as required after upscaling. This would allow me to tailor the NR to fit the increased image dimensions (and of course I could then carry out capture sharpening for the larger image as well).
    Is my thinking correct here - does it not really matter in terms of image quality if I don't do any NR before changing the image dimensions in ACR?
    M

    I did a lot of experimentation with upsampling during conversion.
    I found that - in my opinion - upsampling during Camera Raw operation yields superior results to doing it later.  I also believe that dialing in some noise reduction during Camera Raw is needed, as even low ISO images get pretty grainy otherwise.
    Every camera is different, but what I ended up saving for defaults is this, keeping in mind that I do my conversions to the largest possible image size, then downsample later for specific uses.
    Only you know what your goals are and what you like in your images, so I encourage you to experiment as I did with different combinations of settings to try to find the right balance.
    -Noel

  • Audition CS6 crashes while running Adaptive Noise Reduction

    Hi everyone!
    So that is the problem, I edit an audio file, run Adaptive Noise Reduction filter, and somewhere during the processing the computer just crashes. Sometimes it happens and sometimes not. I saw that computer showes up an alert message just before the crash but I wasn't fast enough to read what was written there. Recently I did a clean system install and have just some programs installed. Before system reinstall the problem was not there, although the program (audition) is exactly the same. What to do?

    Srivas 108 wrote:
    The system is Win 7 64 Home Edition. It was working ok before. Maybe I should install all the updated? I hate to do that, my experience is that it slows down the system in the long run, but looks like I should do that.
    I run the pro version, but it's basically the same. I've got all the updates installed, but I haven't noticed it slow down at all. Mind you, this is a fast system anyway. But if it's crashing, then installing updates won't fix that; you need a fresh reinstall on an absolutely clean disc first. Okay, that's a pain - but look on the bright side; you aren't running Windows 8. Recently I wasted nearly a day of my life on that, and I'll never get it back. The basic rule about M$ OS's hasn't changed - it's only the odd-numbered ones that are worth bothering with, as a rule. And none of them are worth installing until the first service pack is issued.

Maybe you are looking for