Noise, Sharpening and ACR

I have recently switched from processing my raw files from Aperture to Adobe Camera Raw 4.4.1. I shoot landscapes with the Canon 1Ds Mark III, low ISO, and wish to make very large prints (30-50"). After reading "Real World Camera Raw with CS3" it seems like the authors say that capture sharpening can be accomplished in ACR instead of what I was doing right after Aperture (with sharpening off)- that is, using Ninja Noise and then capture sharpen with Photokit Sharpener. But if I now capture sharpen in ACR I won't be able to use Ninja Noise since one should not sharpen noise. Right? So does this mean that if I capture sharpen in ACR that I should also use ACR's Noise Reduction? Or should I turn off ACR's Sharpening and Noise Reduction and do as I did before - use Ninja and PhotoKit sharpening after raw processing? (I hope this makes sense - I'm still learning the basics). Also any rough settings for what I'm doing would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

>Not at all. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that workflow. I would recommend it myself.
>[EDIT] except I prefer Noise Ninja most of the time, and Noiseware in a few cases.
I've discussed this matter with Gordon on another thread, but a few points are worth repeating here. On page 157 of his Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop PSCS2, Bruce Fraser states, "Always do noise reduction before sharpening. If you sharpen, you'll almost certainly make the noise worse; the noise reduction tool will have to work harder, and will probably wipe out the sharpening you did anyway."
Most noise reduction tools do not eliminate noise but merely make it less visible. When you sharpen after noise reduction, some or much of the noise may reappear. If you do the sharpening first, this problem is eliminated, but the effect of your sharpening may also be wiped out.
Sharpening and noise reduction are basically inverse processes and work against another. Some of these problems may be eased with the use of masks. You can use a surface mask during noise reduction to help confine the NR to smooth areas where the noise is most noticeable and keep the NR away from the edges where sharpness would suffer. Similarly, you can use an edge mask during sharpening to help confine the sharpening to the edges.
That said, Noise Ninja can work reasonably well on JPEG images that have been sharpened in camera as they often are. In this case, one has to use a different noise profile for the best results.
Bill

Similar Messages

  • In camera sharpening and acr 5.2

    When I open RAW photo in acr although I have "apply sharpening to all images" option selected my pictures are not sharpened like when camera sharpens them. And it seems imposible to get acr to open raw to look as embeded .jpg ...they are overexposed by 1 stop and colors are of. If I use Nikon Capture NX Raw files look the same as embeded .jpg and it is sharpened in camera. I know i cant get the same looking picture in ACR as in NX but ACR is way off and it doesnt use camera sharpening at all.

    The preference option you refer to (i.e., "apply sharpening to all images") means that sharpening -- if any -- will get applied to the image when you open the image in PS or save it as a rendered file (i.e., a TIFF or JPEG) to disk. The alternative (preview images only) means that you can preview any sharpening within CR, but that the sharpening won't get applied to the rendered file when you save it out or open it into PS.
    This is separate from the actual controls that govern how much sharpening gets applied to the image. For that, visit the Detail tab. The default amount is 25. If that is too low for your taste, bump it up. You'll also want to tweak the other sliders (Radius, Detail, Masking) for best results.
    CR does not use the in-camera sharpening algorithms, nor does it use the NX sharpening algorithms.

  • Sharpening and noise in ACR 6.3.... advice please

    Hi,
    Where can I find some good tutorial stuff (or other advices) about sharpening and noise in ACR 6.3.
    My camera is a Panasonic DMC-FZ8.
    Adjustments like color / blacks / contrast I can "see" on my screen (I'm satisfied until now).
    But Noise and Sharpening..... "that is a different kettle of fish " .... I have problems with it ... complex....(my std JPG is better than the RAW-JPG).

    Rules of thumb are usually made to be broken.  They might provide a good starting strategy in many cases.
    The thread I referred to is:  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/780678
    I re-read it and it doesn't have that much more info in it.
    Keep in mind there's nothing fundamentally wrong with an image file getting larger.  If you're short on disk space, new disks are incredibly cheap nowadays.
    A good rule of thumb (!!) is don't save, then open, then resave JPEG files.  You can do it once or twice in a pinch, but the compression artifacts will accumulate, as JPEG does lossy compression.
    If a PSD file is growing larger from save to save, it may be because you are doing something to the image to cause that - e.g., creating new layers, or sharpening it and increasing the amount of apparent detail the compression process has to deal with.
    -Noel

  • Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

    Hi,
    I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
    That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
    The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
    In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
    Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
    Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
    If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
    Thanks,
    John Arnold

    >Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
    The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
    Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
    My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

  • 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

  • Any chance Photoshop itself will get Camera Raw's noise reduction and sharpening?

    I would love to have the noise reduction and sharpening from ACR 6 in Photoshop itself for JPEG, TIFF, and PSD files. Yes, I know I can open those files in ACR, apply noise reduction and sharpening, and then have it then open the files to Photoshop. But it would be so nice if we could do that without having to go through Camera Raw.

    Matt Howell wrote:
    Yes, I am absolutely saying that the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR 6 is vastly superior to any filters in Photoshop CS5.
    For those who only work only with RAW files this is a non-issue, but I sometimes prefer to use TIFF files generated by CANON DPP software or occasionally even JPEG's straight out of Canon DSLR's. Going through ACR just for noise reduction causes unnecessary color space conversions, as well as just a needlessly complex workflow.
    Perhaps you should ask Canon to make DPP noise reduction better.  I also do not think is a good idea to get too aggressive with noise reduction  and sharpening when you first bring a image into Photoshop unless you only use the image single use for a particular output device.  Your better off working with a somewhat soft image till you ready for output and then sharpen for the output devive being used.  If you use strong sharpening and NR up front sharpeing again for your output device may produce unwanted sharpening and NR artifacts...  There are several third party noise reduction and sharpening plug-ins that are better then Adobe Photoshop built in ones.  Noise reduction has to be balanced too much will loose detail masking detail is important. ACR noise reduction provides masking adjustments and works well. Third party plug-ins offer offer advanced masking features also. Photoshop noise reduction filter has a basic preserve detail slider which I presumes does some kind of masking but this is not as good at ACR masking and third paty masking.  You can of course add you own masking before using photoshop noise reduction filter. Sharpening also needs masking for sarpening will sharpen noise as well as detail.
    IMO your better off with third party plug-ins that are designed to be the best. They keep getting better there is no clear winner for all images. I'm been satisfied with NeatImage and I have only had to pay for two upgrades.  I had to pay for the addition the 32 bit plugin then and  for the addition a 64 bit plugin.  All other updates to NeatImage has been free of charge even the lates version 7 of the 64 bit plugin was no charge for me.

  • LOSING SHARPENING AND NOISE ON EXPORT

    My workflow goes like this:
    I use LR3 to apply adjustments, occasionally a preset from say VSCO....
    While in LR I use, PHOTO > EDIT This photo in - PHOTOSHOP
    I do my edits, ADD NOISE, SHARPEN....
    Then PHOTO > SAVE AS.....
    I save the photo to my external...
    Here is the issue, when I re-open LR the photo is then present in my Catalog and there in LR to be viewed.... from here I export the final size for web etc and I am done
    QUESTION IS:  The photo that is now within my LR catalog is missing the NOISE I am added completely, and the SHARPENING is gone, or much less sharp then the photo I have saved in PS.
    HELP
    Thank you very much

    In the PS-forum version of this message you said you were using LR3 with PS-CS3.  This is important.
    Because your PS is two versions older than LR, the ACR is not compatible, so using Edit In PS will create a TIF or PSD on the way INTO PS, right?  This TIF or PSD is what is in LR—the one before you’ve done anything to the image in PS.  When you do a Save As you are putting the results with your sharpening and noise in another location that LR won’t know about, right?  What happens if you save your output from PS over the top of the file that LR created on the way into PS instead of somewhere else, or are you already saving over the top of your PS input file and wondering why LR doesn’t show the changes?  
    The second issue is that the communication between LR and PS.  Without that communication LR has no idea where you did your Save As to.  I believe your PS-CS3 is too old to know how to communicate anything to LR—Adobe hadn’t implemented the integration back in LR1 days when CS3 was current.
    If you had LR3 sending images to PS-CS5 or LR4 sending to PS-CS6 then things would be compatible and communicating and would work how you expect.

  • Sharpening and noise defaults in the Develop Module

    Capture Sharpness
    I’m getting my head around sharpening and am of the understanding that there are three distinct phases: Capture Sharpening, Creative Sharpening and Output sharpening
    With regards to Capture Sharpening I’ve noticed that when I import a CR2 file into Lightroom 3.6 there is an Adobe pre-set in the Develop Module. Is this a form of Capture Sharpening default?
    Sharpening
    Amount: 25
    Radius: 1.0
    Detail: 25
    Noise Reduction
    Luminance: 0
    Colour: 25
    Detail: 50

    In Lr, "capture" sharpening is global sharpening, and "creative" sharpening is local sharpening (or sharpen masking on global basis but tailored to the image), or at least that's one way of looking at it.
    in other words, if you're sharpening raw data non-destructively, such that first round of sharpening isn't being baked in, there is no need to separate capture sharpening from creative sharpening, in your mind, or in the software you use.
    Put another way, the notion of capture sharpening comes from days when first round of sharpening was baked in, e.g. shooting jpegs, or in raw workflows where first pass yields a baseline tiff, and 2nd pass is artist's choice...
    That said, what's needed for artistic sharpening (creative effects) can differ from what's need for baseline sharpening (initial "capture" sharpening, if you will).
    Capture sharpening: just make stuff look reasonably sharp, since without it things don't.
    Creative sharpening: sky's the limit... - some people consider Clarity to be a form of creative sharpening...
    Note: since Lr's sharpening settings can't be varied (there is no way to apply high-radius sharpening in one region, and low-radius sharpening in another), and since its algorithm is aimed primarily at countering inherent and/or subtle/limited unsharpness, some people consider Lr's sharpening to be "capture-only". On the other hand, capture sharpening is, almost by definition, global, so since Lr supports local sharpening, and sharpen masking, those aspects can be considered "creative".
    In my opinon, it's best not to get too hung up on semantics/terminology, but in a nutshell, conceptually:
    * Capture sharpening needs to be done so stuff looks reasonably sharp, and is often done across the board, not dependent on image content (this is why most people apply a default amount of sharpening in Lightroom).
    * Creative sharpening is going beyond initial/default sharpening, generally on an image-by-image basis, although not necessarily. Note: it may involve removing all global "capture" sharpening in favor of no sharpening, or local sharpening only (raw data required).
    * Output sharpening depends on resolution and medium etc, and therefore needs to be done last - tailored to output device and such..
    Sorry if this post had too high of an answer to question ratio .
    Rob

  • Base Sharpening and Noise Reduction D800/E

    Has anyone set up a base sharpening and noise reduction at different ISOs for the D800/E?
    I had LR all set up for my D300 and D700 so the base settings where used at import.
    Now I need to do it with the D800E and was wondering what others might be using.
    Thanks
    Jim

    Order doesn't matter in Lightroom.

  • Sharpening, noise reduction and blurring (general)

    Sharpening, noise reduction and blurring ...
    I need to read an extensive and up-to-date reference about these topics in digital imaging.
    I would like to learn your book advises ...
    Thanks a lot.
    PS. It can be technical.

    Thanks Jeffrey,
    I want to learn all the sharpening algorithms in the digital imaging world today (and also for NR and blurring, as they are closely related subjects with each other).
    Indeed, I'm trying to understand the PS and LR tools.
    And, in order to understand their tools completely,
    I think I should have a solid background on these subjects ...
    For example ...
    I could not understand yet how the detail slider works in LR.
    It is said that it uses deconvolution algorithm ... but if you ask me it looks like a smart sharpen applied to the high frequency.
    Is smart sharpen deconvolution?
    Looks like ... but I don't know.
    Like this ...
    Of course, I can use them without knowing them so much,
    Just "need for knowledge"
    I read Jeff's book, but I think I need more.

  • Noise reduction and sharpening in LR4

    Am I the only one that feels that the LR4 NR is inferior to that of LR3? I swear the only slider that does anything is the luminance and it is not as precise or powerful as LR3. The detail and contrast slders don't seem to do anything?? And as for the sharpening, the radius and detail seem to not do much as compared to LR3. Is it just that it is slower than LR3? I just feel as if I can't dial in things as precise. I am using RC1 with 5D3 files. Should I go for RC2? I heard is was even slower. Thanks

    As far as I know, nothing was changed in the sharpening and noise redution between LR 3 and LR4, so I think you are "seeing things" that aren't there...and yes, PV 2012 takes more processing than PV 2010 but the image detail (sharpening and noise reduction) should be the same...

  • Exporting JPEG = loosing Noise reduction and sharpening, poor quality compare to RAW

    Hi guys,
    I bought LR 5.0 not even a month ago and I was so excited to use it.
    Now that I am done working on my projects I exported them as JPEG into my hard drive. This is a disaster. My pictures are amazing in my lightroom as RAW now you should see what they look like in JPEG. I can't believe it. I obviously did something wrong but I can't figure what it is. My JPEG pictures looks extremely grainy. I did shoot at a High ISO for most of them. It is probably the real problem here but there's certainly a way to make it work in JPEG since it looks good in RAW. Please tell me what to do from there. How can I keep the same quality in JPEG than I already have in RAW? I choose JPEG - quality 80% or 100% (tried both) - sRGB. Should I resize the image too?

    Are you applying export sharpening, which would exacerbate any remaining noise-grain?  Are you judging the sharpening and noise-reduction at 100% 1:1 zoom?  You have to, otherwise, the resampling-for-display algorithms in LR and your OS viewer might be doing something completely different.

  • Missing Sharpen and Noise Reduction palettes

    I've just exported some pictures for the web from Lightroom 5 which had to be downsized considerably. I now find that the sharpening and noise reduction palette has disappeared entirely from the right hand tools panel. What's going on? I've tried quitting and re-opening Lightroom and also shutting down and restarting my computer. (Macbook Pro retina and Mountain Lion)

    If you are talking about the Panel in Develop, right click on any panel header and make sure that Detail is checked.

  • Disabling Sharpening and Noise Reduction

    Hello. I have Lightroom 1.2. I have over a 1,000 images to process. How can I disable sharpening and noise reduction for all of them without having to click that little detail box for each of the images. I use Noiseware for noise reduction and Focalblade for sharpening. If there is something in a folder within Lightroom I can delete to remove sharpening forever, please let me know. Of course, I want to perform the other corrections in Lightroom as necessary. Thank you.
    Francis

    Jao, Thank you. I have asked this question elsewhere before. I have recieved replies, maybe I did not follow the directions properly, but they never worked. The sharpening would be disableduntil I went to make another correction. Then back to sharpening Lightroom would go. Your way, sharpening is disabled for all the images and stays that way. Thanks again.
    Francis

  • Capture Sharpen (and other questions)?

    I have been a very big advocate of capture sharpening for fine art workflow for more than a few years now (landscape fine art gallery enlargements). I was under the impression that in ACR (7.1) by using the Radius to the left (0.5) and Detail to the right (100) I was maximizing the deconvolution aspect of sharpening and maybe even drawing out a hair more real detail from the raw file.
    Today I did a test on a high frequency raw image (trees) and had my settings at Amount 45, Radius 0.5, Detail 0, and masking at 20. But then I also did it on the same image, this way: I brought a second version of the raw file into PS with no capture sharpening, and saved it as a tiff, then I brought that tiff back into ACR 7.1 and then did the capture sharpening. In Photoshop CS6 I put them on top of each other as layers (one raw sharpened and one tiff sharpened) and at all viewing distances they were exactly the same to my eye (I did notice that the histograms of each were very, very slightly different).
    But I could not see a single pixel or edge change anywhere in the image even at 1600% viewing distance. This seems to blow away my impression about deconvolution sharpening actually drawing out more real detail from a raw file. I totally understand that sharpening is not real detail, but on this forum years ago I came to believe that somehow a bit more real detail might be accessed in raw by the aforementioned settings. Any thoughts?
    Second question: do you really think there is a quantitative quality difference in detail (or the illusion of) in an image that has capture sharpening applied in ACR (7.1) at its native size, then is enlarged substantially with further rounds of sharpening and grain simulation in the end (versus just sizing it up soft and doing all the sharpening at the end)?  I did testing on this years ago and it seemed to be noticably better overall. I guess I'm just second guessing it again.
    My basic workflow is capture sharpen Radius 05. / Detail 100, then upsize with Smoother (40, 50, 60, 70 inches...) then do some moderate high pass, then advanced use of unsharp mask (LAB - L channel - or Luminosity - RGB - also blending/blend if sliders for fall off if necessary) then ACR grain simulation (on a seperate layer - not to create grainy photos - but create the illusion of more detail and to camouflage artifacting).  I believe after years of testing and practice this seems to be about as good as it gets for my content.
    Lastly, smart sharpen... I have not used this much, but do you think this workflow might benefit from using it instead of USM (with the more deconvolution - lens blur/more accurate) type of sharpen near the end)?
    Side note: for those involved with focus bracketing (for increased depth of field with the sharpest f/stop) it is common knowledge that capture sharpening at the raw stage (before the Auto Align and Auto Blend in PS) confuses the auto blend algorithm as to what are the real sharper pixels. So, we don't capture sharpen those images (this is common practice).
    And after blending the images (Auto Blend) we usually just size up (for enlargement) and go.  Now I am thinking that after the focus blending is finished and the file is flattened it might be a good idea to bring that tif file back into ACR and apply a little bit of capture sharpening before the upsize. Does that make sense to you?
    Cheers for your time and feedback!
    Message linebreaks added by: PECourtejoie

    Disclaimer: I did not entirely understand the original post, and maybe some of this does not apply in your multi-step process, so take with salt...
    ACRFREAK wrote:
    With low ISO shots (100) I always try to use the least noise reduction possible in ACR (less is more approach) which means on correctly exposed images ("to the right") on Canon cameras, my ACR settings are often 0 on luminance and 0-5 on color noise.
    At ISO 100, I rarely use any luminance noise reduction, however my experience is that even under ideal circumstances including low ISO, a modicum of color noise reduction is still essential for optimum image quality. - it is almost never desirable to set color noise reduction to zero, IMO - YMMV. (Note: in NX2 - you don't even get a choice about it - (true) color noise reduction will be applied, as Nikon sees fit).
    Note: ACR's color noise reduction algorithm is image adaptive (it's more "aggressive" on higher ISO shots). You shouldn't see much (if any real) detail loss with color noise reduction at 25 on ISO 100 shots, eh?
    ACRFREAK wrote:
    My theory is that I am trying to keep a much of the fine detail as possible. Also the reason I like the 0.5 radius and 100 detail.
    In my opinion, ideally, the sharpen settings should depend on the photo - type, and inherent focus... (.5/100 may be great for ultra-clean, ultra-sharp landscapes, but may not be appropriate for portraits...)
    But different strokes for different folks. (and I don't know what kinds of photos you mainly (or only) shoot).
    Rob

Maybe you are looking for