Skip navigation
Tony.S
Currently Being Moderated

Shadow noise amplification with new Clarity adjustment

Mar 5, 2012 9:42 AM

Many of my images require a big boost to the shadow areas, which I've typically done using a hefty dose of PV2010's Fill Light. Getting results I like using PV2012 is often helped by a judicious application of Clarity, which brings out shadow detail nicely.

 

However, PV2012's Clarity seems to amplify luminance noise in deep shadow regions pretty aggressively. When I use Clarity in PV2012 to boost shadow detail, I often find myself having to increase the level of Noise Reduction beyond what I'd used in PV2010.

 

Can anything be done to make PV2012's Clarity adjustment more noise-intelligent, so that real image features are enhanced, but noise is not?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 9:58 AM   in reply to Tony.S

    I suspect this is all about black point.  You might have to drag it to the left using blacks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 1:21 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    That sounds like impulse noise ("salt and pepper noise", it's sometimes called), and LR doesn't do a great job at getting rid of that, while it does do a great job getting rid of other kinds.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 2:23 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    HI Tony, (long time no post ).

     

    I know exactly what you mean. Clarity clarifies fine detail as well as coarse "detail" (for lack of a better word).

     

    I too would like more control over its effect.

     

    I mean, the effect that is offensive when illuminating dark dancer parts is the same effect that is most wanted when trying to bring textural detail out of the rocky mountains.

     

    Maybe Adobe can tweak algorithm for some overall improvement, but unless Adobe surprises me/us come Lr4-final, the only recourse I can think of is:

     

    * Local cleanup by way of a brush.

     

    But then, I'm sure you already thought of that...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 2:59 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    Tony.S wrote:

     

    ...or a new feature to permit extra NR for the shadows,) I'll have to revert to my LR2 workflow, which included the use of 3rd-party NR software.

     

    Note, there is the noise reduction brush which when combined with automask can add more noise reduction in the shadows.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 4:16 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    My experience is that automask mostly skips over stuff that is not sufficiently dark and so is mostly ineffective. It is probably more accurate to say it actually makes things worse.

     

    I wouldn't mind having a little more control over that automask too, now that we're on the subject.

     

    e.g. if one could set a threshold or two, it might just work.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 4:23 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    Tony.S wrote:

     

    Rob and Jeff: Agreed, local adjustment is a useful technique for a small number of images -- but it would be impractical for my normal production workflow, where I deliver hundreds of images from each shoot.

     

    Realize that noise and noise processing shouldn't be any different in LR 4 compared with LR 3.  Just the tone controls and CA removal are different.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 4:28 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    Gotcha.

     

    Seriously though - try a custom camera calibration profile.

     

    You may find that if you can pre-finesse those shadows, then you may need far less clarity to get the job done.

     

    (I find Advanced Color Editor helpful)

     

    eh?

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2012 5:18 PM   in reply to Tony.S

    Because the tone curve in the cam-cal profile is applied before the PV2012 sliders, and the reglar point curve is applied after.

     

    I recommend using both curves, in addition to the basic sliders.

     

    In Lr3, I used cam-cal profiles mostly for color adjustment. I think for Lr4 I will be creating a few for toning as well. Although I haven't done this yet, I fully anticipate doing it. I have noticed marked differences in basic slider behaviors and capabilities depending on which of my present profiles I have selected.

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 4:00 AM   in reply to Tony.S

    Tony - A penny for your thoughts on the newest clarity?

     

    Mine: Although the brightening is gone which may have benefited you, the noise handling seems much better to me - far less grungy-ness. eh?

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points