1 person found this helpful
I'm running CR 5.6 on a MacBook Pro (Snow Leopard) and though this version is supposed to support the Canon G11, I'm finding it abysmal at any ISO higher than 200-400.
So, do you know how to set the Detail panel to anything other than "default"? Cause Camera Raw is not applying nearly as much luminance noise reduction as the Canon software...you'll need to set Luminance Noise Reduction to somewhere near 15-25 to match up with DPP/JPEG noise reduction.
When you set the luminance correctly then you'll want to adjust the rest of the sharpening settings to optimize the image–which truth to tell is suffering from a lot of camera shake and will never be able to be sharpened into a quality image.
Bottom line, Canon tends to process their images to hide their inherent image quality issues (such as noise reduction) Camera Raw doesn't...so you'll need to make some sort of adjustment other than "Default" to make any sort of useful comparisons...
Thanks a lot for the response. I probably should have chosen a better image (with less camera shake) as an example. This was simply the first one I found. I can certainly adjust the detail panel and reduce a good deal of the noise, but the colors still are very far from what the camera thinks they should be and I'm still not happy with the amount of and hue of the noise even after making adjustments in the detail panel. I have been processing raw images for quite some time now and I guess my issue is that if the camera is supposedly supported, I feel as though the software should be putting in the king's share of the effort (getting the image at least 75% there). I suppose I'm looking for a more accurate camera-specific profile.
I'm also finding a bit of an oddity in the ACR 5.6 camera profiles for the G11 which may explain some of the appearance differences the OP is finding - if I choose the Adobe Standard profile in ACR then the colours are extremely accurate (compared to a test shot of a colour chart, white balanced by clicking on the white square) - but the histogram appears wildly different to the other ACR camera profiles (changing the camera profile and no other setting) - and to that of the jpeg. I need to bring the exposure down by about 0.6 to get a similar exposure to the other camera profiles and to the jpegs.
I don't get this huge discrepancy in exposure on the files from my 20D when I just change camera profile - just much more subtle changes in colour rendering and contrast, so I wonder if someting funny is going on here.
On the other hand the reds in the Camera Profiles in ACR which mimic the camera profiles in DPP fairly exactly all (except for the camera standard which is only slightly out - true for DPP as well!) turn reds into anaemic oranges. Jpeg colour is better but not quite as good as the ACR 5.6 Adobe Standard profile to my eye.
And yes the jpeg engine in the camera has some pretty vicious noise reduction!
HI Susan, with Adobe Standard on the G11 what you are seeing is a difference between the default tone curve vs the one chosen by Canon. If you prefer your images to come out a little darker by default, then you can use your Exposure = -0.6 to be your default settings (e.g., choose Set Camera Raw Defaults from the flyout menu).
Thanks for that. I'd worked out that was the way to fix it already.
I'm still curious though why such a "fix" is necessary. I'm sure there is a good reason for the tone curves to be so different in terms of exposure but the reason escapes me! It means that if I use the Adobe standard profile on images which were exposed not to have clipped highlights, (and don't if I take the out of camera jpegs, look at the in camera histogram or RAW files processed in DPP) then all of a sudden it's clipped highlight central in ACR.
I suspect it's just something different in the way that Canon has handled the tone curves in the G11 which means that if Adobe give it their standard handling it looks different. But my 20D DSLR files don't behave this way. I can change camera profiles without having to change exposure to fix them up -which sometimes can be convenient. In the case of the G11 case it's less of an issue as all but the Canon standard profile and the jpeg have the reds totally out of whack so I'm very unlikely to use the other profiles!
Having done still more playing, now with some more shots under artificial lighting, I'd have to say the colour in the Adobe Standard profile for the G11 is starting to look less good under tungsten light. In sunlight/daylight the Adobe standard profile is really excellent, colorwise, but under tungsten lights the reds and browns can assume a day-glo quality that is quite alarming!
The Canon profiles and the jpegs seem to handle tungsten much much better - to get a similar (more accurate) result on the Adobe standard profile I have to pull the red saturation right down and shift the red hue slightly towards orange in the calibration tab. I'd need to get hold of a proper colour checker and shoot it under more controlled conditions under tungsten light with a proper white balance done to be sure, (as the lighting conditions for the concert shots I was playing with were suboptimal to put it mildly) but getting as good colour under tungsten light as the jpegs spit out is definitely proving a little troublesome with the 5.6 beta. I can work around it by switching to a different default setting for high ISO, using the Canon profiles where I'm likely to be shooting using tungsten, but it's getting to be more mucking about than I'd like for an upmarket point and shoot! It would be nice if the Adobe profile for the G11 was as effective as the one for my 20D, where it just works. No need to kludge with exposure adjustments or use a different profile for different light sources.
If you can provide a sample raw file showing areas where the tungsten
repro is failing, I can try to address it before we finalize the
I can provide a few samples. Seeing something similar with the 5d mk
ii on higher iso shots in non daylight.
Should I send the g11 raw files straight to you via email or on the
Thanks, Eric. I'll see whether I can set up something today that is better quality than concert shots I was playing with - I imagine that it would be easier to see what is happening with some low ISO shots rather than with the poor quality concert shots I was having trouble with (all the vioins and cellos were coming out scarlet rather than brown!)
You can use YouSendIt.com and paste the link here in the forum, or email it to me at email@example.com if you prefer not to share the image publicly. (Please note that although you are welcome to send screenshots, I need raw files to make progress.)
Thank you, eric. Greatly appreciated. Shall I send along the jpeg
counterparts to the raw so you can see the difference in images?
I'm filechuting two folders (zip'ed): one with a Canon G11 CR2 file and
it's JPEG counterpart. The other folder is a Canon 5D Mark II with a CR2
and it's JPEG counterpart. Check out the noise and significant color shift
in both. You'll notice that it's the reds and magentas where it goes way
out of whack.
Thanks again for taking a look. I can still send different photos if
there's something else that would be useful.
See the links below:
So, the LR 2.6 update and new CR work much better with the lower ISO shots made with the G11, but I'm still noticing a lot of difference in noise, color, saturation and overall quality with the higher ISOs -- i.e. 1600. Anyone else notice this and have you found decent noise reduction/calibration settings to offset the difference?
1 person found this helpful
The final version seems to have fixed up a lot of the problems I was seeing earlier on - although it may be just that I've got better at using version 5 of the Adobe RAW converter!
I think expecting good results out of ISO 1600 from a small sensor camera is expecting too much. You do have to use extreme noise reduction on the images (especially color nose reduction) - to be honest as they are never going to be anything except snapshots no matter how much messing around you do, I've found it less bother to just use the out of camera jpegs for ISO 1600 as the in camera noise reduction is very effective in a mushing all the detail up kind of way and the jpeg colour is very good.
NoiseNinja is able to quash the color noise of an ISO 1600 G11 RAW with the Color and Smoothness color-noise sliders maxed out along with using Coarse mode:
NoiseWare does a reasonable job as well but I prefer NN for such an extreme case.
LR 3 beta Process 2 can mostly get rid of the color noise, which means ACR 6 will be better.
Susan, thanks for this. I think you're right regarding my expectations for the small-sized sensor cameras. I guess it's just frustrating that the software can't do as good a job as the camera can with noise reduction. You're right, though, in terms of most of the other (color) issues being far better with this version.
Got my fingers crossed for LR3. We'll see. I'll give Noise Ninja a whirl at this, too. Been a while since I've had to use it but this may be the best time to.
Yes, Noise ninja does pretty well on the high ISO files - and I do use for anything I want to take a bit more trouble with. (I'm still using RAW plus jpeg for high ISO files) And I agree that the noise reduction in LR3 looks promising.