D300 and noise with TIFF convertions

<p>Amazing patience, Matt and Lex. Wonderful.</p>

<p>GIMP with UFRaw can open NEFs directly. I tried it and it worked. The results from UFRaw I got, however, were impressively lacking. I do not think I ever saw anything worse. And sloooowwwww.<br>

Ann, ViewNX2 is too limited for everything except the most basic use (for editing, as a 'workflow' tool for sorting and culling, it's nice, as an editor... well, it isn't an editor). So do yourself a favour and get a proper tool for working with your RAW files and invest time in learning to use them properly - and when you're proficient in using that, then we can talk noise and softness. But now, it just makes no sense; your workflow is too much of a mess to be able to say anything realistic about the noise abilities of the camera.</p>

<p>Lightroom 4 is the usual suspect, but I'd recommend to download trials of several programs and see which one works best for you, in terms of User Interface and available editing options. Besides Lightroom and RAWTherapee, I'd also recommend Corel Aftershot (previously Bibble), CaptureOne Express, CaptureNX 2 - all these are capable of getting really good quality from D300 files (at least, when I tried them), and all are certainly worth considering. I ran ISO1600 D300 files through all of them (except Lightroom), and with a bit of tweaking, they all could deliver results good enough for quite large prints. With Capture NX2, I can squeeze really decent files out of a D300 with ISO3200 (if exposed well); files that are perfectly fine for web display, and could still be printed with good results to more or less A4 size. Without using any specific tool for noise reduction - those can work even better but I'm happy enough with what I can done this way.</p>

<p>All this, of course, judging the whole image - not viewing at 100% pixelpeep level. Sure there is noise in that case; it's just not relevant in real world usage.</p>

<p>Wouter, I have had this workflow for many years, and I like both programs. (ViewNX2 and Gimp). I was hoping I could continue using them, because they are fine for my needs. If I can't find a better TIFF converter, I would have to look into other software. At least I would like to check out if another converter would give a TIFF file that is more like the 'adjusted' NEF file.</p>

<p>Matt, there is no noise reduction applied to my files. The NEF files are quite fine and the TIFFs are not, regarding noise. I have known for many years that the NEF files do not change. That is why I wrote that they 'appear' to be changed.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>At least I would like to check out if another converter would give a TIFF file that is more like the 'adjusted' NEF file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Ann, this phrase shows you really have no idea what you're talking about. And also why ViewNX2 is not as fine a tool as you give it credit for. A proper RAW converter does exactly show you, on screen, the TIFF as you are about to export from it. It's exactly what the proper tools are designed to do. If it doesn't, the tool isn't right. RAW conversion is not a guessing game.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>there is no noise reduction applied to my files. The NEF files are quite fine and the TIFFs are not, regarding noise. I have known for many years that the NEF files do not change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exhibit number 2 that you do not understand what Matt said all along (or you refuse to understand). The "NEF" you look at is the embedded JPEG from the camera, by default has some NR applied (the amount set in-camera, which on the D300 is active from ISO800 on). If you manually next disable the noise reduction in ViewNX2, then the resulting output file will indeed have more noise - and at ISO1600 that indeed will look ugly.<br>

So, if the original NEF is quite fine, DO NOT change any setting in ViewNX2 at all, and just export it directly. The output file should be identical to what you saw on screen, and practically identical to what the camera would have written if you set it to TIFF. Little bit of noise reduction and sharpening applied, problem solved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, if the original NEF is quite fine, DO NOT change any setting in ViewNX2 at all, and just export it directly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is that, Wouter?</p>

<p>Are 'the changes' I make to the NEF files supposed to be included in the TIFF convertion or not? </p>

<p>Does the D300 apply noise reduction in-camera when I have turned it off?</p>

<p>There in no noise reduction feature in ViewNX2, as far as I can tell.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are 'the changes' I make to the NEF files supposed to be included in the TIFF convertion or not?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, obviously. It is the one and only reason to make those changes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does the D300 apply noise reduction in-camera when I have turned it off?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, if High ISO NR is set to OFF in camera, it should not apply any.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There in no noise reduction feature in ViewNX2, as far as I can tell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And another reason to get a real RAW converter.</p>

<p>Wouter, I thought that those would be the answers. And that is why I don't understand why more noise in showing up in the TIFF files than in the NEF files.</p>

<p>The changes I make to the files in ViewNX2 is better/easier done in ViewNX2 than in Gimp. That is why I do them there.</p>

<p>So, I still have the same understanding of how things are working as when I started this thread. If there is a missing link somewhere, it is still missing. Is anyone able to explain that to me in one sentence?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If there is a missing link somewhere, it is still missing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This missing link: you still don't seem to understand that when you open the NEF file, you're seeing an embedded JPG. That file has lossy compression that noticeably reduces the appearance of noise (and of other details, sometimes, as it happens). That embedded JPG <em>will</em> look "quieter," with less high-ISO noise, than will a no-noise-reduction rendering from the NEF to a <em>no compression, no smoothing</em> JPG or to a TIFF. <br>

<br />Just say you are reading that key information: the embedded JPG you first see as a working proxy for the NEF file <em>has lossy compression that masks noise</em>. Simple as that.<br /></p>

<p>So if I open a given NEF file in LR4, let's say shot at ISO 2000, I would see more noise in the file as oposed to if I opened the same file in ViewNX2?</p>

<p>You never actually open an NEF file. You either open the small, compressed JPG that's embedded in the NEF file, or you're displaying your editing software's rendering of the NEF file into something you can see. In the case of Nikon software, the <em>default</em> way in which that's done is for the software to follow the same processing rules that were present in the camera at the time you shot the image. You can change those (far more easily in Capture NX2 than in the deliberately simple View NX2, of course), but that's what you start with.<br /><br />If you ask LR4 to show you <em>its</em> default idea of how to interpret that NEF file, it's going to do so based on whatever profile you have selected for the display of NEFs from that camera. That may, or may not involve noise reduction - it's up to you.<br /><br />Either way, the noise present in the NEF file is the same no matter what program you use to "open" the NEF. Whether that noise is still there when you get done processing that NEF data and displaying it on your screen in the editor or exporting it to some other format depends on how you have things set up. The first thing to do is to stop pixel peeping - because that doesn't convey any sort of real use of the image - either on-screen, or in print.</p>

<p>How can you apply noise reduction to a NEF file if what you are looking at on the screen is not the actual noise in the file?</p>

<p>Am I looking at a lossy compressed imbedded jpeg file when I open the file in LR4 too?</p>

<p>Ann, at this point the best advice I can offer is to stop using Gimp and View NX2 for a month. Download the trial version of Lightroom 4 and use it exclusively for the 30 day trial period. You will immediately see the advantages to using well designed software and the disadvantages to using only Gimp and View NX2.</p>

<p>Also, Lightroom is well supported with plenty of free illustrated and video tutorials. I recommend <a href="http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html">Julieanne Kost's videos</a>.</p>

<p>Lightroom's editing tools are very straightforward and easy to grasp. That's why I recommend trying it first.</p>

<p>After that 30 day free trial, you may wish to revisit certain photos for more extensive manipulation in Gimp. If you output your files edited in Lightroom to DNG, and get the Ufraw plugin for Gimp, you may be able to pick up in Gimp where Lightroom left off.</p>

<p>The advantages to LR are so distinct that I'm going back to re-edit many of my D2H NEFs taken since 2005. While I was satisfied with Noise Ninja and Noiseware as standalone noise reduction utilities, I find that in retrospect the rest of the editing was inconsistent even within photos from a single session. LR presets help ensure better consistency and more cohesive look.</p>

<p>Ann, the raw-image file stores <strong>data </strong>about the image <strong>that need to be interpreted and converted</strong> into an actual image that one can see visually. I think if you see noise in LR's rendition (or ViewNX2), the image has noise for sure. LR uses Adobe's Camara Raw (if you do use LR, do select "Camara Raw V7.1 or later" under "Edit/Preferences/File Handling/Compatibility)).</p>

<p>Then, if you would like to make the noise less noticeable, you may tweak the image using LR's "Develop/Detail" - it works pretty well, though personally I like to use <a href="http://imagenomic.com/video.aspx">Imagenomic's Noiseware</a> as a quick-and-easy way out. I mentioned <a href="http://imagenomic.com/video.aspx">Noiseware</a> in a prior post too. Think Imagenomic should pay me now. ;-)</p>

<p>Good luck Ann. I think you can get much info by Googling too.</p>

<p>Lex, LR4 is not enough. I need Gimp too. Layers and filters and all the other things I can do in Gimp. Would the convertion to DNG give less loss than convertion to TIFF you think?</p>

<p>DNG is Adobe's "raw format". Now this throws a new round of confusion, doesn't it. I choose to convert my raw files to DNG during import to LR4. It will take too long to explain here. LOL!</p>

<p>Just Googled and found this article which I think does a decent job in explaining DNG and RAW. Hope it helps.<br /> <a href="http://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw">DNG vs RAW</a>.</p>

<p>Just read the entire DNG vs RAW article. The only bone I would pick is the assertion that it takes longer to process DNG. I believe it does not.</p>

<p>The reason why I left LR when the trial period was over (several years ago), was that ViewNX did a much better job than I did to get a decent result from a NEF file. Without me having to do all the work in LR. I would spend maybe half an hour on a file in LR just to find out that the NEF file shown in ViewNX was 'already there'. Just a few tweaks were necessary and I was done (if I had nailed the exposure, that is). Now I do more fine tuning in Gimp compared to what I did back then (in addition to the adjustments I do in ViewNX2).</p>

<p>Remember that Gimp only can work with 8 bits files today. They <em>are</em> working on the 16 bits file version.</p>

<p>I am still confused by the same fact as when I started out. Because if the file convertion to TIFF is supposed to include the changes I make to the NEF file (appear to make), which Wouter said it should, then there is just something missing in that convertion. I get the colors and 'exposures', but not the same sharpness and much more noise. So this embedded, lossy compressed jpeg that I am watching in ViewNX2, is not included in the same way in the TIFF file (converted to the same appearance). Maybe it is not possible to get this better. But I think this has gotten worse. Since I haven't noticed it before. I only recently noticed the sharpness issue too.</p>

<p>I believe I have the option to shoot TIFFs with my D300. Maybe I should do that instead :-)</p>

<p>Mary, I hope I don't have to use DNG convertions to get a better result.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"LR4 is not enough. I need Gimp too. Layers and filters and all the other things I can do in Gimp."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not limited to LR4. It can be used as an intermediary step in prepping a file for additional manipulations in a pixel level editor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The reason why I left LR when the trial period was over (several years ago), was that ViewNX did a much better job than I did to get a decent result from a NEF file."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems to contradict what you've been saying throughout this thread: that you're *not* getting satisfactory results from View NX, at least in terms of noise reduction.</p>

<p>Lightroom 4 is far better than the earlier versions. Even Lightroom 3.6 is very good (not sure it's still available for free trial or purchase).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I would spend maybe half an hour on a file in LR just to find out that the NEF file shown in ViewNX was 'already there'."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LR4.3 has camera calibration/profile presets that neatly emulate Nikon's own in-camera settings. If that's what you prefer, it takes only one click. I'm getting better results from my old D2H NEFs in LR4 than in ViewNX 2, while retaining the characteristic "Nikon look". And the workflow is far more efficient. It doesn't take half an hour unless I'm obsessing over tiny incremental fiddling with every single tool - and I'll admit I'm prone to that sort of OCD editing at times.</p>

<p>If you're doing extensive manipulations in an 8-bit program like the currently stable version of Gimp, it's likely you'll eventually end up redoing those photos anyway.</p>

<p>At this point, only you can understand why you're determined to work with such limited editing tools, while also complaining about those limits. There are better affordable alternatives. Or wait until the 16-bit version of Gimp is considered stable.</p>

<p>Ann, if you can upload a sample Nikon NEF from your camera somewhere online I'll be glad to tackle it in Lightroom and provide a DNG and 16-bit TIFF. I have a couple of online files hosts for that purpose.</p>

<p>Be sure it's a file that shows the sort of noise that you're describing having difficulties with. I'll use only the minimum LR4 settings that emulate the typical Nikon look that you'd get from ViewNX 2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're not limited to LR4. It can be used as an intermediary step in prepping a file for additional manipulations in a pixel level editor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know that, Lex. But you would have the convertion process there too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That seems to contradict what you've been saying throughout this thread: that you're *not* getting satisfactory results from View NX, at least in terms of noise reduction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no noise reduction going on in ViewNX2. If Matt's explanation is correct. Just noise 'hiding'. The NEF files doesn't look any different regarding noise, just the TIFFs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR4.3 has camera calibration/profile presets that neatly emulate Nikon's own in-camera settings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does it come with that, or do you have to make your own preset?</p>

<p>Thank you for your suggestion, Lex. But I can do that with the trial version myself. I kind of don't want to, though. I shouldn't have to buy a whole new RAW converter just to get a better TIFF convertion. I think Nikon should be able to fix that in ViewNX2. Can it be that hard to get it right? Or at least better than it is today?</p>

<p><< I hope I don't have to use DNG convertions to get a better result. >><br>

Ann, DNG does not provide a "better result" as far as the noise in the images is concerned. </p>

<p>I have been reading your input in this thread and I think it would be simpler and more effective if the effort is concentrated on making an image better (e.g., less noisy) at this time, rather than trying to understand everything at once by reading a few posts. If I am not mistaken, the problem at hand is you are not satisfied with the noise level, right? If so, trying some noise reduction tool such as those mentioned above would be a good start, I think. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The LR4.3 camera calibration/profile settings are not presets, per se, but profiles that include ACR 4.4, 2.4, Adobe Standard, and a variety of other profile options that vary depending on which camera raw file we're working with. </p>

<p>For example, with my D2H NEFs I have a larger selection of profiles than with my V1, including three that emulate the D2X in-camera JPEG modes. I find the three D2X profiles a bit too contrasty for my taste - I tend to prefer lower contrast and saturation than some photographers, especially for my photos of people. The "Camera Portait" and "Camera Neutral" settings suit my preferences as starting points.</p>

<p>The camera calibration settings can also be tweaked to adjust shadow tints and RGB hue/saturation. I don't bother with these because the defaults suit me.</p>

<p>These profiles may be incorporated into LR presets, as desired, which is helpful for an efficient workflow and consistent look throughout a batch of photos from a single session.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I shouldn't have to buy a whole new RAW converter just to get a better TIFF convertion. I think Nikon should be able to fix that in ViewNX2. Can it be that hard to get it right? Or at least better than it is today?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been saying that for years. But Nikon's strength is making excellent equipment, not in their software (or even in their service and support, although that's a whole 'nuther gripe).</p>

<p>From 2005-2008 I used the original version of Nikon View that came with my D2H because Nikon's own NEF rendering to TIFF was the most faithful. I'd then open the TIFFs in Noise Ninja (and, later, Noiseware) for noise reduction. Then I'd save those TIFFs and edit them further in Paint Shop Pro or other software.</p>

<p>In retrospect, it was a huge waste of time. I'm having to re-edit hundreds of D2H NEFs to get better results. Fortunately with Lightroom I can automate most of that within batches of photos taken in various sessions where the lighting was fairly consistent - mostly in hospital settings.</p>

<p>While I don't often use a pixel level editor if I did need one now I'd probably get Photoshop Elements or Corel Paint Shop Pro, using Lightroom as the first step to export the NEFs to DNG.</p>

<p>Lex, thank you for that explanation. I think that if you do a lot of shooting under similar lighting conditions, LR wouldn't be much more time consuming than ViewNX2. I usually don't have sets of photos with similiar ligthing conditions. So presets wouldn't be of much help to me. (I would have to make too many of them for it to be of any practical use. I think.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm having to re-edit hundreds of D2H NEFs to get better results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you think that that is caused by the software? Not you being better at post processing now?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>....rather than trying to understand everything at once by reading a few posts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like to know what is going on, Mary. Hopefully it will result in informed decision making :-)</p>