D300 and noise with TIFF convertions

<p>Ann, I suggested that only because it appears the questions and answers are going to various directions, which seem confusing to you - and I can understand that. I guess perhaps I am more result-oriented than process-oriented. ;) Having said that, I agree with Lex that using the right and "final" program selection is important. I have been intensively learning and using LR in the last two months after deciding that, finally, THAT is the program (in conjunction with Photoshop) for my complete workflow - and half-heartedness is no longer acceptable. And I wanted to "do it right" from now on.</p>

<p>If I were to make the leap to Photoshop, I wouldn't have continued using ViewNX2 (I couldn't have done it either, since it has got no DNG converter) . What did you use before LR and Photoshop, Mary?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>A little of both.</p>

<p>At the time, 2005-2008, I tried everything available for Windows PCs - Nikon Capture (dreadful noise reduction and sharpening tools), Photoshop (full version and Elements), Corel PSP 10, Bibble, several specialty packages developed specifically for wedding and portrait photographers (all long since defunct) - but nothing combined all of the better tools and an efficient workflow into a single package. Bibble came close but looking back now at a batch of photos from one session involving a hospital documentary project the skin colors are a little too happy for my taste and the noise reduction tended to produce a plasticky appearance. It was a variation of Noise Ninja incorporated in that version of Bibble, but lacked the full controls of the standalone version of NN. Aperture was promising but Mac only.</p>

<p>Ann, I have always used Photoshop, and Adobe Bridge along with it - well, when I felt like to; and also Lightroom to import a bit here and there. No concerted effort and never really good at it. I did not have a determined effort to learn LR until a few months ago, when I realized there are hundreds and thousands of uncatalogued and unprocessed images from my past travels (many of which are damned good), and I won't want to redo them 100 times in the future when I "know better", I decided I must learn LR well to get off on the right foot.</p>

<p>Like Lex, I also have Bibble, but it cannot compare to LR.</p>

<p>A number of people I know who are good photographers use Photoshop Elements instead of Photoshop. It gets the job done as well. Elements is an excellent value, and it works with LR as well.</p>

<p>This might be a dumb question, but I am under the impression that I can get the same results with ViewNX2/Gimp that any of you can get with LR4. Except that ViewNX2 hasn't got a noise reduction, and neither do Gimp.</p>

<p>Isn't it just adjustment of exposure, colors, colortemperature, color balance, tint, hue/saturation and levels? The end result you would be getting would be the same, wouldn't it? I find the sharpening in Gimp to be decent too, at least if the image is not too soft to begin with.</p>

<p>You can't use ViewNX2 as a user-controllable noise-reduction tool. Nikon's full-on edit software (Capture NX2) does that - and a lot more - very well.<br /><br />You might, Ann, also try a free trial of a couple of Corel's products. Some of them are very powerful, and very cheap compared to Adobe's. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can't use ViewNX2 as a user-controllable noise-reduction tool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, Matt. But until the TIFFs started looking so noisy, I have never felt the need for noise reduction software. Actually I have never had any noise reduction software. But I don't use high ISO values very often, and that is because I want to avoid the noise rather than having to clean up the photos. (I understand that it is easy to do if you have LR4.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You might, Ann, also try a free trial of a couple of Corel's products.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the tip. I'll look into that if I would want to buy imaging software. Gimp is fine for now. I am looking forward to seeing how the effects of the 16 bits files will be.</p>

<p><< This might be a dumb question, but I am under the impression that I can get the same results with ViewNX2/Gimp that any of you can get with LR4...>><br /> <br /> No, not dumb. Coupled with a good image to begin with, you can get good results using any image-processing program - or even<strong> without</strong> using any image-processing software. We used to do that with slide film, didn't we? (I do miss those days somewhat!)</p>

<p>However, LR is not just an image-enhancing software. It is a <strong>complete workflow</strong> program, beginning from cataloguing images, ranking, key-wording, grouping, developing/enhancing,...through publishing to books, pdf, slideshow, social media, email... It is end-to-end.</p>

<p>LR has some enhancing capability that Photoshop lacks, and lacks some capability that Photoshop possesses, such as layering, stitching, HDR, text graphic.</p>

<p>No you don't need it of course. No one absolutes needs any particular software. I haven't "really" used it until now.</p>

<p>This is one of the most comical posts I have read in my ten year here on PN. Why do you worry about TIFF files? </p>