LX3 RAW noise

[frank_p]

<p>I experience significantly more noise with raw files from my LX3 than I do with jpegs when opening them with either Lightroom or Photoshop Elements. Any suggestions/explanations/... Much appreciated.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>The LX3 is applying noise reduction to JPEGs before you see them. It isn't doing that step to the RAW files, which gives you the choice of keeping the noise or applying your own reduction.</p>

[frank_p]

<p>Thanks Eric. Yes I understand, it is just that the difference between jpeg and raw from the LX3 is much bigger than it is with my other camera (Canon 350D, Rebel XTi).</p>

[rvalois]

<p>Hi Frank ...<br>

I'm experiencing the same thing with my Canon S90 ... significantly more noise on RAW under low light conditions than my XTi and 50D. On the other hand, the S90 jpegs look GREAT!<br>

The joys of technology <[;-0)))<br>

Ray</p>

<p> </p>

[lachaine]

<p>Obviously, it's because the LX3 and the S90 have a smaller sensor than your other cameras. Their pictures will appear noiser in raw files without the appropriate amount of noise reduction applied. The JPEGs out of the camera have already had this done to them. If you do the exact same thing in the raw converter, you will get the same results as you did with the JPEGs. Personally, I think it's harder to get the right amount in software not provided by the manufacturer. It takes more experimentation, whereas say Canon's raw converter already knows exactly what's needed for each individual raw image, and it does it automatically unless you change it to something else.</p>

<p>This is all relative, of course. I do fine with my Canon S90 myself... and I use it for low light night street photography all the time. I'm a pre-digital guy, so a little texture in the picture doesn't bother me at all.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Topaz Denoise is a small inve$tment and likely superior to in-camera noise reduction for JPEG. The S90 is particularly blurry-looking at high ISO. Lightroom 3 has new stuff as well, but I don't know the details.

[Greg M]

<p>Not only will the noise be more substantial with LX3 RAW files than with your DSLR's files, but it's also not as easy to deal with as the DSLR files simply because of the size of the sensor. Makers do a really good job with JPEG engines on digicams. I used to fool with shooting RAW in past high-end digicams like the Panasonic FZ50 and Canon Powershot G5 and found myself hardly making any improvement in the lower ISO settings where the JPEG engines do so good, and once you get up to ISO 400 and above, while a RAW file can be made better...it's all relative. "Better" isn't necessarily the same as very good or even good. Compared to a similar file from your DSLR shot at the same higher ISO setting, they just don't really look that good. It's one of the tradeoffs for using a camera that much smaller than your better options.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I actually often turn off or reduce noise reduction when working up the raw files from my hopelessly inadequate P&S. I'm always after how the image will look to someone just viewing it... not someone doing a dpreview about the friggin thing. The "improvements" I make from the raw file usually have nothing to do with making the image look like or better than the JPEG would have. It's more about getting the look that I'm after. No camera of any price or size does that straight from the camera unless all you want is a digital equivalent of a good snapshot. In some ways, many ways in fact, using raw is more of benefit on small sensor camera files than it is with DSLRs... it's not less, anyway. You do have to know what you're doing, though, and, if you ask me, to make the most of digital processing, it helps to have had a background in a real darkroom... because the greatest benefit of digital photography is bringing colour photography into the same realm that B&W used to occupy among photographers... for the ease of post-processing the picture. Once you learn to take pictures for what you like, rather than to please potential digital nitpickers, life will be a lot more pleasant.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Bill, the noise filters in Lightroom 3/Photoshop CS5 look better to me than any third-party noise reduction software I have tried, which includes both Neat Image and Noiseware Professional. Since upgrading from CS4 to CS5 I have not bothered re-loading Noiseware. Being able to perform noise reduction in the RAW converter before conversion to me is the way to go, and these new noise sliders in ACR are better than any post conversion software I've seen. This is as good as ISO 3200 has ever looked to me from an Olympus DSLR..</p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-2010-Images/11793372_9wMGL#929433776_UrDXP"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-2010-Images/P7090473/929433776_UrDXP-XL.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

<p><a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-2010-Images/11793372_9wMGL#954592873_cwzTK"><img id="lightBoxImage" src="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-2010-Images/P7090473-crop/954592873_cwzTK-O.jpg" alt="" /></a><br>

<a href="http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Sports/Lone-Star-Park-2010-Images/P7090473/929433776_UrDXP-XL.jpg"></a></p>

[frank_p]

<p>Thanks guys. I had a good look today at the noise reduction tools in Lightroom 3 and believe that my main concern is now gone...</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Greg, that is good for Olympus ISO 1600! Topaz Denoise is a lot better than NeatImage or Noiseware, which I did not buy because the salt&pepper filter in PaintShopPro worked better. Whether LR3 is better than Topaz Denoise is an interesting question for the Digital Dungeon forum.

[Greg M]

<p>Hi Bill. Actually, ISO 3200. Whether 1600 or 3200, both are greatly improved for that system.</p>

<p>I've had a friend who recently purchased Topaz and is amazed with it, too.</p>