Leica high ISO files and Lightroom 3 - amazing !!! - 4 samples Lr2 vs Lr3 inside

[menos]

As I am processing tons of photos over this weekend now, I still didn't put my jaw from the ground, as I am still amazed by the big difference, the new Lightroom 3 makes to high ISO Leica files.

These samples are all straight out of camera + BW converted DNG files without further processing. You see 1:1 screen captures from my Macbook Pro 15" jpg without any processing or converting. The crops in the side by side comparison are 1:1 crops within Lightroom 3. Left side old Lightroom 2 - right side Lightroom 3:

ISO2500 1/60 90 Cron @ f2 | shadow side badly underexposed
With Lightroom 3 this is even good to print @ A3, as the grain gets even less prevalent during print. With Lr 2.6, it is more like pushed ISO12800 Tri X.

ISO1250 1/125 90 Cron @ f4 I think | see the much smoother grads and the cleaned up under exposed surfaces in this cockpit shot in the pit lane?

ISO 640 1/125 135 APO Telyt @ f3.4 | same as above - cleaner surfaces and slightly more detail without changing a setting - just converted the file into the new Lr3 processing engine.

ISO 1250 1/125 135 APO Telyt @ f3.4 | much less grain, but a slightly softer look, as I missed focus by a hair in this shot. with the much better sharpening tool in Lr3 though, this is academic, to solve. The print will be awesome!

All the issues, I had with the Leica M8.2 files, when I came from the mighty Nikon D3, then pushed Tri-X and then the surprising EPSON R-D1 seem solved now!

Lightroom 3 let me push the Leica files now and clean them up to the natural grainy look, I prefer, giving me more light for the night shots, I love so much!
I don't know about Aperture or all the other raw converters out there, as I am a Lightroom guy since I do digital photography, but this software is a must have, when shooting Leica digitals!

For some, these might not look impressive - note, these files have not been touched yet! When adjusting exposure, noise reduction and sharpening, they look mind blowing. The difference between Lr2 and Lr3 is epic!

 

[semilog]

My experience with LR3 and Olympus 4/3 files is the same as yours. The LR3 noise reduction is now better than the in-camera Olympus NR. In LR2, it was worse.

 

[sc_rufctr]

Great write up and samples. Thanks for posting

 

[Richard Marks]

LR 3 is clearly substantiallybetter from your tests. I still love capture 1. It might be interesting to see how this compares (perhaps you have done this?)
Much as I love Leica, I genuinely believe the current high ISO falls quite a way short of the alternatives. I am hoping that if the digital RF survives that this will be addressed in subsequent models.

Richard

 

[menos]

My experience with LR3 and Olympus 4/3 files is the same as yours. The LR3 noise reduction is now better than the in-camera Olympus NR. In LR2, it was worse.

Yes semilog, I have first really recognized the new noise reduction module with pushed files from the EPSON R-D1.
I pushed as much as 3 stops and was able, to get the files to an level, that looked quite similar, to ISO3200 pushed TX400.

Printed, they blew my socks off (I did only A4 and they looked lovely).

Today, I really saw the difference, just the conversion from "old Lightroom" to Lr3 makes without any further adjustments.
I am really happy and recommend this software even for full price for anybody, shooting available light, regardless of camera.

Great write up and samples. Thanks for posting

Thanks - and you're welcome ;-)

LR 3 is clearly substantiallybetter from your tests. I still love capture 1. It might be interesting to see how this compares (perhaps you have done this?)
Much as I love Leica, I genuinely believe the current high ISO falls quite a way short of the alternatives. I am hoping that if the digital RF survives that this will be addressed in subsequent models.

Richard

Richard - right on!
When Nikon introduced the D3 back in 2008, they remained at 12MP from their former crop sensor, but went full frame and implemented bigger photo sites in a sensor, that by todays standards is still leading edge in low light.

If Leica would have made this with the already excellent M8 sensor (I am not talking color and IR, as I do mostly BW), a M9 purchase would be a no brainer!

This and, that in other areas, the improvement bumps really are not substantial for my applications have me undecided for the M9 still.
I really hope for an M10, whenever it comes, that addresses the issue, that modern Leica digitals can be natively shot just to ISO 2500, while my film bodies have no issues, to meter me up to ISO 6400 (which I use occasionally - mainly, I use ISO3200 and I am still under 1/60!).

It is very, very nice to see, that software products bump up the functionality of "old digital products" (for me) substantially.
It is 300 USD very well spent.

Thank you Adobe (and some collaborating Leica engineers, I suppose)!

 

[menos]

Richard, I never tried Capture one, as I am very happy with Lightroom's all in one solution.

When I started with photography 3 years ago, I lost myself in:
Nikon Transfer for copying my files from card to computer,
Nikon ViewNX for browsing and selecting files,
Nikon Capture NX for processing,
Photoshop for repairing (dust, etc.)
and a few tools, I can't remember.

It was a path of horror, that burned the little time, I had left in no time.
Lightroom for me was a healing, and I loved, how it really gets better and better with every update.

I suppose Apple's Aperture is similarly good, but I never used it.

I am too old now, to experiment with computers anymore ;-)

 

[ashfaque]

Actually I like both of them. I should tell you that I like grains. Come to think of it, these grains give the images a certain film look. I may be wrong though - just an observation from the film images I've seen.

Thank you very much, Dirk.

Ash

 

[menos]

Actually I like both of them. I should tell you that I like grains. Come to think of it, these grains give the images a certain film look. I may be wrong though - just an observation from the film images I've seen.

Thank you very much, Dirk.

Ash

Ash, you're welcome ;-)
As of the grain, I love that too, which is why up to Lr3, I never used noise reduction tools in my photos (except some very unique exceptions).

The thing about Lr3 is, that indeed, it gives you the possibility, to push even more light and come away with high ISO, which has been limited before by the camera.
The above samples might not be extreme samples, that illustrate this (except the first maybe).
You get now much more freedom to shoot and develop more specific, to what you want in print or web.

I like the perspective, that with improved software, "older cameras" don't get obsolete so quick.
I still use the "ancient" (in digital terms), but wonderful R-D1, and with such software, it still shines - I like that ;-)

 

[wintoid]

I'm really not trolling or trying to be provocative, but I can't see much difference. Could you point out some areas to look at, to see what's changed so much?

 

[tlitody]

My impression is that while all the LR3 images have less grain, they all look slightly softer. But I guess it's how the prints look that really counts and we can't see those.

 

[alien8]

I agree that the LR3 images look softer and, to my eyes, inferior to the LR2 images. Personally I don't see noise reduction software as well suited to 35mm black and white film photography. Grain is part of the medium, and in fact when looking for sharpness in a well executed b+w print one typically looks for sharp grain patterns which will be absent from the OP's posted images due to the post processing. Also, it's important to keep in mind that noise reduction is not the same thing as grain reduction for the simple reason that grain and noise are not the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if such software is developed solely for the purposes of noise reduction on digital capture files, making its use a film scans a dubious proposition.

 

[menos]

Most software like LR, ACR, C1, etc. have better NR than in-camera, generally. At least more flexible. The latest updates are definitely an improvement; the latest ACR is looking pretty nice indeed since I've installed it. I use it primarily in PS rather than LR.

I still stick with my usual by default though; Noise Ninja. Very, very customizable and great results. I don't use it often, but when I have - it has worked wonders on otherwise unusable shots.

But as with any NR software... Go lightly. It's easy to overdo, and you'll lose fine detail.

Much my philosophy on noise reduction ;-)
I used noise ninja for the very few samples, that I wanted to save from not using, as they were just not usable.

The big difference between NN and the new module in Lr3 is, that using NN can be a hassle with more than a few files, while the module in Lr3 costs you a few seconds - this is much to my taste.

I'm really not trolling or trying to be provocative, but I can't see much difference. Could you point out some areas to look at, to see what's changed so much?

No worries ;-)

The biggest difference is, that Lr2 reduced noise by creating a really blotchy pattern, loosing detail early and doing not much about noise in the end.
I never used it because of its character.

Look especially in slightly tone changing surfaces and underexposed areas.
The difference should be clear there.

Also (and this might be the biggest difference), what can be seen in Lr2, is pretty much everything, that is - more noise reduction and you will see blotches and artifacts.
Lr3 pretty much starts from here and does a much more detailed and lighter job (the whole reason for my amazement).

It's slight, but it's there. With NR, less is more. You don't want to remove too much, because detail usually goes with it...

Very true, "grain" gives the essence to the photos, I want.
The left side images were not bad per se regarding this.

Lr3 just gives a much wider freedom of pushing light and working with grains, detail and sharpening.

Pixel peepers, be warned! Everybody, who prints regularly knows, that what you see on screen is VERY different regarding noise, sharpness and detail from what will be seen on the final medium.
Again - Lr3 just gives more possibilities now - I really like it that way.

My impression is that while all the LR3 images have less grain, they all look slightly softer. But I guess it's how the prints look that really counts and we can't see those.

Good eye, but this is (surprisingly) not fully true!

Look at the shot with the Spyker behind the pit walls!
The stickers on the roofline seem to show more detail in the Lr3 shot, while there is clearly less prevalent noise in the whole image than in the Lr2 shot!

This really buzzed me, as the rule normally would be: more noise reduction = less detail!

And as you name it - these shots would be way enough detailed (in input sharpening terms) for very, very sharp and detailed prints already (while they have no sharpening or other adjustments yet).

Anybody, who has used a Nikon D3 with the finest Nikkor glass knows, what I am writing here - these Leica files are insanely sharp by comparison (you look at 1:1 crops here).

I agree that the LR3 images look softer and, to my eyes, inferior to the LR2 images. Personally I don't see noise reduction software as well suited to 35mm black and white film photography. Grain is part of the medium, and in fact when looking for sharpness in a well executed b+w print one typically looks for sharp grain patterns which will be absent from the OP's posted images due to the post processing. Also, it's important to keep in mind that noise reduction is not the same thing as grain reduction for the simple reason that grain and noise are not the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if such software is developed solely for the purposes of noise reduction on digital capture files, making its use a film scans a dubious proposition.

That one I just don't understand Sean ???

 

[Matus]

Well, not wanting to offend anybody, but to me the difference between "left" and "right" images is rather subtle. "left" is a tiny bit less nosy, "right" is a tiny bit less sharp. I would guess that just tuning the parameters would make them equal. I am would not expect to see any difference in print.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

My impression is that while all the LR3 images have less grain, they all look slightly softer. But I guess it's how the prints look that really counts and we can't see those.

That's what i was thinking. I'm glad i'm not the only one. The left side images look slightly sharper. I wonder how the LR3's noise changes if its images were sharpened a bit to match?

 

[jamato8]

I don't mind grain at all and use higher ISO's when I want it for effect or if it is there due to the need of the higher ISO, I don't mind at all. I find in BW the grain to be much like film. I used to work in a lab, when digital wasn't even a thought and always did all of my own BW. I like the effect of the M9 with ISO.

I can't see much difference in the images. At least for me, not enough to matter. I use LR3 now but only because some of the other workflows are better.

 

[semilog]

The differences that menos reports are (at least with the files I've been working with) even greater in color vs. monochrome. The LR3 noise reduction shows less clumping (local pattern defects) and blotchiness, it does a noticably better job with chroma noise, and the "grain" distribution is, overall much tighter, without appearing geometrical. In short, it is much more pleasingly film-like.

Here's an example of an ISO 1000 file taken at dusk, with an Oly E-620, full crop on top. Lens is 12-60 SWD @ 45mm (90mm eq.), f/3.9. Handheld.

On the left is an out-of-camera JPEG, on the right is an LR3 file. Bear in mind that the Olympus in-camera JPEG engine is widely viewed as one of the best, if not the best, on the market. My efforts with LR2 generally cnnot do better than what the camera produces in a JPEG file. The LR3 file is a bit grainier than it has to be because sharpening is somewhat more than default [40/0.8/35] . Had I tried to pull a stunt like this with the JPEG file, or an LR2 rendering, local pattern noise, especially chroma, would have gotten completely out of hand.

 

[dogberryjr]

I'm very impressed with LR3's noise reduction too. It's been fun just messing around with old snapshots from the 80s and applying NR to flatbed scans of aged Kodak Gold prints. Very cool stuff.

 

[ampguy]

yup

yup

It's very clearly using more noise reduction (like some p&s cameras) at the expense of resolution.

My impression is that while all the LR3 images have less grain, they all look slightly softer. But I guess it's how the prints look that really counts and we can't see those.

 

[semilog]

It's very clearly using more noise reduction (like some p&s cameras) at the expense of resolution.

It's well understood that grain increases the visual impression of sharpness.

The same is not necessarily true of resolution (which can be rigorously defined by the imaging chain's MTF), and it is by no means clear that LR3 renderings of a given RAW file have lower resolution. In fact, my strong suspicion is that LR3 renderings have equivalent or better resolution (in the formal sense) than LR2 renderings.

What's important in practical terms is that LR3 renderings – especially from noisy files – are much more tolerant of sharpening than LR2 renderings. There's simply more room to play with the files before they start to fall apart. This is what essentially everyone who's made the switch from LR2 to LR3 is reporting, and it's my experience as well. With my Olympus files it means about 1/2 a stop of improvement, over the range from ISO400 to ISO1600 and with the biggest gains at ISO 800-1600. At lower sensitivity the difference is negligible (the E-620's native ISO – where it delivers highest SNR and DR – is 200).

 

[ampguy]

excuse me

excuse me

let's say ... at the expense of "perceived sharpness" happy??

It's well understood that grain increases the visual impression of sharpness.

The same is not necessarily true of resolution (which can be rigorously defined by the imaging chain's MTF), and it is by no means clear that LR3 renderings of a given RAW file have lower resolution. In fact, my strong suspicion is that LR3 renderings have equivalent or better resolution than LR3 files.