1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

In Camera Noise Reduction

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Old Picker, May 13, 2012.

  1. Old Picker

    Old Picker Mu-43 Regular

    41
    Feb 19, 2012
    Cwmbran Wales UK
    Hi,
    Here's a question, how many GH1/GH2 users feel that in camera NR is essential and use it all the time? I suppose this could be applicable to any camera?
    Also, if you are using a software programme which gives you NR etc, would it be better just to shoot raw, no camera adjustments and just use the software for NR and any other In camera adjustments?
    It has come to the point where I'm thinking more about in camera adjustments than taking photographs, which may or may not be a good thing.
    I'm just trying to find out what is the best way to go and other guys opinions.
    I'm coming from a background where I use to have a Fujica AX5, had my own little darkroom until the kids came along etc, and to a certain extent, I never fully appreciated all the in camera control with the GH1/GH2.
    Many thanks
    OP
     
  2. BrankoD76

    BrankoD76 New to Mu-43

    8
    Mar 14, 2012
    Difference between using NR settings and without using NR setting decreases as ISO increases. Maybe it's always some sort of NR being used... When you get to ISO 6400, I think both of them apply similar amount of NR.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I prefer to shoot Raw with no in-camera NR. Much prefer to do my tweaks in Lightroom where the controls are much more refined and easier to apply in very precise amounts, if you decide you need them. In camera processing to a JPG file "bake" them into your file and you lose huge amount of control in post processing. The power to make your images be just as you want them to be is vastly superior in good apps like Lightroom. Think of Lightroom as akin to the darkroom that we formerly traditional photographers used to enhance and custom tweak our film processing and printing.

    If you're just taking snapshots and aren't interested in refining or tweaking to best potential, then in-camera processing may be good enough for those particular needs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    While I agree with dhart that there is a much finer level of control in LR, I have found the JPG engine in the camera to be perfectly "tweak able" to suit my needs, totally automating the post processing function. I think it makes much more sense to spend time adjusting the in-camera engine than it does to make a LR preset.

    But then, I have a G3 now and high ISO noise is much less an issue than it was with my GF1 ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Neon

    Neon Mu-43 Regular

    132
    Mar 12, 2012
    North Wales,UK.
    shoot raw sort out noise post process
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    995
    Dec 31, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Chuck
    Lightroom has become the great equalizer in terms of post-processing, i.e., it makes processing time for a RAW image essentially the same as for a JPEG. So if you're going to use Lightroom for cataloging, sorting and filtering, you may as well capture the full image information available to you in RAW. If you want maximum flexibility, capture RAW+JPEG with your in-camera JPEG settings optimized.

    On the other hand, if you don't wish to do any post-processing except in special circumstances, working those in-camera settings to give you the best possible JPEGs is the way to go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Old Picker

    Old Picker Mu-43 Regular

    41
    Feb 19, 2012
    Cwmbran Wales UK
    Hey All,
    many thanks for the help and advice,
    old picker
     
  8. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    If you're going to use LR scripts to apply to all images anyways, you may as well shoot JPG (with tuning in the engine to your taste) IMHO
     
  9. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I see no point in destroying a lot of image detail and baking in limitations by capturing in JPG, even if it isn't really obvious to you when you view at screen resolution. But that's my personal approach to image creation and not everyone shares that approach.

    For those using Lightroom, Aperture, or the like, I'd recommend RAW capture - IF optimizing IQ is important to you - over JPG capture any day.

    However, for those who just want casual image capture, little to no bothering with image development, and don't plan on much beyond casual screen enjoyment of casually created images, JPG definitely serves that need just fine, indeed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I record both JPEG and RAW if speed isn't most concerned, because sometimes the in-camera JPEG gives me the colour I want and with RAW I always get better details. I don't think there's much difference between NR-2 and NORMAL so I'd just leave it as default.