Stork! (and messing in lightroom)


hmm I recognise this place! And some of you!
Staff member
Supporting Member
May 1, 2008
Reaction score
UK - England
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit

Old photo is old! That said I'm trying to beat lightroom somewhat - noise reduction in Lightroom 4 is impressive, certainly giving Neat Image a run for its money. I've still finer control over it in Neat Image, but honestly its a hard run race (esp since I've honestly not the best idea what I'm doing in Neat Image!).
Also I'm convinced that Lightroom is still rendering my shots with a more grainy/hard noise than what I've been used to with Photoshop Elements - I'm really not sure if this is a lightroom setting or not (I can't seem to find the control). I notice it most when opening up RAWs and lightroom tells me that "there is new editing options for this shot convert - yes/no".

Also I think I went a bit over the top - I can see banding (but then this monitor I'm on is a shocker for showing banding when no one else sees it so it might just be this screen).
Nice shot. Good observation on the differences in the way different software renders raw files. In the summer of 2007, I did some experiments in which I took Nikon Capture 4, ACR 3.xx? or whatever was current then, SilkyPix (from Japan, slow,weird, and wonderful too!), Canon's raw converter, and Bibble. IN ALL I HAD FIVE different raw converters, and I ran batches and batches of the SAME files through the appropriate raw converter software.

On many files, the differences were hard to discern...but on some images, the rendering of one of the raw converters was sometimes, streets ahead of the others!!! It was really a lot of work and hassle, but I got to see that in delicate, summer-type lighting conditions, SilkyPix, NIkon Capture, and Bibble were often very adept at making the lighting look delicate and nuanced, whereas the Adobe Camera Raw and Canon DPP renditions were usually pretty "stodgy" I guess would be the word...

Digital photographs are "made" in the software...
Digital photographs are "made" in the software...

I only skim read the discussion, but there was a similar message to one that I came across in the Canon group over on Flickr - the discussion was mostly focused around noise and sharpness and how, whilst sensors had advanced, it was the pace of software interpretation of the data that had advanced the faster and was the reason for bigger differences between newer and older camera models than the sensor tech.

It's certainly a big topic and one that is oft overlooked and even avoided (since its mostly pushing many who get into photography way outside of the area they "want" to be in and into software). That said the other side to the coin is that so many of these small differences vanish or become even harder to see in a resize or print and that its not until one is really pushing things that the differences can be seen.

What confuses me in this example is how its supposed to be same processing software running in both the adobe products - and yet something new/different is taking place in adobe lightroom.

Most reactions