Mike Chaney's Tech Corner

I've read people, on this forum, saying that the 'out of the can' RAW interpretation works a lot of the time. I'm not disputing that but the one coming from my GH2 is certainly too flat. That is not a bad thing. I'd rather be able to add contrast and not be disappointed by burnt highlights and overdark shadows. They are also too soft, but again I can add sharpening and I can't remove it.

To cure, or at least help, the flatness there is an Exposure box to tick in Auto-Correct within Edit Image.

To deal with the sharpening there is DFS and I'm reading a general consensus that something like 5 and 100 is not a bad start point.

Back to flatness I'd wonder about using a contrast creating S curve moving the positions 4 and 12 about half way down(4) and up(12).

I am not suggesting this will produce 100% success every time. However, I'm always looking at ways of speeding my workflow after coming home with, say, 100 images to get at least acceptable enough for a web folder - the ones that really matter being re-visited later.

As Fred and Terry know I do a lot of high iso work so, for that, I'd have a special filter that ticks the extra box.

Tony

The reason I started this thread is because my photography (which I 'laughingly' call photo journalism - well what else is it?) involves taking two or three hundred shots and getting about a hundred of them up to an acceptable quality for a web site. My web site is very much a proofing medium from which friends order prints and three magazines draw images. As long as the web image looks acceptable I know always have time to 'fine tune' the chosen shots for further use. The poser was as to how I could do this in QU as quickly as Lightroom!

Someone suggested creating some web sized jpgs of the full shoot and using those frames to guide me as to which shots to junk and which to keep. As I have a copy of BreezeBrowser I'm using that. It is fast in displaying RAW's and I'm conversant with the assorted methods of tagging, the shortcuts, and so on.

Whilst I am culling my three hundred down to one hundred I let QU build its RAW caches on all three hundred. This is, to a degree I think, dead time in QU so I can usefully spend it with my BB and my culling. By the time I have finished in BB QU is fully cached and ready for action.

What I had not realised, after fiddling around with RAW refine, was just how reliable the RAWs were without tinkering with the nine rectangles and the assortment of ways of getting the selected rectangle to alter the whole image. I did around 95 images this morning and only one 'needed' some highlight recovery. I am not claiming the others could not be improved - but I'm looking for speed at this point.

I then created a filter that :-
Upped Contrast to 20
Added DFS 4 and 100
Auto-corrected Exposure
Shadow Noise - as I was shooting at around 1600 ASA (probably not needed normally)

I shall call this filter '1'

I ran this filter over all 95 files. The thumbnails all looked 'acceptable' so I took a flyer and created my set of 85% jpgs.

I looked at the jpgs in my Breeze and concluded that 13 shots really needed more work. I flagged them in BB and took my BB into a minimised screen so I could park it at the side of my widescreen monitor and work again in QU. About a third of the shots needed cropping (I had not bothered to take a second lens - lazy bones ). Most of the rest were dingy and needed plus ten of Brightness and a push from the left in the Levels box to get the blacks back. Now I know this works I can create a second filter for it and I'll call it filter '2'.

One shot needed work on the RAW and this was the one with blown highlights. I made all these changes, creating a second jpg after each change.

I went back into BB and made sure all the new jpgs with {Q} in front of them were 'good enough'. I deleted the first versions and used the batch renaming of BB to remove the {Q} suffixes - partly because the HTML browser creator in BB cannot deal with the { or }.

The two resultant folders are:-

http://www.tonygamble.org/Christmas_decorations_2012/index.htm
http://www.tonygamble.org/Family_Carols_2012/index.htm

Yes, they could be better - and yes, I'd love suggestions as to how to improve them. But I'm posting this message as I am spending quite a bit of time talking with LR using colleagues who 'need' a system that lets them process hundreds of images a day. I have to say, and congratulations to Mike, I was staggered at how effective QU is at getting highly useable images from RAW files with next to no operator intervention.

But any ideas of how I can get faster would be highly welcome.

Tony

Hi Tony
The most obvious thing is they all are very "warm" due to the artificial  lighting; some white balance correction in raw refine is in order I think.
It all looks very "Christmasy" and good fun with Santa, hope you gor to sit on his knee and get a nice pressy.  ;D
Terry

Warm. Yes, but you know me. Err on the side of too much contrast and frightened to remove the warmth!

But, to heed your comment rather than challenge it, would you have found one image with a good clean grey spot to pipette on and then saved just that WB to every other RAW? Following my quest for speed I would not want to them indivually.

No prezzy from Santa - unless you count a tincture in the Club Bar! Not still in costume I hasten to add.

Tony

I make no apologies for re-activating this 18 month old thread as I have learnt quite a lot since those days.

Firstly, removing the Shadow Noise filter almost doubles the speed when entering an edit and saving it. That is a big saving.

The Auto-corrected exposure box does not, IMHO, help a lot so I have removed it.

The other big improvement to speed I have achieved is by making the thumbnails small and of the lowest resolution. With that I can still see shots that may need changes. The spacebar preview works faster and one can get into the Edit or RAW Edit more quickly than from larger and better defined thumbs.

When I have a batch of images that look as they need similar corrections I put them into the queue and use the 'apply to all images in the queue' radio button when saving.

With these alterations to my work flow I am seeing big, big, savings in time. But any other suggestions are, as always, welcome.

Tony

It depends on how you set it up. All it does is clip the histogram at each end which increases contrast and the amount of clipping is controlled by the user.
I think an experienced user is unlikely ever to use it.
Using noise reduction in a "catch-all" filter is bad news I think; this is used for the "exception rather than the rule". Getting your raw refine NR settings right should in many cases, sort noise before you get to the editor.
Terry

Hi Tony,
I know you like heavy contrast, and that is your prerogative, no argument at all. I have a number of your images.
So I think you understand that Qimage processes the Raw images using algorithms that try to prevent blown highlights and mud shadows... so the auto processing might not suit your taste.
But built in, there are ways to mitigate the process toward your high contrast likes.
You can use Levels or Curves...and SAVE the setting in a filter.
Check the Global filter box on the main screen, and it will apply the contrast increase to all images.

Another item is the NOISE.   Open the Editor Raw options, and move the NR slider to the right for your camera.
Then you wont have to deal with it with noise filters.

See screen snaps.
Save a Curves or a Levels filter, name it Contrast 1  (you might want stronger ones that could become contrast 2....)
You can type in numbers into the boxes for more accurate adjusting

Good Luck
Fred

Here's an ON/OFF
with the filter

Thanks guys.

As always something new to learn.

I have never bothered about camera profiles. I use the Ricoh GR and the Olympus E-M5. Where should they be stored? They are not in my Prog Data, DDI etc folder.

I understand what you mean about the NR slider but I guess I need to find the profile first

I have used straight contrast enhancement in my latest folder. You'll hate it Fred, but it makes us Brits think we are in a sunny country.

http://www.tonygamble.org/Fete_Gen_14/index.html

And, yes, I see the value of saving those 's' curves and the histogram sliders.

You say "Check the Global filter box on the main screen, and it will apply the contrast increase to all images."

Which box on which screen, please?

Tony

With the check in that box and the correct filter selected, it will be applied to every image.
To see that applied filter, you need a hi res image.... hover over the thumb and hit spacebar, or HQ in the page editor.

Fred

Thanks Fred,

And the camera profiles?

Tony

Tony,
Your DH-2 camera profile should be in the Profiles folder.
See snaps.
The easiest way to get there is through Qimage... see snaps.
Qimage will apply it automatically as long as you have Enable Custom Profiles checked. See snap.
To assure yourself that the profile is applied, simply hover over the thumb from a raw image for that camera, and read the HOTBAR below the thumbnail screen.
OK?
Let me know if you have it working.
Fred

Thanks Fred,

But "I use the Ricoh GR and the Olympus E-M5."

Are the same as the DH-2?

Tony

The profiles that are supplied with a Qimage Ultimate download are camera specific for RAW files made for use in Qimage Ultimate.
I don't think someone else's will work in Raw mode.
You can apply any filter to JPG or TIF images in Qimage. 
Fred

Thanks Fred,

So when you say "Another item is the NOISE.   Open the Editor Raw options, and move the NR slider to the right for your camera.
Then you wont have to deal with it with noise filters." that is only applicable if you have one of the cameras at the bottom of this page where there is quite a short Qimage Ultimate profile list.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/tech-raw.htm#profiles

If, as in the case of my two cameras, they are not in the list the slider will not work. Yes?

Tony

Not so Tony,
That noise reduction in the Raw Options works on specific cameras, with no connection to the Camera profiles.
The settings for Noise Reduction and default setting for Sharpening are camera specific. That means that you can have different settings for different cameras, and Qimage will use the saved setting for the correct camera when it sees a Raw image from that camera.
The camera profile is for a corrected color space... if you don't have one, AdobeRGB is used.

The NR slider is adaptive. It adds more Noise filtering as it reads your ISO numbers being high.
If you find that a lot of your pictures call for high ISO and you find that you need more Noise reduction before you print, MOVE that slider in the Raw Option box to the right.
This will set the threshold for the Noise reduction to apply more sooner.
Experiment!
Move your NR slider all the way to the right, and then rebuild the thumbs for that folder.
Check the images,,,,   too soft? Back the slider off.

Just set it right, and then forget it.
Don't forget to rebuild the thumbs between experiments

Fred

Thanks Fred,

I'll do some experimenting.

Quite a lot of new stuff to try. But all in the right direction.

By the way. That long list on that RAW page includes the DP1m and DP2m. The next time someone alters that page it would be worth removing them. Sadly QU does little more than turn them into underwater shots. An interesting effect but not all that kind on flesh tones :'(

Tony

Tony,
That is not correct.  ::)
You can apply the raw NR settings whether you have a camera raw profile or not.
You can save your raw preferences for a particular camera, make sure a raw thumb is selected before you do and then QU will pick up the Exif name for that camera.
See screen shots attached.
Terry

Thanks Terry,

Glad I re-surfaced the thread. I hope it is as useful to others as it has been for me.

Tony

I have tried that NR slider on a sequence of higher ISO shots, 1600, 3200, 6400

None then two thirds.

I cannot see any difference in the converted Tifs of each pair.

Any clues please?

Tony

Did you use version 234? Did you rebuild the thumbs of the images you are looking at?

Send me the noisiest.

Fred

Thanks Fred,

Yes and Yes.

I am only using the RAW slider - not the tick boxes in the edit screen.

Files on their way.

Tony

Sorry I took so long but Thursday is lunch with the photogs day.

Ok, your images are just plain silly to use those as examples of noise!!

   ISO 25,600 to shoot something that is equivalent to taking a picture of the sky at 25,600 ISO.
You are intentionally creating noise by shooting a gray... plain gray... like shooting a blue sky and sharpening it with Unsharp Mask 10/5000.
Same thing!
Nevertheless, Qimage coped with it with two clicks.
Leaving the Noise reduction slider in middle default position.
.. and since that really isn't Luminance noise but Chroma grain, I used the Chroma filter which filtered it out.

I am glad that you sent the images so I know why you were unhappy.
Thank you for the extra effort.

Fred

Fred,

I thought we were considering this:-

"I have tried that NR slider on a sequence of higher ISO shots, 1600, 3200, 6400

None then two thirds.

I cannot see any difference in the converted Tifs of each pair."

You have my 6400 and the 1600 and 3200 are on the way.

Yes, I got the image clean with that tick box in edit. What I was trying to do was to find the right setting for the slider - by doing the experimenting you asked for on this message thread yesterday.

If altering the slider makes no difference then I apologise for wasting anyone's time.

Tony

It makes no difference on those images because the "noise" really isn't noise for a noise filter.
It is a specific type of digital graininess attributed to underexposure and extreme ISO.   The Noise reduction filter is not designed for that problem.
That's like taking a knife to a gun fight!
It certainly was not a waste of time. It was ab opportunity to address any misconception that all noise is the same and a single filter works on all noise.
Thanks,
Fred

Ok, Fred.

So that plain disk is no good.

Tell me what shot to take and I'll do it. That camera is pretty noise free up to 1600 - but I'll shoot what you want and you can show me the slider working.

Tony

Tony,
I just looked over the new batch you sent.
See how much cleaner they are?
But also notice how you start at F 3.2 @ 1/125,  and then next one is F 4.0 @ 1/160, and the 4.5 @ 1/250
You change the ISO and float the exposure, so the higher the ISO, the noisier the image gets... I guess you have a reason.

I set my Aperture priority locked in on F 6.3, and the shutter varies with the light. I want a decent shutter speed to freeze birds and action.... so just a glance at the shutter speed in the eye piece tells me that I need a higher ISO. So I kick it 2 clicks to 800 and recheck my shutter... OK it's 1/.400 or faster.
But I never let both aperture and shutter float!
Fred

But I never let both aperture and shutter float!

It is what happens on my camera if you use the P setting.

Back to my question.

Experiment!
Move your NR slider all the way to the right, and then rebuild the thumbs for that folder.
Check the images,,,,   too soft? Back the slider off.

Tell me what shot to send you so you can show me the slider working, please.

Tony

I wish I had some high ISO shots to send to you. I only have one at1600 which I posted in the 2014.234 thread..
I am hoping that Terry will have some. He takes a lot of low light insect macros.
Patience...
Fred

Thanks Fred,

I'd much rather send you one of mine so I can see what I am doing wrong with QU.

Tony

OK shoot!
Supper time here

Tell me what shot to send you so you can show me the slider working, please.

What ISO? What sort of a picture?

Bedtime here.

But I'll have it to you by dawn US time.

Tony

No reply...so I have done two shots at 6400 of the corner of my desk.

One with the slider at None and the other at High.

Unless anyone can spot any difference I must be doing something wrong !!

Tony,
I just sent you an image which you can see how the NR handles it in the 233 version compared to the 234 version.
I sent you the raw image. It is 1600 ISO

I can't use JPGS. Must be raw to test.

I feel sure you will be able to see the difference between the way the old NR handled this image and the way the new one does.

Fred

Fred,

I am talking about the slider you asked me to experiment with two days ago.

I have processed the RAW you sent me with the slider in both extreme left/right positions.

The resultant converted files look totally identical.

Yes, 233 and 234 do different things to noise. I have seen that, but that is not my question. My question is about the slider you asked me to fine tune.

Tony

Tony,
I tried to explain that as best I could.
That Sliding NR filter is adaptive, for one thing.  That means it applies a varying amount of noise reduction to each image based on the slider position which is the threshold for applying, and the amount of noise (real noise, not Chroma that you sent to me).
I know I said this before because I remember spelling threshhold with two (h) s and I had to correct it. :-)
So the bottom line is that either I will have to get a noisy image from a friend of mine that will react so you can see the NR slider all the way to either end producing a different result, or you will have to use one of your noisy ones from a shoot that you did or will do that has poor light and shadows.

Obviously, the two 640 size Jpgs were shot in your office with plenty of light.
Wait for late today with room light off, and vestiges of daylight coming through the window. Then take a few high Iso Shots.
Fred

Thanks Fred,

OK. I understand.

There is absolutely no rush but if you do come across a RAW that shows the slider working I'd love to see it.

My problem is that I can't experiment and calibrate for my camera until I find one that I have taken. Also I don't know where QU would expect the extra reduction to start kicking in 2400, 3200, 6400 or what.

If there are any lurkers with the E-M5 and/or Ricoh GR who use the slider then please speak out now. I'd love to take a shot at the ISO setting you/they suggest and use that for my calibrating. Working shot by shot through my library is not getting me anywhere.

There is no denying that the latest version is brilliant at getting rid of Chroma. Well done Mike!

Thanks again for your help.

Tony

That's what the slider does.
It is the THRESHOLD at which Qimage reads the ISO setting and begins to apply NR filtering.

Thanks Fred,

The snag is that it does not show any numbers so if I want to start applying NR at 2400 (about right for the Oly and the Ricoh) I need someone with those cameras to tell me where on the slider bar to place the marker.

And presumably someone with a GH2 (my old and noisier camera) needs a different location on the bar.

I have taken a look again at that (6400 ISO) photo of my desk. In the Edit mode of QU it really only starts to remove the noise when I call up the Chroma setting. Maybe for the slider that it the 'wrong sort of noise' (in GB our bureaucrats tell us they can't clean our roads if we get the wrong sort of snow, or the rails when we get the wrong sort of leaves on the lines).

It's hard for me to tell what kind of noise is in the file as software like Noiseware doesn't work with RAWs.

We've probably pushed this slider chat to the limit now but I am sending you the RAW in question. Feel free to ignore it and move on to more interesting things.....

Tony

Oh No!
We finally have an image that is bad... thank you for your patience.
Your choice. I can make a video for you, or a dissertation here, or both!
Let me make the video, and then you will understand.   If you are irritated by the facts within the video, then it will be between us.

Fred

Thanks Fred,

Your videos usually sort me out.

Remember I am particularly interested in setting that slider.

Then I realise you will want to go into edit. I'll be fascinated as to how you match noise removal against definition retention. You know I am an available light fanatic - so it'll show me the light (poor pun).

Tony

I look forward to a video, could be very helpful

Jeff

Tony,
Have you read the Help related to the raw NR Slider? In raw options click F1 to read it. There it explains that there is no increase in NT above 2000 iso.

I helpful tutorial on noise is here, (2 pages).
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm)
It explains the difference between luminance and chroma noise and why high iso's make noise worse - it's all to do with signal to noise ratios just like on a Hi Fi amplifier. Turn the volume up on a poor amp and the noise can be heard, filter it out and the sound quality reduces.

QU Ultra - Chroma NR does a good job for me on iso's 6400 and above - not that I use those very high values very often.
Terry

The Noise Reduction slider is adaptive. You don't have to adjust for each image. Yes, you can make one setting for one model and another for a different camera, but when you save that, Qimage will apply it to the proper image from the saved camera. Therefore, you don't have to touch it any more.

As for the noise issue, I think you caught on from the video.  Underexposure is your enemy, and when your enemy gets so badly underexposed, he makes noise... both kinds or chroma.... The sensor just can't handle the amplification...
Luckily, Qimage has both types of Noise reduction. We were able to make that image reasonable.

My best to the Queen.
Fred

Re-shooting the shot of my desk that I did yesterday, but at the same ISO and increasing the meter reading by two stops, I get a much more useable RAW.

It is not the theme of this thread, which is development speed, but it tempts me to mention that there could be an argument for holding the ISO and overexposing rather than simply lifting the ISO. I guess others have experimented and have views on this. I wonder what they are.