Have you tried different software, compared the results and reached a conclusion?  I only used Nikon's DFine and Lightroom's noise reduction tool and found the results very similar. Lightroom's has the advantage of being just another retouch step, i.e. another step to the XML file and not a separated *-Edit file.
120806
Can anyone recommend some good noise removal tools, free and commercial? Should support RAW and JPEG. Are certain tools better than others in particular situations? Do some integrate better with other software? Do plugins or stand-alone dedicated NR programs work significantly better than the noise reduction built in to RAW converters?
31587
Is it possible to identify images (without exif data) and link them to the exact same camera? If so, I'd like some software recommendations to get the job done.  I have two photos that I'd like to compare whether they were taken with the same camera or not. They both seem to lack EXIF data but I am sure I've heard of other hidden fingerprints to be found within the images.  For instance, sensor noise should be rather consistent if the photos were taken with the same camera, pretty much like firing a handgun and the bullet gets unique marks. I've also heard that the camera manufacturers sometimes add a hidden watermark which can be read with some special software.
79116
I've only recently started taking photos and got into shooting concerts in a small venue that has neither a pit, nor proper lighting. All they use is some kind of simple LED array.  The thing is nobody wants to operate the lights and they tend to be too strong (I think).    Sometimes it's just like that for 15 mins or something... Photos seem to be out of focus, but I'm 99% sure they are (you can never be sure with a Nikon D7000, though).  These were shot using the 35mm DX and then cropped. Sometimes you can get something out of these kind of photos in LR (luminance, clarity), but it mostly looks like you f*ed up...  What can I do about it, except waiting for the light to change?   Underexposing will lead to heavier post-processing, which is unacceptable and B&amp;W looks ugly and not sharp...  Of course not every photo has to be a keeper, nonetheless I'd like to know how to deal with that.  edit to explain(...)  Not exactly a duplicate, because I'm not using aperture priority so metering problems don't apply here. Different colour of light (green) + same settings, and the photo is fine. I'm aware of light waves having different lengths, etc. Just asking whether I should underexpose or it's just the way it is.
19619
I'm a bit overwhelmed by the available options in regards to the three major photo editing apps from Adobe.  Does anyone know of an article or site that lists the features of Lightroom, PS Elements, and PS, side by side?  I know that Lightroom revolves around edits and workflow, and that PS is the big kahuna of image editing.  Where does Elements fit in to this understanding?
3489
I'm shooting with a Nikon 810, and my night shots often have a strong moire when I export them from Lightroom at 640x640 (optimized for Instagram).   This photo was shot at f2.8, ISO 4000, 15 seconds with a Nikkor 17-35mm. Does anyone know why this is happening??
77965
My understanding of the ISO setting on digital cameras is that, unlike film-cameras, changing the ISO does not evoke any physical change in the camera.  Rather, it simply tells the camera to multiply the analog-voltages it reads from the sensors by a constant number, which increases the brightness of that pixel in the output JPEG image.  And since the RAW files store the actual voltages read, before any changes to the brightness take place, the values in the RAW file will be the same regardless of the ISO setting.  Thus, if you're snapping pictures in RAW format only, the ISO setting does absolutely nothing (Also it would mean digital cameras with higher ISOs are completely a marketing gimmick).  However,  contradicts that.  It shows the following image:  which claims that the ISO setting does affect the RAW output! †  It also states "to minimise noise get as much light into the camera as possible then use the highest ISO you can without overexposing."  If my understanding is correct, all images with the same shutter-speed will result in the same (RAW) image, regardless of ISO setting.  However, if the explanation in the above post is correct, (RAW) images that were taken with an incorrectly-exposed ISO setting can't be corrected in software without introducing extra noise.  (I found  online in which several 'experts' argue back and forth about which understanding is correct, but never reach a conclusion)    To figure out which understanding is correct, I tried shooting an image at various ISOs and shutter-speeds, in RAW+JPEG mode.  I then loaded the RAW files into Photoshop and applied auto-correct within "Camera Raw" (before the JPEG conversion).    These were the results (click to enlarge):   (All shots taken with Sony a390 DSLR.  Aperture f/5.6, 18-55mm zoom lens set to 55mm)  And for comparison, here were the JPEGs created for those same shots by the camera (no Photoshop correction applied):    It appears we're both wrong (What!?!??!!?).  The ISO setting definitely did have a major difference in the final RAW image, but it seems that even when it causes under-exposure, using the lowest ISO setting still resulted in the least amount of noise!!  I assume that, to understand why that is, I need to know exactly how the ISO setting works in DLSRs - could someone please explain that to me?  Is the sensor somehow physically made more sensitive, or is it a simple digital (or possibly analog) amplification of the voltage signal?  Or does it work differently in different cameras (mine is a rather low-tier DLSR)?  If the sensor doesn't physically become more sensitive, why does the ISO setting affect the RAW image?  Why did an underexposed ISO100 image result in less noise (after photoshop correction) than the same image with the same aperture/shutter at (a correctly-exposed) ISO3200?    † (At least, I think that's what he's saying.  The post is ambiguous as to whether the auto-correction was done to the RAW or the JPEG file.  I'm just assuming it was done to the RAW, though, as doing it to the JPEG would just be stupid - he'd be amplifying the compression+quantization noise, not the camera noise, which would make the entire post incorrect)
84619
Picking up from this  and this , What exactly is ETTR? How it may reduce the image noise? And how is it difference from film to digital sensors?  In the answer linked above, what are the 5 stops and is it related to ETTR?  In real life how can I apply this technique when I'm shooting?
90570
I'm trying to see how  correlates with practice. That answer basically says I need to let enough light into the camera and then use the highest ISO value and I'll get the lowest noise then.  So I make two shots with the same camera. Camera has aperture set to a specific value, fully manual mode, camera is on a tripod and focused onto a specific faraway object. Shooting is done around midnight, so it's rather dark. The scene is a large industrial building standing faraway across a field from the camera. The field has no light sources, all lights are on the industrial building.  I dunno if it's important but images are written as JPEG inside camera - no shooting to raw and external post-processing. Maybe that's why I see my unexpected result.  Camera highest ISO value is 3200 (not using extended ISO values).  So I first shoot with ISO 1600 and shutter speed set to 1/125 second and then I shoot with ISO 3200 and shutter speed set to 1/250 second. The amount of light should be identical and indeed both shots look properly exposed and exposed the same way.  When I open the pictures in an image viewer and zoom in to one hundred percent  I see that ISO 1600 shot is much cleaner than one with ISO 3200. I checked that several times and I'm sure - it's not the other way around.  Why is this? Is this because of post-processing difference?
96752
I've read through several threads similar to this, but I'm looking for a comparison of two options here.   I currently take photos on a raised glass platform against a white foam board background and run about 300w of lights (3 100x LEDs @ 5000k, Home Depot Specials in softboxes and umbrellas). As you can imagine, it takes me about 15 minutes of post processing to achieve a perfect white background, and sometimes I have a particular photo that I am unable to get there.  I want to upgrade to either a photography table with a translucent background that I can place a speedlight under, or a cyclorama infinity background such as the MyStudio MS20. The latter option may require an upgrade to my lighting, which I am planning to do anyways.  The idea of course is to get a blown out 255 background with no post processing, other than color correction on the jewelry or product as needed. This would cut my time after the shoot to a ridiculously small amount of time.   Which option would make my life easier?   For reference, I currently use a D5300 with a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens.  This is the best shot I got after quite a lot of effort, before and after processing:      Note that the silver is not shiny like it should be, and the sparkle on the gems is lost.
68260
Lightroom has three places in the UI where it shows information about highlight and shadow clipping:   The histogram in the Loupe mode. The histogram in the Develop mode. On the image itself, by using red for clipped highlights and blue for clipped shadows, as in the following example:     Do all three accurately show whether there's highlight or shadow clipping in the RAW file? (I shoot RAW.)  I thought so, but I was told  that that's not the case.  This on the Sony NEX-5R and LR 5, in case that matters.
5082
When should I use exposure compensation, rather than ISO, shutter speed or aperture?
95072
Warning: Total photoshop newb!  I recently got a cool image of my fiancee and I holding hands and showing off her engagment ring. The backdrop is the beach:    I tried to trace an image using a combo of the laso and magic wand tools to select my target. Then I used that to pull out the target as another layer.  I then pasted in a background gradient.     Ended up with a really lame photoshoped looking picture. Notice the white lines where I didn't get the arms close enough and the choppy spots where I got too close.    So what's my main problem here?   Is their a way to bet a better cutout? Is their a blending tool that will make the background look more natural? both   I tried a dozen or so tutorials I found in google searches but they just don't blend these types of images together in any of them. Thanks in advance.
65754
I have a most vexing problem.   I have a Nikon d5100 (roughly a year old) which up until two days ago handled exposure and metering just fine. However, at night, in a well lit room (florescent bulbs) in which I NEVER had problems capturing images at reasonable shutter speeds, apertures and ISOs (&lt; 400), here's what's happening now:   In Manual, even at low shutter speeds (1/90 and lower) and relatively open apertures (3.5) - ISO 640 and less - my pictures are almost completely black. Pointing the camera at a bright lightbulb just barely captures the light with heavy shadows all around it. Exposure compensation no longer has ANY effect on the exposure Shooting in Aperture Priority mode at f/3.5 at anything lower than ISO 1000 reduces my shutter speeds to 1/2 or lower to compensate.   Yes, I know. ISO. Keep in mind, the room is quite brightly lit and I never had this issue prior to last night. That being said, the only way I can capture a reasonably exposed picture here is at ISOs 6400 and above. But even a picture at 1/125, f/5.6, ISO 6400 (manual) is still ridiculously dark.  I have taken the following step to troubleshoot, to no avail:   Turned exposure compensation up to the max +5.0 - no effect Turned shutter speeds down to 1/40 and below - extremely limited effect Turned ISO up to 6400 and beyond - limited effect Update the camera's firmware (1.01 > 1.02) - no effect Reset the camera using the buttons with the two green dots - no effect, multiple tries Messed with the metering modes - no effect Turned it off and on again - no effect Stared pointedly at the camera - camera didn't even flinch   I am at an absolute loss here and I really, truly, need help.  Images:  ISO 100, f/3.8, 1/3   ISO 100, f/3.8, 1/90    ISO 1000, f/3.8, 1/90
74538
Could you recommend a good source of presets for Lightroom?
48593
I ordered a Canon 7D mark II (to replace a stolen 7D),and shot a friend's  wedding in RAW. But now, I can only view the pictures in very poor quality on my computer's photo viewer. I am not able to import the pictures into Lightroom 3 or my PSE 13. The software says no updates are available. What is wrong and what can I do?
45706
I'm wondering how they actually achieved this kind of effect?    image from   Could you give me some suggestions: are there any techniques to get the same effect? I tried many ways in Photoshop. I have more than 5 years of experience in Photoshop, but my results are not the same?  What should I do?
49621
I am new to photography and enjoying shooting with my Nikon D3200 camera. Once I take a photo, is there any tool by Nikon or a third party which can give me info like F-stop, ISO, Shutter speed, etc? If there is no tool, does Nikon camera support this after the photo is shot?