# Noise in Lightroom vs DPP



## Cards (Jan 25, 2013)

I have a problem: I have a 5dIII but have been totally dissatisfied with the amount of noise in the photos despite hearing others with the same camera rave about how they can push the ISO to 12800 without a problem. Today, for the first time, I opened a file with DPP and noticed the noise level is dramatically less than seen when using Lightroom. To date, my workflow has been to shoot in raw and import directly into LR as a DNG (todays shots were imported as CR2 as DPP does not appear to read DNG.) Both of the attached shots (100% crops) have no noise reduction applied and equal amount of sharpening. My prior camera, a 20D, did not seem to have this problem.
Any thoughts? I have spent a lot of time and effort learning LR and don't relish the idea of having to master DPP. Do I have to import with DPP and then move to LR to edit? If so, how do I do that? Is there a setting in LR that I am missing (btw, version 4.3)? Thanks!


----------



## Aglet (Jan 25, 2013)

looks like considerably different levels of sharpening applied, not sure how you measure them being equal.

more sharpening in LR is accentuating the noise but it's not so bad it can't be tamed with a little bit of NR

LR is well known for it's better NR ability, especially chroma
I still use DPP when the shot does not require much tweaking as I prefer the look of it a little more than other raw converters.

and when you're up at 12800 ISO, you're gonna see noise, especially in the darker tones, that's just the reality of physics.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 25, 2013)

Perhaps post the original CR2 file so someone can check it out with their setup. The main difference I see in the posted jpegs is that the lightroom image is much brighter, inndicating that settings are different between the two.

Anyone who says that images taken at high ISO's are noise free probably have a huge tolerance for noise. Noise is noticible with no NR starting at ISO 800, but the main thing is that it does not increase wildly at 12800 or 25600 like it did in the 5D MK II. I find that starting with ISO 3200, NR is always required, at 1600 or 800, it might be required depending on the colors in the scene. Blues are the most difficult.

I put up with high ISO noise, because it doesn't show in prints (fine detail is lost), and because I have no other choice in extreme low light.

When using RAW, some NR is needed at high ISO, and at 12800, a ton of NR is needed!! 

Also note that DR is very thin at high ISO's, so even with perfect exposures, you need to make adjustments.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 25, 2013)

That DPP image is a stop or so darker, which will conceal a stop or so more noise....

b&


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I find that starting with ISO 3200, NR is always required, at 1600 or 800, it might be required depending on the colors in the scene. Blues are the most difficult.



Personally, I rarely if ever see the need to reduce luminance noise. Chroma noise, on the other hand, I'll often take a...well, not aggressive, but proactive approach towards. If I see chroma noise, I'll find the lowest NR setting I can that I don't notice it.

I'd much rather keep detail and accutance at the expense of almost any amount of luminance noise, but chroma noise just bugs the shit out of me.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 26, 2013)

Are you comparing apples to to oranges? Is the auto in camera NR and in DPP off? Is sharpening in DPP off? Are LR NR and sharpening sliders at zero?


----------



## Aglet (Jan 26, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ..The main difference I see in the posted jpegs is that the lightroom image is much brighter, inndicating that settings are different between the two.





TrumpetPower! said:


> That DPP image is a stop or so darker, which will conceal a stop or so more noise....



It looked like that to me too until I pulled out my little RGB screen sampler and the same parts of each image are very close in RGB values in the darker areas. (taken from inline images, too lazy to download them)
The lighter areas ARE a bit different so there's a different curve/contrast function happening and the different cropping and accutance make another perceptual difference. Noise is more noticeable in the darker areas, per usual.



TrumpetPower! said:


> I'd much rather keep detail and accutance at the expense of almost any amount of luminance noise, but chroma noise just bugs the S___ out of me.


+1


----------



## sanj (Jan 26, 2013)

Not all will be satisfied at the ISO above 6400. At least not me. Not yet.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Jan 26, 2013)

No, you don't have to use DPP to import photos for use in LR. A quick glance at the two pictures looks as if we're dealing with two different exposure settings. Are you sure that all the settings are the same in both programs? If not, we're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Cards (Jan 27, 2013)

I think i have narrowed down the problem to LR. If i import a raw file, open, completely unprocessed (no levels, no sharpening, no noise reduction) in LR and DPP (same file), the noise in LR is easily visible even at very low ISO-(640 in the accompanying example) and absent in DPP. If i add any sharpening in LR, the noise is intolerable but remains absent in DPP. Is this normal?


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 27, 2013)

Interesting. I am going to go in a totally different direction here. I don't think you should be comparing these side by side. Have you noticed how much better images look in DPP rather than PS or LR when you view them? This is an optical illusion.

About 5 years ago I would my head against trying to figure this one out. Images looked great in DPP and after converting to TIFF and opening in PS they did not look as good. I tried for months to find out how to retain that look. First off sharpening in DPP is very aggressive so that is one factor. However the reason is viewing size. You need to look at both at 100% and then they will look the same. 

I'm wondering if is happening to you comparing noise. You can clearly see in your screen shot that the LR image is slightly bigger than the DPP one. Also LR is sharper in this case. 

Do you have PS. If so turn all sharpening off and NR off in DPP, convert to a TIFF and open in PS. Next open the same RAW in PS and turn all sharpening and NR off and compare the two. 

Most importantly how do your prints look? Are you comparing prints from LR to DPP?

The reason this is interesting is while DPP is good I find LR much better.


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 27, 2013)

I went back to some of my old tests. Here is a shot at ISO 12,800. 







DPP no NR. Notice those beautiful little white speckles.






ACR/LR no NR






Next I applied Color (ACR.R ) or Chrominance (DPP) until it became less splotchy looking. Stop when you achieve it because moving the slider any further has no gains.

DPP Chrominance noise adjustment 






ACR/LR Color noise adjustment






Last step Luminance or noise reduction. The higher you go the more it starts to effect image sharpness. Adjust until pleasing to the eye. 

DPP Lum adjustment






ACR/LR Lim adjustment


----------



## J.R. (Jan 27, 2013)

I understand that the RAWs appear different in DPP and LR because DPP takes into account the settings in the camera while LR does not read these tags. 

CR2 files will open with the picture style and NR settings that you have preset in the camera while the LR will open the files without reading into these settings - this results in a difference in what you see on the screen even though the underlying image file is the same. 

I realized this when I shot monochrome and the images came back in full color in LR while my DPP files appeared to be "perfect".


----------

