Noisy images even at low ISO from Lightroom and ACR from my Sony A7Riv...

[peter@peter.io]

My primary camera body is a Sony A7Riv. I shoot exclusively in uncompressed RAW. The other day, I began looking at and working with some ARW files shot with that camera in the latest Lightroom Classic (12.3) and Adobe Camera RAW (15.3) versions. I normally work in Capture One Pro. When working on the images with Lightroom and ACR I very quickly noticed that the images seemed to have strange noise and artifacts in them. In addition, the photos were generally just generally noisier/grainier in Lightroom than in Capture One Pro. I would have written that off to different default noise reduction defaults in the two programs except for the strange textured noise artifacts that I mentioned above, which seems to point to something else going on. And under any kind of sharpening, it gets much more pronounced. I've noticed it most in skin in the mid-tone transitional areas, but it is present in all areas, including as noise in solid colour areas. I've run lightrooms new AI noise reduction on it to see if that makes a difference, and it does - at least a bit - however, given the length of time that takes, that is not a practical solution for anything more than the occasional image.

Anyway, the results are so obviously inferior to Capture One Pro, I will be returning to that unless this is something that can be resolved. I work at high resolutions and getting clean RAW processing is an essential part of my workflow.

Anyone with any thoughts?

[TheDigitalDog]

Can you upload such a problematic raw to something like Dropbox. Ideally a DNG with your edits or the ARW and sidecar so we can see all the Adobe edits.

[peter@peter.io]

Hi;

I have uploaded three files for review. One is the original ARW file with no edits at all. The noise/weird artifact issue is visible without any edits. For example, if you look at the young lady in the top right of the image and zoom in, you can see a strange noise effect, particularly in the skin close to the hairline where it is a bit in shadow. Noise is also clearly visible in the dark surface of the glasses. Keep in mind too that this is a relatively low ISO RAW image - it was shot at ISO 320. It should be almost without visible noise, never mind the storage "dirty looking" noise that appears in the image here. It looks more like an image that was shot at 3200 or 6400 ISO when I open it in Lightroom but even that is not the case where the noise seems to be uneven and has that weird and ugly structure in some spots such as at the hareline here. To give you a frame of reference, I am also including two JPG crop exports of that area of the image. One was exported from Lightroom (the latest version) and the other from Capture One - to give you an idea of the difference I see when looking at this RAW file in these two programs. Again, no processing has been done to the image in either application (no sharpening or noise reduction) and both were exported to JPG at the highest quality. The end result is a good representation of what I see on my screen when looking at this RAW in the two different applications. The Capture One image is clearly much better and free from the problems that show up in the same RAW in Lightroom. It's not even close, really. And, when any kind of editing is applied or sharpening done, because Lightroom seems unable to bring the RAW in clean, it only makes the issues it has worse. In Lightroom the image is very fragile and any amount of sharpening, for instance, sharpens up that obvious noise which makes what was bad even worse. None of this is an issue in Capture One. I can take this image and sharpen it aggressively without any real issue. 

Hope that's clear. Let me know what you think.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WmEvvo2inAzmJFAZE14Qqf-F3ZIcSZAf?usp=sharing

[TheDigitalDog]

I got the downloads. 

First, the ARW in any Adobe converter has some edits. 

Yes, the image is a relatively low ISO which doesn't matter, but the capture is massively under-exposed, so there is noise. A product that does show us the raw without edits in RawDigger and the noise and underexposure is reported:

RawDigger Underexposure data

The blue overlay shows black clipping of the raw data, no edits. Something you can't gauge in LR/ACR. 

The 63% of just the red channel is underexposed/clipped to black. 

The topic heading Noisy images even at low ISO from Lightroom and ACR, isn't accurate. The noise is due to your exposure, and Adobe Camera Raw has no role here. 

So now the issue becomes, Noise Reduction in two differing products. We can go there if you want; look at the NR options in Adobe Camera Raw that might help get it closer or better than C1. But the noise isn't due to Adobe Camera Raw or low ISO. ISO has no (direct) effect on exposure. Exposure is only two attributes that control how much light strikes the sensor: Aperture and Shutter. Auto exposure can cause underexposure which is what we see here, and that's why the image is noisy. 

A lower ISO can produce far more noise than a higher ISO:

So again: now the issue becomes, Noise Reduction in two different products, and maybe you want to try the new Denoise features in Adobe Camera Raw. 

[peter@peter.io]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm aware that the image is underexposed. That was by design. It was part
of a product shoot for glasses that protect your eyes during a solar
eclipse and the series was shot with the purpose of editing it to simulate
a sort of "eclipse-ish" type group photo so the base image was lit
to expose the faces at close to proper exposure while letting the shadows
fall to black. I have no problem with the areas that are clipped to black.
They were intended to clip and I am not trying to recover any information
from them. The part of the image I am drawing your attention to is pretty
close to a proper exposure and in those areas I am not trying to recover
information by increasing the exposure in LR. My problem is that the image
contains much more noise as well as surprising and unpleasant pattern noise
in the properly exposed parts of the image from the moment I open it in LR.
It is clearly much worse than the same thing opened in C1 and, like I said,
since I am beginning in LR with an inferior rendering, everything done
subsequently is more difficult and results in an inferior end result.

When I noticed the problem in Lightroom I took a few test images and in all
of them I can see noise even in solid colour areas of the image. None of
that is present when I open the same images in C1.

I know the noise reduction options in both products well and have used both
on this image to see what can be done. Again though, since C1 renders the
file much more cleanly, LR has to play catch up with it just to get to
where the C1 image begins and even then, it still can't quite get there. On
this image, I don't even really NEED to apply noise reduction in C1 - even
after sharpening. So, in LR, to get into the neighbourhood where C1 allows
me to begin I need to do a bunch of work on the image and, even so, the
results are inferior as excessive NR needs to be applied to begin just to
try to deal with the inferior rendering where as with C1, none of that is
necessary and I have all of that extra editing headroom. My point is, if
one product is obviously superior out of the box and the other requires me
to do work just to try and get the image close to the other applications
default baseline while the other affords me extra editing headroom then one
application is clearly superior. Why would I choose the application that
requires me to do extra effort for obviously superior results. And if
Lightroom is only able to deal with perfectly exposed images without
creating problems in the base line RAW rendering, then it's of no use. Most
images are imperfect in some respect with under and over exposure being
some of the most common situations a RAW software would have to deal with.
Even if I didn't have C1 to compare side by side to what LR/ACR is doing, I
would recognize that there was clearly an issue with what ACR was doing to
the file. In fact, that's what happened here. When at the image as I was
editing it in LR I noticed the problem which lead me to examine it in C1 as
what I was seeing should clearly not have been there which confirmed my
suspicion that ACR was up to no good.

Finally if your feeling is that the problems I am observing in ACR are a
function of that software's default approach to noise reduction applied
upon rendering the file (which, unless there is some sort of issue that
Adobe is going to address with how ACR is dealing with ARW filesm, is
obviously and seriously flawed compared to C1) and that this behaviour os
baked in to ACR and cannot be turned off, then the choice of which product
I should be using is clear. Capture One is far superior. There's a reason
that I shoot RAW and not JPG - it's to avoid as much as possible the heavy
handed and often flawed default assumptions of software. I am frankly
shocked that Adobe thinks that this is what default NR should look like on
an underexposed image if that's what's happening here. I'm going to have to
start stearing my students toward other options.

I've tried the most current noise reduction options in ACR. Like I said
though, if you are starting from a point of disadvantage, you inevitably
end up in a place of disadvantage. Even after spending a lot of time
working with NR in ACR I cannopt get it to the point where it is at with C1
by default. And forget applying sharpening in ACR. I've also tried LR's AI
denoise feature. While that improves things a little, again, the result
remains inferior to where the image starts out when opened in C1. Add to
that the fact that processing 61MP images with LR's AI denoise feature is
super time consuming (anywhere from 2 to 6 minutes per image in my
experience) and it is simply not practical as a part of a workflow that
involves anty number of images.

It sounds like what you're staying is that you think that what I am
observing is LR/ACR operating as Adobe intends it to. I was looking at it
as a possibly a slightly more straightforward workflow path when used with
Photoshop but not at the expense of the quality of my work.

Thanks - Peter.


--
Peter Denton, BFA, MFA

[TheDigitalDog]

Well, indeed, you still (according to RawDigger) have blown-out highlights, so the dynamic range of the image dramatically exceeds the DR of your camera and you had to under-expose. But the underexposure is the cause of the noise. Not the 'low' ISO. Or Adobe Camera Raw. 

There are no real default settings, you can construct anything you wish that would be ideal for a noisy image like this. 

See: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/acr-raw-defaults.html
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2020/06/16/streamline-edits-with-the-improved-raw-defaults
And for Lightroom (really the same):
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/raw-defaults.html

So what I'm now saying is you can have the defaults set as you intent to initially render the image as you desire. IOW, forget defaults, in C1 or Adobe Camera Raw and roll your own that are ideal for the capture. You could just make a preset instead of a raw default if the is is a rare case capture (NR for this kind of underexposure). Then just use that after you open the raw, using the Raw Defaults for more typical captures. 

If you continue to shoot raw+JPEG, one of the two will never be optimally exposed. 

[peter@peter.io]

Again, thanks for the reply and for the information. I was not aware of the
options outlined in the two support articles you site. At this point I am
not optimistic though. Ultimately Adobe released this knowing that the "out
of box" rendering from LR/ACR is obviously inferior when compared head to
head with a primary competitor like C1 which means that either they just
don't care or that this is the best they can do. Either way, that's not
encouraging. I'm still having difficultly trying to understand how it could
be this bad compared to C1. I used to get obviously better results from my
old Nikon D800e with the veriosn of LR available at that time than this.

Bottom line is I've spent the better part of two days now researching and
trying to resolve this issue to no avail. At some point I have to actually
get back to working on things that pay the bills instead of twirling LR's
dials hoping to fix something that C1 proves shouldn't have been broken in
the first place. Very frustrating. I've shot some flat exposures at ISO 100
since and I get the same problematic behaviour from LR/ACR - not just noise
but unnatural looking noise that looks digital. At base ISO, noise should
be undetectable in images made with this camera. If ACR/LR can't deal with
that then they're just stealing peoples money (or at least they are
stealing the money of Sony shooters - maybe it performs better with Nikon
or Canon models - I can't speak to that). Regardless, I'm feeling
increasingly certain that I have my answer - Capture One is the clearly
superior option and my hope that LR could keep up is a pipe dream.
Particularly when I am working on images in my artistic practice (where I
nearly always print at 5 to 8 feet on the long axis) issues like the
problematic baseline interpretation of a RAW file including noise and the
introduction or presence of strangely structured digital noise is critical
and is an obvious deal breaker. If this is the best Adobe can do, then
sadly I just don't see how I can consider it as a serious option. Too bad
as moving back and forth between LR and Photoshop is a bit smoother than
doing the same thing with Capture One. But of course that's of little
consequence if the finished image suffers so obviously as a result.

And, for the record, I don't shoot RAW+JPG. I shoot uncompressed RAW
exclusively. In fact, I don't think I've ever shot a single JPG image on
this body.

Again, thanks.

Peter.

--
Peter Denton, BFA, MFA

[TheDigitalDog]

Again: ISO isn't the issue.

A 3-stop underexposed image at base ISO will be far noisier than an optimal exposure at ISO 800.

Sorry, misread the text and thought you wrote raw+JPEG; my bad.

[peter@peter.io]

I don't know what to say - I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have shot a couple of test images that are flat exposures and within the cameras dynamic range at both 100 ISO and 320 ISO. just a beige wall and a wight door frame shot indoors. I brought them both into C1 and LR to examine them. In C1 the images render clean. Even zoomed in to 300%, there is no visible noise in the baseline, unedited rendering of these images in C1. In LR the images show the same unpleasant and unnatural-looking noise and it's CLEARLY VISIBLE when viewed at just 100%. Again, shot at this ISO, noise should be nearly impossible to detect from this camera. And, indeed, C1 shows that this is in fact the case. When the images are brought into LR, however, the noise appears. And, like I've been saying, not natural-looking noise but noise that looks generated or almost like some sort of overlay. There is literally no comparison between the renderings in the respective software and I have removed the exposure issue, which you claim is what is causing LR such difficulty (and which I maintain is something any RAW software that aspires to something more than something a hobbyist would use should be able to cope with routinely without breaking down) from the equation entirely.

I've eliminated the variable you said was causing the problem and the LR render is still problematic while the C1 rendering is clean and looks as I would expect. The problem is LR. No question.

--

Peter Denton, BFA, MFA

[TheDigitalDog]

We are not disagreeing about the differences in the rendering difference of two raw converters. I have no opinion nor expressed one about C1.

I've provided facts about noise and exposure. And sure, you can increase what appears to “noise” all kinds of ways in ACR/LR with less than ideal settings in the Detail pane. Don't do so.

You can decrease the noise there too. Do so. Default or less than ideal setting are not ideal.

But look; you like C1 better, use it. 

“Again, shot at this ISO, noise should be nearly impossible to detect from this camera.”

Again: ISO is meaningless and exposure is not in terms of noise upon raw data. In fact, higher ISO can produce less noise than lower ISO, again depending on exposure.

http://digitaldog.net/files/100vs800iso.jpg

[TheDigitalDog]

So you can file a bug report on this (see below) but it would really be helpful to have the documents and data to do so or it will get lost in the mix. 

I'd suggest shooting a controlled scene. If possible, meter with an incident meter. Pick ISO 100 if you wish (again, that's not really the issue here). Bracket at 'normal' exposure, then plus 1/2, plus 1, and maybe plus 1 1/2+.

Bring all into Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic and apply any edits you wish (defaults or otherwise). 

Zoom in at 1:1 (100%) and make a screen capture of the issue (you say noise but you say artifacts and that's more important to the bug report). 

Save all all as a DNG so all your edits are embedded and upload. Or you could save and zip the sidecar files with each but DNG is a bit cleaner. 

You can make a screen capture of the same area at 1:1 in C1 for comparison but what's really important here isn't that product. 

Bug reporting:

Photoshop/ACR:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/photoshop-ecosystem-bugs/how-do-i-write-a-bug-report/idi-p/12373403

Lightroom:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-bugs/how-do-i-write-a-bug-report/idi-p/12386373

[D Fosse]

I've downloaded the examples, and the first thing I notice is that the two exports don't line up geometrically - although they are the same crop from the same original. What's happening there? It's almost as if a very aggressive lens profile was applied to one of them.

Second, honestly! the C1 example looks artificially plasticky over-smoothed to me. It doesn't look credible at all, and I don't buy it. I could duplicate that look by cranking up the noise reduction in Lightroom - but I would never do that. I vastly prefer the Lightroom version! It looks real, the C1 version looks like plastic.

FWIW, I use an a7r V, I also have an a7r IV (although that's modified for IR/UV), and an a7r III. I'm very familiar with these cameras. I've always been very happy with how Lr/ACR treat these files - as I was previously with Nikon D800/D810 before I switched to Sony.

I also used C1 for a while, I had an active subscription for two years. But I never could bring myself to like it, so I cancelled the subscription and don't have it installed now.

I think this boils down to what you like and prefer. If you prefer C1, use it.

[Magnus32304494am8q]

peter@peter.io: Just came here to say that I totally know what you mean. It seems it's a matter of taste, but personally I never liked the way Lightroom renders luminance noise, nore do I think it deals with it in noise reduction particularly well. DXO, Capture One and ON1 are each a good bit better in this regard. The real deal is the DXO Prime noise reduction, compared to that new Lightroom AI noise reduction is a joke and I keep laughing when people prais it. Well, I guess compared to what Lightroom users had it's a real improvement, but only compared to that. Compared to ON1 it's on a similar level, so ON1 is overhyped in this regard too. Capture One never tried to implement it, which was for me the final straw to stop using it, since I find myself in a lot of high iso situations and I need a solution that can handle that if needed.

Just to highlight my understanding of the situation. Lightroom creates a very blocky noise pattern. Probably it's supposed to keep a feeling of texture, however it's to regular and the difference between light and dark parts of the noise is way to harsh. As you describe, particularly well observable in the midtones to darker whites. It's thus particularly noticable on skin. Applying noise reduction in Lightroom then just creates a waxy smooth skin, where there is no way to sharpen some texture back into it. Same with the AI implementation they have.

The problem is as old as Lightroom. I noticed that already back in the days with my Canon 5D, then with the Sony A7II and now with the Sony A6700. But like I said, many people don't seem to be bothered by it. Or maybe we are just to much of a pixel peeper.

[arlen36912328ewrc]

I've been reading the comments. I use C1 Pro for my Nikon files. When opening RAW Nikon C1Pro does an amazing job of managing noise. I use LRC for both Sony A6700. I have been amazed at how noisy RAW images are opnened in LRC. I've looked and looked and asked, but this seems to be par for the course. LRC is so inferior to C1 in noise management in RAW. Unless I'm missing something. But no one has been able to show me that.