#Big aperture vs small aperture iso
#Big aperture vs small aperture plus

I agree, that shooting at ISO 3200 isn't something that should be done most of the time, and having a D300 or even a D3 is besides the point since they only yield you 2 and 4 stops respectively (more on that later). Not that you would have to go out there and buy the app because there are other ways to reduce noise in PS other than applying a NR filter. Honestly, neither ACR/PSCS3/Aperture or LR handle noise as good as a dedicated noise reduction app like Noise Ninja. You will have to go to the 'Noise Reduction' tab/option in Aperture, or load it into the palette if it's not there. Why would you instantly go to noise reduction in LR, but only use 'Auto Noise Compensation' in Aperture? The Moire and Radius sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning don't do anything with nolse, chroma or color. If anyone out there can get better chroma noise reduction than I did, I'd really like to learn how. It was also kinda a way to hopefully find out that I really am doing it wrong in Aperture. So I thought I'd just do it on my own in case anyone else was interested to see. It was more of a comparison I thought people might be interested to see since I couldn't easily find a direct comparison out there myself. Whether I switch or not was not the intention of this thread though. Apple will eventually catch up, but then Adobe takes another step forward. Once Adobe releases the next version of LR, it'll be a definite step ahead in that regard. But performance and adjustments, Apple always seems to be playing catch up to Adobe. Apple has Adobe easily beat in terms of the user interface and workflow. I think for me personally, it's not so much this one thing, but it just kinda solidifies in my mind how Aperture seems to be behind in terms of actual image adjustments. I may or may not switch, I just thought it was an interesting thing to point out that perhaps someone who's trying to decide between the two might like to see. Now, if I had a D300 like you, it might be even less of an issue (if only!) And even in the zoomed out file, the amount of noise in the Aperture version was still really noticeably bad whereas it was nonexistent for the ACR version. And I'd say the difference seems pretty drastic. I wouldn't say I'd use it a whole lot, but I can see myself using it some, because when I'm shooting with available light, I'd rather get a noisy picture I can de-noise rather than a blurry picture from a slow shutter speed no amount of PP could fix.

However, the way I see it, this isn't much of an option since using 1.1 takes away the other added adjustments 2.0 brings like Recovery and Black Point. On an even more interesting note, I decided to bump the Aperture RAW version down to 1.1 instead of 2.0 to make use of the Chroma Blur feature they got rid of in 2.0, and it was WAY more effective. To me, I see little to no effect with Aperture. But this is just to show the difference in effectiveness of Aperture vs. Also, the photo was taken with a crappy lens, which accounts for the general blurriness. The left is the unedited CR2 file, the middle is Aperture, the right is ACR. Just so everyone can see what I'm saying, here's the photo zoomed to 100%. I just wish I could have the interface of Aperture with the performance and adjustment tools of LR. The fact that Adobe seems to always be a step ahead of Aperture in terms of adjustments to RAW files is hard to overlook.

#Big aperture vs small aperture plus

cropping, straightening, or even just a few standard bricks and then zooming in, plus it's been really slow at preparing for an external editor/plug-in). But lately, I've found performance to be pretty bad if certain things have already been done to the image (i.e. I almost switched right before Aperture 2 came out, but Apple managed to keep me with the improved performance and better adjustment tools.

I'm on the verge of switching to LR again because of this. In seconds, I had a drastically better looking photo with barely any nasty chroma noise left in the image.ДЄm I doing something wrong in Aperture? Or is the chroma NR really that ineffective? Then I opened the same RAW file in ACR and went to noise reduction. With Auto Noise Compensation turned on and both the Moire and Radius sliders all the way to their max, I could barely tell the difference.

I started with Aperture and going to the Raw Fine Tuning brick. I also wanted to compare Aperture (my current tool of choice) with Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom to see which one dealt with chroma noise better. So I took a random shot at 3200 and loaded it onto my Mac. With my spiffy new Canon 40D, I thought I'd do some tests of my own to see what kind of noise I got in my RAW files at 3200 ISO.