(Click on the photos to get a better view)
There’s lots of talk about why I switched to Lightroom over Aperture but here’s reason number 37. Noise. Above you’ll see a handheld shot taken at ISO 12,800 with a Canon 1DX and 24-70 f/2.8 zoom – near 10pm. It’s a photo of the Aria Hotel sign in Las Vegas’ City Center. The image was not adjusted during import in any way other than noise reduction was applied.
Note that applying full on built-in noise reduction in Aperture (the only way to get ANY real noise reduction) resulted in a soft image that still exhibited noise. Note that apply roughly 50 percent noise reduction in Lightroom resulted in a sharp image (no sharpness added – straight from the camera) but the virtual elimination of all noise.
Using Aperture, if I didn’t let some of the detail go, the noise was actually much worse. You can do this experiment on your own in case you’re one of those Roswell really did have aliens people and think there’s a conspiracy going on. It’s plain and simple. Lightroom has better built-in noise reduction than Aperture. Could I have used a third party plug-in in Aperture to achieve the same result? Not sure but probably close. But it’s an extra step and time is a luxury for me. So Lightroom it is.
Latest posts by Scott Bourne (see all)
- The Argument For Using Software To Help You Complete Your Images - July 17, 2016
- Announcing Plotagraph – A Whole New Way Of Creating Dynamic Images - July 13, 2016
- My Week At The Out Of Chicago Photo Conference - July 5, 2016