G6 and G12: RAW Noise and Reduction

.

Based on the in-camera JPEGs, it seems to me that the G12 is about two stops better than the G6 with respect to noise. But then I began to wonder if this apparent difference was actually due to noise reduction software in the G12. To test this hypothesis, I took another look at those images but this time from the RAW image files.

The above 100% crops (click to see full size) were processed from the RAW files using Adobe Camera Raw. The G12 profile for ACR is still a “beta” but is probably representative. Processing for both the G6 and G12 was as follows:

... as shot auto white balance
... auto toning
... medium contrast curve
... ACR sharpening at 80%, 1 radius, 30 detail, 60 mask
... 0 noise reduction in ACR
... default noise processing in Noiseware Pro.

This time I skipped the G12 ISO 800 and used ISO 1600 and 3200. The G6 ISO 400 image cleaned up nicely but the G12 still has less noise – I think about two stops improvement but perhaps only 1-1/2 stops.

.

G6 vs G12: Noise

.



As noted previously, there seems to be little difference between the in-camera JPEGs produced by the G6 and G12 when the images are seen on screen (without pixel peeking) or viewed as an 8x10 print.  But those images were made at the lowest ISO settings.  What about comparing higher ISO results?

Fortunately, my low light test scene had remained relatively untouched since the comparisons between the G9 and G12 at high ISO settings.  The above shot was taken with the G6 at ISO 400, f4 and 0.6 seconds.  (Apparently about 2 stops less available light from the previous tests -- don't know why.)  Not too bad at first glance (click for enlarged view). I also re-tested the G12 under the same lighting conditions.

Next, we yield again to temptation and take a peek at the pixels.  The assembled comparison below shows various 100% crops from both the G6 and G12 (click for enlarged view).

Based on pixel peeping, one might say that the G6 is not usable at ISO 400 but as seen in the opening image, small image sizes could still be OK.  It appears to me that the G12 is about 2 stops better than the G6 with respect to noise.  That is, I'd prefer to use the G12 at ISO 1600 than to use the G6 at ISO 400.

Of course, the G6 has a one stop aperture advantage over the G12 but then the G12 has image stabilization for which is claimed a two stop improvement in shutter speed.

My conclusion is that, in spite of having fewer pixels, the G6 is "noisier" than the G12.  Whether the G12 noise reduction is due to improvements in sensor technology or noise reduction processing in-camera, I couldn't say (probably both).  Obviously, there is more to noise than pixel count or pixel density.
.

G Series Resolution

.

In a previous post, I showed that my G12 has less noise at high ISO than does my G9. DxOMark shows this comparison more scientifically and in more detail. Some credit for this improvement in noise should go to the reduction in pixel density and, I assume, some credit goes to noise reduction software (in-camera in this case). I'd also like to think that some credit would go to true improvements in sensor technology. Whatever the real case, the first explanation is usually that an increase in megapixels means an increase in noise.

The ultimate in noise performance would be, I suppose, a single but very large pixel; however, that design would not be very useful to photographers. We can feel intuitively that there must be an advantage to having many pixels. That advantage is resolution.

Dpreview includes resolution testing as part of its intensive camera reviews and reports. I've summarized the Dpreview resolution test results for the G series cameras below.

In the above comparisons, “Resolution” is the horizontal “Absolute Resolution”in lines per picture height as measured and reported by Dpreview. Dpreview includes a vertical resolution in their test reports but as that number is similar to the horizontal resolution, I've omitted it in favor of brevity. Remember that G series sensors have been essentially (but not exactly) the same physical size. The G12 has not been tested by Dpreview at this date.

Interestingly and as expected, G series resolution has generally increased with pixel count but there also appears to be an effect of time, or more likely, improved technology. The 10MP G11 has better resolution that does the 10MP G7 and even better resolution that my 12MP G9. I expect that the resolution of the G12 is likely to be about the same as the G11.
..

G9: Sky at ISO 800

.

.
In a previous post, I noted that I was placing some large images in a Smugmug gallery for purposes of comparison. Those first images were taken at ISO 100, 400 and 800. Both the in-camera JPEG and a raw image file were posted. A subtle difference for those first six shots of the sky is that all were slightly underexposed. The last two shots (#7 and #8) were made “just right” by increasing the exposure by +2/3 stop as compared to the evaluative metering mode of the G9. Now to examine an ISO 800 “just right” image and compare the noise to the slightly underexposed variation.

The image above is the ISO 800 in-camera JPEG that was underexposed by 1 stop in the bracketing process. This means it was actually underexposed by 1-2/3 stops in comparison to the "correct" exposure.

The images to be compared are the new Smugmug images #9, 10, 11, 12. These are the bracketed versions (+/- 1 stop) of images #5 and 6. Image #9 and 10 are the in-camera JPEGs and images #11 and 12 are the processed raw versions of #9 and 10 respectively. In particular, notice that image #12 has much less noise that image #11 and even less noise than image #6. The apparent reduction in noise is actually because much less noise is generated when the exposure is correct. In fact, this was the entire purpose of this little exercise: Minimize noise by avoiding underexposure.

.

G9: Large, comparative samples

.
There are many and fierce debates about the relative merits and faults of cameras and processing. Although the debate rages on, I've almost given up because the basis of the debates is so subjective. On the other hand, there is a real difficulty in making comparisons. What is the final output of the "photograph"? A snapshot sized print? An enlargement -- 8x10? Larger? Will the photo only be seen from a computer screen? How large is that screen? Is the screen calibrated for proper color, brightness and contrast? No wonder so many people have such diverging views -- not to mention justification of their expense in obtaining that camera!

For the G9 and many other small sensor digicams, one of the major issues is noise at high ISO. The G9 applies its own noise reduction algorithm to its in-camera JPEG but other noise reduction software is readily available. In particular, some G9'ers, myself included, usually shoot in raw mode and apply noise reduction afterward. Which method is best? Does it matter? Can a G9 high ISO be saved?

To systematically investigate the various high ISO and processing options, I thought to post some full size images for comparison. These will be posted on a special SmugMug gallery. The first set of images is a simple set of shots at the sky. These images were taken at ISO 100, 400 and 800. The G9 was set for raw+jpeg so the images are in pairs. When the G9 is set for raw+jpeg, the jpeg is full size but a little more compression is used. I know this confuses the issue somewhat but I made additional comparisons (unposted) and the differences between the G9 "fine" and "superfine" images are small. As it is, this set of comparisons includes eight images and there's no real point to adding more.

My intent was to simply point the G9 at the sky and fire away on Av mode. Then I decided to throw in exposure bracketing so I added a polarizing filter to keep exposures within range. Even so, the G9 neutral density filter was necessary for the ISO 400 and 800 shots. So the first two shots (ISO 100) are without the ND filter, the ISO 400 and 800 are with the ND filter. All of these shots are slightly underexposed.

The exposure was increased by +2/3 stop for a final set of shots. Of course, I forgot to remove the ND filter for these so the exposure is much longer than expected.

The in-camera jpegs were all done at "normal" settings. The raw files were converted in ACR and followed with noise reduction using Noiseware. Noiseware was used at its default settings. The raw files were all done semi-automatically using the ACR auto toning (exposure) and a Photoshop Action.

In comparing these samples, the general idea is not so much which exposure, contrast, saturation, etc is preferable to you personally as it is to see that there are, or can be, differences. Don't even bother to tell me that you can process the in-camera jpeg to have the same saturation and contrast as the processed raw image. Also, don't bother to tell me that the in-camera settings can be adjusted for more or less saturation, sharpness and contrast. But do notice that the first three conversions from raw have quite different look from the first three jpegs. This difference is largely due to the initial underexposure. These are comparisons of the in-camera auto processing of underexposure to the ACR auto processing of underexposure.

In the last two images, the G9 exposure setting was 'corrected' by adding 2/3 stop compensation. The in-camera jpeg and the auto process raw are much more similar.

Examine the files, pixel peek, print your own, order from SmugMug -- whatever you prefer. There's something or other to be learned here and it is different for all of us.
.

Watching the Storm

.
Here’s my favorite photo from Hurricane Gustav. My granddaughter wasn’t really watching the hurricane but the wind and rain continued for a while.

This shot was taken with my G9 in raw mode, ISO 400, max zoom, f4.8, 1/60 second. The small Flexizone frame was used to focus. My granddaughter is quite active and quick but was captivated by the scene and stayed at the door long enough for me to check exposure in Av mode, see that the histogram wasn’t right, shift to manual exposure and get a good histogram. One shot and she was gone!

Processing in ACR from the raw file, I decided to let the back of her head and dress go a bit dark. At ISO 400, noise begins to be noticeable with the G9, especially for enlargements, so I used Noiseware at about half strength to reduce the noise.

The final 8x10 print was cropped only slightly from the original capture. I like it.

.

Consumers Union on Digital Cameras

.
Consumers Union is preparing an article on digital cameras for their June 2008 issue of Consumer Reports. For background information, they are asking for input from photographers. Here’s your chance to voice your comments, complaints and wish list.

Here’s what I submitted:
1. Shutter lag is a huge complaint. Unbelievably, shutter lag is a problem even on cameras that can be set to full manual mode!
2. Noise at high ISO sensitivity, especially above about ISO 200 to 400. Many users voice a pseudo-technical explanation and wish for fewer pixels as a compromise to reduce noise.
3. Wide angle lens. Most digicams have a 35mm equivalent focal length as the widest angle on the zoom. A 28mme would be far better for many scenes, especially indoor family snapshots. Some people even want 24mme.
4. Accurate optical viewfinder. The LCD display is difficult to see in bright sunlight. Existing optical viewfinders (many digicams don't even have one) suffer badly from parallax and reduced field of view.
5. On-camera flash, low power and red-eye are common complaints. Personally, I'd like a simple way to add an external flash but placed off-camera.
6. Faster shot-to-shot cycle times.
7. I personally prefer shooting in raw mode but many digicam users do not.
.

G9 and In-Camera Noise Reduction

.
After writing about how to tune the in-camera jpg from the G9, I've been asked about tuning the noise reduction as well. Although some cameras have adjustable noise reduction/treatment settings, the G9 does not. Noise reduction is applied to all JPEG images as deemed necessary and appropriate by Canon. To get around the in-camera G9 noise reduction process, you’ll have to shoot in raw mode.
.

Camera Raw Settings for the G9

.
There are entire books about Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). I’m currently using Camera Raw by Fraser and Schewe as a reference; however, it doesn’t give specific settings for the G9. I probably shouldn’t either but many people need a starting point (well, I did). On opening a image in ACR, there are eight panels of controls but I’m giving starting points for only a few. For now, leave the other controls on default or automatic.

First of all, ACR will open your raw file according to the Default settings until you make changes. Also, ACR applies a profile that is specific to your camera make and model. There’s no such thing as opening the raw file in ACR and then saving it as “unprocessed”.

A tip: Holding down the Alt (Windows) or Option (Mac) key while moving the sliders is revealing for some (not all) of the controls.

The settings for the first panel, “Basic”, aren’t particularly specific to the G9. These settings will vary a lot and according to your tastes. These are:

White Balance (temperature and tint) is probably obvious and has been previously posted.

Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Brightness, Contrast: Click the Auto button and see what happens; you’ll probably like it. If not, start moving the sliders but keep an eye on the histogram. “Recovery” attempts to recover highlight detail and is really useful. “Fill Light” attempts to recover shadow details. Extremes are usually not good.

Clarity boosts midtone contrast; I usually have it between 20 and 50.

Vibrance increases color saturation without oversaturating skin tones. I typically set Vibrance between 5 and 10 and use a lesser amount for the Saturation slider setting. It is very tempting and very easy to oversaturate!

The second panel, “Curve Tone”, is also more specific to the image than to the G9. I almost always leave all the Parametric settings at 0, change to the Point settings and select “Medium Contrast” from the drop-down list. I may then refine or even completely change the curve; it is similar to the Photoshop curve adjustment.

The “Detail” panel is where specifics come into play for the G9 for both sharpening and noise reduction. Sharpening at this stage of post processing is “capture” sharpening specific to the camera. Later, creative sharpening might be applied. Output sharpening should be specific to the printer, paper, screen, etc. The Detail panel also contains two settings for noise reduction. For the most part, after quite a bit of comparative testing, I use the settings recommended by Thomas Niemann . For ISO 80 and 100, these are:
Amount: 60
Radius: .8
Detail: 30
Masking: 0
Luminance: 20
Color: 100
For ISO 800, I usually try Luminance set at 80 as recommended by Thomas Niemann but sometimes this high luminance value squashes detail. For ISO between 100 and 800, I try Luminance settings between 20 and 80. Noise is a bit of a problem with the G9 - especially above ISO 200. but higher ISO is usable with suitable noise reduction techniques. I've written already about noise reduction and will be doing more as I learn more myself.

Again, these are starting points. There are many other controls in ACR and eventually I’ll feel confident enough to comment on them.
.

G9 in Black and White

Black and white prints invoke art and visions from the past but there are many ways to get that artistic time travel effect from a digital camera. The Canon G9 (and a number of other cameras) includes a black-and-white mode so that black-and-white images can be made in-camera. This B/W picture was made in-camera with the G9 set for ISO 800. (To get to the black-and-white mode, press the Function button, scroll down to the My Colors settings and then scroll across to B/W.) A word of warning: When you set B/W mode on a digital camera, you will get a black-and-white image file – not a color image file. You may not be able to recover the color version of that picture. With the G9, by shooting in combined raw+jpg mode (a menu setting) with My Colors set to B/W, you’ll get a B/W jpg plus a raw image file. You’ll be able to process the raw file in color using any editor that will process Canon G9 raw files. I use Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CS3.

Even though it is easy to get a black-and-white picture in-camera, I normally don’t set the camera to B/W mode because it is so easy to convert a color image file to grayscale. This conversion can be done several ways: a menu option in many editors (including Photoshop), extreme desaturation, choosing or converting the the color channels, various plug-ins, etc. In the past, my practice has been to shoot in RAW, open in color and then use Fred Miranda’s B/W Pro plug-in. This inexpensive plug-in works well and also lets you add grain or convert to a duotone, tritone, etc. This picture represents my previous workflow. It was shot at ISO 80 to minimize noise, processed in raw as a color image and then converted to B/W in Fred Miranda’s photoshop plugin. Grain was added in the B/W Pro plug-in.

Considering the new features in ACR, I’ve been experimenting with grayscale conversion directly from raw while developing in ACR. An interesting aspect of this conversion is noise reduction. In film based photography, the grain structure of the negative became not only visible but a problem, especially with high ISO film. One solution for film grain was to treat that grain as an asset instead of a liability. With digital photography, there is no grain but amplification creates electronic noise from the pixels. In B/W conversions from digital, it has become fashionable to treat the noise similarly to grain. Therefore, if a digital file is to be converted to B/W, the processing does not include noise reduction. The B/W picture shown here is from the raw file accompanying the in-camera jpg (first picture in this post). That is, it was shot at ISO 800, but processed in raw without noise reduction and converted to B/W in ACR. No grain was added and it was easy to do.

Taking another variation in ACR conversion, this picture is from the same raw file as the second picture in this post (the Fred Miranda conversion). It was shot at ISO 80 so there was little noise/grain to work with. This time the conversion from raw was done entirely in ACR and grain was added in Photoshop (not a plugin). The ACR conversion settings were identical to those used for the ISO 800 picture above.


Of course, the in-camera B/W jpg can be edited. This picture is the edited version of the first picture in this post. That is, it was shot at ISO 800 with the G9 set for B/W mode. The only adjustments were Levels and Curves in Photoshop CS3.

All the pictures above were made from only two shots but the lighting was slightly different for each. Again, the G9 was set to save the raw file as well as a jpg file. Don’t be confused by the slight differences in lighting or the fact that I bumped the tripod slightly.

As a result of conducting these little experiments and organizing my thoughts to write about them, I’m going to change my processing methods. Whereas in the past I shot in raw and used the Fred Miranda plugin to convert the color image to grayscale, in the future I’ll be doing everything in ACR. I’m still going to use a low ISO if possible because the image quality was just better at low ISO. If I want to add grain to simulate grainy film, I’ll do that with a Photoshop filter.

There are only slight differences in these particular images. By clicking on the picture you can see larger versions but the most significant factor was lighting and my personal choices of settings in Photoshop's Levels, Curves and Smart Sharpening.

The point is: Good black-and-white shots can be made from color digital cameras and there are many ways of converting from color to black-and-white. Try a few variations and find a workflow that suits your preferences and tastes.

Comparison of G3 and G9 ISO 400 RAW

One of my reasons for getting the Canon G9 when I already had a G3 was to get a higher useable ISO rating. The G3 has a maximum ISO 400 whereas the G9 goes up to ISO1600. Much has been made of the fact that the G9, having 12 megapixels, necessarily has smaller pixels than the G3 with its 4 megapixels. Small pixels generally mean more noise. Even so, it seemed likely that the G9 might be more useable at, say, ISO 400, than the G3. I decided that if the G9 produced reasonably good 8x10 prints at ISO 400 – even if special noise reduction was required -- then it would be a keeper. This turns out to be true and I’m keeping the G9.

The picture below is a direct comparison of the G3 and G9 at ISO 400. Once again, it is important to know the “rules” of the comparison. The scene is the same as in the previous post. The G3 and G9 were set at ISO 400, RAW mode and aperture priority (Av). The cameras were placed, one at a time, on a tripod; the tripod was not moved. RAW files were processed in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with no adjustments; that is, all tonal adjustments, sharpening, noise reduction, etc were set to zero. (Keep this in mind when looking at the crops.) Even so, there are some important differences in the basic image files. The G3 image is naturally 2272x1704 pixels; the G9 is 4000x3000. The G3 lens was at its widest, 7.2mm focal length but the G9 widest focal length is 7.4mm. Even though the tripod did not move, the cameras were not precisely oriented. The G3 exposure was 1/1250 sec at f4.5 but the G9 selected 1/640 only about five minutes later. Rather than manually adjust these automatic exposures, I decided to accept them; the histograms look about the same.

Again referring to the previous post for the complete view, the sample below is from the bottom towards the middle.

On a 100% pixel view, the G9 image is larger. How should this be resolved? I decided to reduce the G9 image to the exact same number of pixels as the G3 (G3 and G9 images have the same aspect ratio). The above is a 100% crop showing 400x400 pixels (click on the picture for a larger view) of the (essentially) unprocessed RAW images. Clearly the G9 crop has less noise and shows more detail.

The above area was well exposed; let’s examine another sample from the shadows. The crop below compares the G3 and G9 at the middle right hand side of the full image. The rules of comparison are the same.

Once again, it is easy to prefer the G9 image. Perhaps the most obvious improvement of the G9 as compared to the G3 image lies in the amount of visible detail. Notice that the G3 sky shows more noise. Interestingly, the amount of noise in the shadows seems roughly equal but, again, the G9 image has much better detail and gives the impression of less noise.

Remember, these were comparisons of ISO 400 RAW files as exposed by the G3 and G9 in Av mode. The samples shown were not adjusted for levels, curves, saturation, sharpness, noise reduction, etc. The G9 samples were downsized to match the G3 samples. Obviously, each image could be improved with proper post processing.

My conclusion is that I’d prefer to use the G9 at ISO 400 instead of the G3 at ISO 400 – even though the G9 pixels are smaller.

G9: Noise in the Garden

Any self-respecting Pixel Peeper will take one look at this 100% crop and cry out “Noise!”. (You’ll probably have to click on the image to see a larger version and get the full effect.) On learning that the image is from the Canon G9, the Peeker will further exclaim, “I knew it. Small pixels are noisy. The G9 has too many pixels on a small sensor and therefore each pixel must be very small. No wonder the image is noisy; I predicted it.”

All of the above (explanation, that is) seems to be true. The Canon G9 does pack a lot (12,000,000) of pixels onto a small sensor. Therefore, those pixels are small and, all other things being equal, smaller pixels produce more noise. I’m not a camera designer, a chip designer or even an electronics engineer but I’ve come to accept these facts as being in accord with the “Laws of Nature” and, even more convincingly, Internet Lore.

Besides, the detailed tests and reviews of the G9 are published and it produces noisy images. No doubt about it: G9 images are noisy and the noise gets worse as the ISO setting increases. The full scene from which the noisy crop was taken is shown below (but reduced in size to 1024x768, high quality jpg compression).



Two of the main reasons that I bought the G9 were that I wanted higher resolution and a usable higher ISO than I could get from my Canon G3. The G3 was limited to 4MP and ISO400; however, the ISO400 was not particularly usable. My hope was that the G9 would have good quality at ISO400.

I’ve seen the reviews and read the comments in the discussion forums: G9 = Noise. I took a few shots at high ISO and peeked at the pixels. Yes, even my own G9 is noisy. Now, could I find a way to work with or around that noise?

Of course, I had to generate some images and conduct my own tests. Here’s the set up and procedure:
- found a scene with both bright and dark areas
- G9 on tripod
- Set for RAW + jpg (hoping to get improvements in Photoshop)
- Set Av mode
- Set 2 sec shutter delay (wish the G9 had a remote)
- Pictures at ISO 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

The above pictures were taken at ISO1600 and are direct from the in-camera jpg. Surprised? The second lesson learned is that the high ISO images can be very usable so long as the image is small. What good is a small image? Well, uh, the Internet...

The first lesson learned (see, the paragraph above has the second …) is that testing cameras is not at all straightforward. For example, what is the correct exposure for all these varying ISO speeds? I decided to use Av mode but that decision also means that the test results vary with the G9’s judgement of exposure. (Shutter speeds selected by the Av mode did not exactly track ISO.) Is the in-camera jpg that is embedded in the RAW file the same as a jpg made without RAW? (Seems to be.) How should the data be presented?

Entire scenes are shown in this post as 1024x768 pixels. The in-camera jpg images are presented as-is and 100% with no post processing whatsoever except for cropping to emphasize the noise.

The ISO 80 crop from in-camera jpg

The ISO 800 crop from in-camera jpg



The ISO 1600 crop from in-camera jpg is the first picture show in this post.

I’ve already admitted to peeking at a few pixels myself. I didn’t care for the higher ISO images from the in-camera jpg. In fact, I didn’t particularly like the ISO 80 image from in-camera jpg – not that it was noisy, it just doesn’t look good to me. Time to break out Photoshop CS3 and process those RAW files.

Interestingly, Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) did not automatically change the exposure of the RAW files. Of course, I did tinker with the settings myself. I wanted to minimize noise and get a picture more to my liking as well.

In the G9 review on Digital Photography Review, I was impressed by the noise reduction of an ISO 400 image with ACR 4.3 (and by noting that ACR 4.3 is being Beta tested; the current version is 4.2 and it only approximately fits the G9). The ACR settings really caught my eye: luminance at 0 and chroma at maximum. I’d have never thought to use these extremes but it seemed to help the DPReview images. Of course, I don’t have the 4.3 Beta but I tried both extremes and the middle settings for luminance and chroma noise reduction in ACR 4.2. To my eye, there was no effect; perhaps this will change in version 4.3.

I use Photokit Sharpener from Pixel Genius for sharpening. PK Sharpener uses a three step process: 1) capture sharpening, 2) creative sharpening and 3) output sharpening. Capture sharpening is user selected according to camera resolution and user taste, creative sharpening is entirely user taste and output sharpening varies with file size, output device (screen, printer, etc.) and user taste.

The most recent versions of Photoshop include sharpening in ACR. The ACR sharpening parameters are on the Detail screen along with the noise reduction parameters. I’ve been wanting to try ACR sharpening as a sort of “capture” sharpening. Strangely enough, to me anyway, when ACR sharpening is used, the luminance and chroma settings come into play. I suppose ACR is designed this way but, if so, it was not obvious to me. After much trial-and-error, it seemed to me that settings of 50, 0.5, 20, 80, 50, 50 for the ACR Details page reduced noise nicely but not entirely. (You’ll have to check the Details page to see what I mean by these numbers.)

I still used PK Sharpener for capture sharpening (incorporated into the trial and error above).

Now for more noise reduction using Neat Image. I made my own profiles using the Neat Image calibration targets and applied Neat Image at 35% strength. Pretty simple and took me a lot less time and experimenting.

By this point, the noise level had dropped quite a bit. I finished up the post processing by tweaking levels, curves and saturation. Here’s the 100% illustrative crop from the ISO 800 image:

Notice that the noise, even pixel peeked, is not too bad. On top of that, the details look better to me. And here’s the final, full image from the ISO 800 RAW file after post processing.


I even like this one more than the ISO 80 image from the in-camera jpg but that’s a matter of taste. I will say that the colors, especially the fence, are more accurate (if somewhat saturated). It made a nice print.

So, I think my G9 has very good potential at ISO 400 and even 800 under the right conditions and when processed from RAW. The requirement to process from RAW is not a problem to me; much of that processing can be done semi-automatically using Photoshop Actions.

But, sad to admit, I gave up on the ISO 1600 file. Although it could be improved, I haven’t got it quite right – yet.