How to reduce digital noise and artefacts

[lct]

I got a lot of digital noise and artefacts as long as I ignored how to use the in-camera settings of the Digilux 1.

Thanks to Jon Mitchel, Sean Reid, David Krughoff and other colleagues of the Leica Digital Forum, I'm now using simple tricks which reduce the digital noise and artefacts issue to a much more acceptable level.

Please click on the underlined words to get those tricks in <font color="0000ff">Acrobat format or <font color="0000ff">Rich Text Format (RTF).

Best

 

[felipe]

<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

 

[felipe]

<font face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

 

[jethangar]

I also love the D1. I'm not sure what all the complaining is about. Learn to thoroughly use the camera before bashing it to hell. I've taken better pictures with this camera than I ever did with a film camera. It has made me a better photographer.

 

[wilsonlaidlaw1]

I p-ex'd my Fuji built Digilux 4.3, which I thought for its era was an excellent camera, battery problems excepted, for a Digilux 1. I thought the D1 was rubbish. Unless you spent hours processing RAW output, the end results were horrible. Noise, colour bleed, poor rendering, pixellation of straight lines etc. I had it stolen after about 1.5 months and apart from losing all the pictures, which were very important to the whole family, I was delighted to see the back of it. It made me go back to film for serious photos and stick to digital just for P&S. I use a Contax SL300R which is ideal for that task
Wilson

 

[felipe]

Disagree strongly with Wilson. Maybe he had a duff ex&le, but my D1 gives consistently excellent results. I never need to enlarge bigger than A4, but at that size I've had superb results, with remarkable natural skin tones and superbly saturated blue skies without any signs of "bleeding" or pixelation. I use Photoshop Elements for tweaking and an Epson Photo 2100 for printing. No digital camera has yet equalled either my Contax G2 or my Olympus OM-4Ti, however.

 

[george_sekely]

Wilson, I agree that the Fuji built Digiluxes were pretty good cameras. Actually the Digilux and the Digilux Zoom IMHO were better than the 4.3. But I have a problem comprehending what you write about re the Digilux-1.

You wrote "Unless you spent hours processing RAW output, the end results were horrible".

Well Wilson, my Digilux - 1 has no RAW ability. But it does not seem to have the problems you write about either.

And you had it stolen with all those pictures still in it. If they were in the camera how do you know they had all these problems?

George