> Self-serving advice, and the rest of his incantation
That is not exactly dispassionate, Mark. That's very charged language. You could have disagreed about the workflow recommendation without the gratuitous attack. Or, perhaps you think "self-serving" and linking someone to witchcraft or alchemy is benign or neutral language?
I am and remain perfectly calm. I can disagree with you without getting animated. LOL.
> talking about the magnification needed to see what's really embedded in the
> image regardless of print size. And yes, I agree, what's VISIBLE depands on
> size, but that's not the point.
Who cares about noise embedded in the image regardless of print size?!?! What's visible is entirely the point.
> when someone tells me only to look for artifactss at a magnification where they
> don't appear, but they may still exist, what am I supposed to take away from
> that
That you need to use some common sense. As a digital photographer, what matters is the visible effect of noise on our photographs. If your eye is not distracted by the noise that's present in a photograph, where's the problem?! Leave it alone.
What does it matter, if you intend to print at 8x12 and the print has no visible noise *BUT* a 400% magnification with a loupe shows evidence of noise? How does that diminsh the print in any way. Do you print with the intended viewing distance being the eyepiece end of a loupe?! If so, then go for the extreme magnification.
Noise reduction comes at a high cost. You only want to apply enough to make noise non-apparent (or less apparent in the case of extreme noise). Any more than that and you sacrifice image detail.
What you want to do is pretend that there is one setting for noise reduction that is suitable for a master file that can be reproduced at different sizes and resolutions. That's simply not the case. Ignoring that and targeting the maximum size you might ever intend to print or trying to remove every vestige of noise will certainly erode detail for smaller prints that could have been retained by targeting the noise reduction for the intended output.
> I know my display, the software and print conditions well enough that I don't
> need to hardproof to see what I'm getting.
LOL. You had the nerve to apply "self-serving" to the comments of another!?
Rubbish. Monitors emit light. Prints reflect it. Not all noise visible on a print is visible on a monitor and vice versa. You can come close with a soft proof.
> However, the high magnification views that I posted were not to preview the
> appearance of noise at a given print size (in which case your criticism is valid),
> but rather to demonstrate what degree of noise is present in the image.
I understand all of that. You have one perspective. Mark, however, is advocating a different workflow. One that assumes a constant relationship between the appearance of noise and detail.
The comparison of how much noise exists at high magnification is still misleading, however. Since that is not the size of the intended output (maybe not even the intended resolution and media), differences in noise might become much less significant (or even insignificant) at more appropriate magnification.
It doesn't matter if the comparison results in significant differences in noise at high magnification, unless that high magnification is what you intend for the photo. It only matters if significant differences exist in the final output.
If you want to compare what happens to a photo as a result of noise reduction and capture sharpening, hold everything else constant through output and then view that output. If a Web image is the final output, look at that. You don't need magnification to see visible artifacts from noise that catches the eye. If it's not apparent to the eye, it's not worthy of comparison.
What you're doing is like the audiophile who sees noise on an oscilloscope. Who cares if you can see audio noise as a waveform?! Can you hear it, is the relevant question when you're buying audio gear.
If you cannot see a significant difference in your output, who cares if you can see it with a loupe (or the same thing, high magnification on a monitor)? Just enjoy your print and don't sweat what cannot be seen under proper viewing conditions.
Cheers,
MItch
