Yeah, with older versions of LR and PS I would specially convert high ISO RAW files using DPP, instead of my usual process with Lightroom and Photoshop. But now I've seen a big improvement in NR with the later versions of Adobe products... Lightroom 3 and later Photoshop CS5 and later. Now using LR4 and CS6, I rarely see need to use Canon DPP.
But I also use Noiseware Pro at times, with particularly high ISO shots. It can be used as a stand-alone or as a Photoshop plug-in. (I do the latter.)
If shooting JPEGs, make sure your in-camera NR settings are correct. All digital images start out as RAW files.... when you set the camera to produce JPEGs instead, you are simply doing the RAW conversion in-camera and all the "extra" data is thrown away in the process.
The key thing in any case is to avoid underexposure at all costs.
In order to minimize noise at all levels, you do not want to be increasing (pushing) exposure at all during post-processing. In fact, it's often better to be pulling or reducing exposure a bit. I know folks who regularly over-expose +1/3 or even +2/3 stop at higher ISOs... sometimes even more depending upon the situation. They get really good results.
Canon's metering seems to still follow the old rule of slight underexposure that was useful with slide/transparency film. You had to be very careful to prevent over-exposure with slide film, because the highlights in transparencies are a lack any "data"... the final image on the film is nearly or completely clear in those areas.... while shadow areas have a wealth of "data".
With digital files, it's just the opposite. Shadows are an absence of data, while highlights are a preponderence of it. So you are a lot better off over-exposing slightly... In other words, with digital files highlights are more "recoverable" than shadows. Just don't do too much, as it's still possible to "blow out" highlights to the point that fine detail is unrecoverably lost.
I also agree that one of the mistakes people make is viewing their images too large on their computer monitor. If you are looking at an image "100%", that's the same as viewing a 5 foot wide print from 18" away (assuming that your computer monitor is a typical modern one and is set to it's native resolution). Unless you are planning on making a 40x60" print, and even then since you will likely be viewing it from a much greater distance, back off to 50% or less when evaluating your images (feel free to zoom in when retouching, just don't expect miracles).
The best way to evaluate your images is with a print, anyway. You'll be stunned at the dynamic range, additioanl fine detail and overall quality of an image, once it's printed. It is nearly always far and away better than what you see on your computer monitor. When printing use a high quality printer and smooth, matte paper, for the the most critical evaluation . If your printer isn't able to print large enough, crop out a section of the image. Glossy and lustre/semi-gloss papers actually hide a lot of fine detail.
***********
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM
