MDM

I agree and I'm fully aware of that but I would like to stay focused as things have a habit of diverging rapidly, particularly when health is under discussion. We could also talk about Jeff's eyesight which was also under discussion in another thread and led way off topic to a discussion of cataract surgery to which I contributed as I have experience there. I am genuinely delighted for Jeff in relation to his tremor and the ultimate cause thereof.

If I'm to harsh for you then don't argue with me. I call it straight talking. I believe I am in my rights in asking that this thread that I started should stay on topic rather than turn into yet another topic on health (in particular). I think this could be a useful thread for many contributors now and down the line but not if it gets diverted. You are free to start your own thread as I said.

I'm delighted for Jeff as well but the topic is Denoise not the effect of tremors on photography. If you want to discuss that, then start a new thread.

Let's keep this thread on topic for once rather than another discussion on health please.

Good to hear your procedure was succesful Jeff. I suspect that Denoised image might pass QC, especially if downsized, but who am I to judge that. Try it and see. I am considering strike action in terms of answering any more of your questions until you get a new avatar 😎

Despite the fact that I started this thread and I advocate anyone with the Adobe Photography Package using Denoise, I am not an expert at all. I only know what I know by experiment and I suggest you do the same - try it and see what you get. It is totally non-destructive and therefore completely harmless. Relax, experiment and enjoy. It is magic. Default is 50 on my computers. I only ever use it at default as that does the job perfectly on my images (45MP NIkon NEFs). I don't see pixelated edges - probably depends on the quality of the original image. The mag box seems to be a bit over 100% but not much. Denoise uses Raw Details to sharpen what it perceives to be the subject and that can't be turned off. I suspect that increasing the Denoise amount might soften the subject but that can be left as an exercise for the reader. From my observations, it doesn't matter if you do some normal editing in LR/ACR. However, you shouldn't use any other AI features before Denoise (sky replacement etc). So it is fine in my experience to do your basic processing before or after using Denoise but it is easiest to use Denoise first and then work on the DNG. It resets any noise reduction you may have applied anyway so that doesn't matter. FInally can I reiterate Betty's request to change your avatar. That thing is really disturbing. 🤣

There is so much info in this thread there is danger of overload. So cutting to the chase hopefully, you don't need to use flash for modern macro photography unless you really like the effect of fill-in flash. I recall you are a Photoshop user so, instead of flash, use high ISO and Denoise in post. This can be worth around 6-8 stops in terms of shutter speed depending on the camera. In other words, let's say you need a shutter speed of 1/320 to freeze movement of an insect, then just up your ISO until you achieve that and use Denoise in ACR. I am shooting at much higher ISOs than I ever imagined possible before because of Denoise. I would strongly recommend getting a decent (secondhand) macro lens with stabilisation as mentioned above (Sigma or Tamron). These are designed for close-up photography (optimised for close focus unlike a normal telephoto) and make the task much much easier than using a telephoto zoom. I definitely would not use a teleconverter because of light loss and the effect on image quality. Close-up filter are never going to match a quality macro lens. Extension rings are great as they don't affect the optics but, if you buy a lens that goes to lifesize, you don't need extension rings unless you want to go super-close (true macro territory > lifesize). In summary, the only thing you really need to buy for high quality close-up work is a secondhand macro lens and they are not expensive.

Absolutely. I try to remember to take a shot of the leaves, stem, seed heads etc as well as the colourful bits. Plant identification can be exhilarating when you get it right or really frustrating. I've been meaning to take a course in formal plant identification using proper botanical keys and so on but so far have not gotten around to it. I grealy admire your ability to identify plants here which you have done countless times.

I only shoot insects when they happen to land on plants I'm photographing or these days just as likely videoing where a tripod is essential unless using a gimbal or the like. The big problem is focusing at very close distances as the tiniest movement towards or away from the subject can result in failure and a tripod is an excellent solution. That said, modern lenses and advanced AF systems can track movement very well. However, I do enjoy travelling light and shooting handheld which is greatly faciltated by IBIS and/or a lens with goofd stabilisation. Couple that with being able to shoot at very high ISOs and process with Adobe Denoise gives results that border on miraculous in terms of what is possible nowadays. I should say I only use natual light for my plant photography. I first got the macro bug back in the 80s when I had an OM system and I got my first macro lens - a 50mm Zuiko that did half lifesize. Then it was either tripod, flash or both. SInce then I've always had a tripod that can go right down to ground level.

A 180mm might be the thing if you are specialising in insects as it gives a greater working distance. However, a lens in the 90-105mm range is probably the most useful for general close-up photography. A tripod is essential for close-up photography so you should be factoring that in and considering one that can get down near ground level for insect and flower photography. That said, I would not suggest getting any lens that does not have stabilisation if you also want to shoot handheld, as your camera is presumably a DSLR and does not have IBIS. The Sigma lens that Martin suggested has a very good reputation and looks like very good value. The Canon macro lenses are also highly regarded but a lot more expensive. The Tamron 90 is also a fantastic macro lens although no longer in production but could be a very good buy secondhand. I have one for NIkon F Mount and it is excellent with great autofocus even at 1:1. There are several versions but the more recent ones have top class stabilisation.

I'm afraid I can't help with Windows machines. My knowledge is limited to Macs. You could just install the Adobe pacakge on that machine and see what happens. The licence allows you to install on two machines.

I agree but the L word is beyond the scope of the present discussion by request of the OP so Nitro could be a very good option with its stated integration with the Finder and Photos app. Certainly worth checking out.

That looks interesting Mark. The Gentlemen Coders seem to know what they are doing on macOS.

If you have the Adobe package which I presume you do, you can use Denoise from Adobe Camera Raw. It's exactly the same as using it in Lightroom.

I don't know if the Topaz denoiser can work on raw files. I used an early version about four years ago and it couldn't work on raws at that time. Being able to denoise the raw file is of major importance in my opinion. That is a massive advantage of Adobe Denoise - it fits neatly in my workflow. I can do everything in Lightroom or ACR and finish in Photoshop if required. And it's fast. If you are an Adobe Photography Package subscriber, I'd recommend taking the Adobe Denoise for a test drive on a few high ISO images. The results are astonishing.