BEST WAY TO GET RID OF NOISE WHEN SUBJECTS ARE IN SHADOWS: When shooting outdoor soccer in bright sunlight and the players run into the dark shadows of the fans' bleachers, what is the...

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

When shooting outdoor soccer in bright sunlight and the players run into the dark shadows of the fans' bleachers,
what is the best way to rid one's image of unwanted noise before publication? I set up my Sony A7R4 on Auto ISO to handle the shade, 1/2000 second shutter speed to stop action, F2.8 aperature to keep the ISO as low as possible and shot off a monopod to avoid motion blur. In post editing I cropped for composure and used Topaz denoise to remove the noise in the dark areas. I would welcome any of the excellent sports photographers on UHH who would care to share other ways they get rid of noise they don't like? Thank you in advance.Shooter41

(Download)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Shooter41 wrote:

When shooting outdoor soccer in bright sunlight an... (show quote)

The Exif suggests your image was taken at ISO 320. If you are having to worry about noise at that ISO it suggests you are underexposing.

Looking at the image posted your noise treatment is likely doing more harm than good and you are losing detail, unless this is a severe crop.

From my own experience I'm finding the latest ACR noise removal function deals with high ISO noise better than Topaz with less detail loss and artefacts.

ISO 20,000 ACR Denoise
ISO 20,000 ACR Denoise...

(Download)

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

The sunlight in the background may have caused under exposure in the foreground but still I’m surprised there is so much noise in a shot taken in daylight hours. Extreme crop? Over saturated?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As mentioned, possible under exposure ? but 1/2000 @ ISO 320 f2.8 in open shade should be enough ! You may have a defective camera - and might try a camera with larger pixels like the A9.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Bring up the exposure in post and dial down the highlights and see how that looks. Any modern sensor can easily handle ISO 320 without noticeable noise. Some can go as high as 1200.

Abo

ISO 160 @ 1/1000

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Your noise is almost certainly caused by under exposure. First of all 1/2000 isn’t necessary to capture the speed of soccer. 1/1000 or probably even 1/800 should be sufficient. You say this is a crop? I’m guessing the uncropped version has areas in it that include the bright part of the field, causing the under exposure. Maybe try spot metering or look into what metering modes are available on your camera. I regularly shoot at ISO’s much higher than 320 with no noise problems.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Your noise is almost certainly caused by under exposure. First of all 1/2000 isn’t necessary to capture the speed of soccer. 1/1000 or probably even 1/800 should be sufficient. You say this is a crop? I’m guessing the uncropped version has areas in it that include the bright part of the field, causing the under exposure. Maybe try spot metering or look into what metering modes are available on your camera. I regularly shoot at ISO’s much higher than 320 with no noise problems.

Dear superflyTNT...Thanks for the info. Shooter41

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Grahame wrote:

The Exif suggests your image was taken at ISO 320. If you are having to worry about noise at that ISO it suggests you are underexposing.

Looking at the image posted your noise treatment is likely doing more harm than good and you are losing detail, unless this is a severe crop.

From my own experience I'm finding the latest ACR noise removal function deals with high ISO noise better than Topaz with less detail loss and artefacts.

I find the new noise removal feature in ACR/Lightroom to be quite slow. Topaz is somewhat faster.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

DWU2 wrote:

I find the new noise removal feature in ACR/Lightroom to be quite slow. Topaz is somewhat faster.

Dear DWU2...I like Topaz as well. Shooter41

Grahame Loc: Fiji

DWU2 wrote:

I find the new noise removal feature in ACR/Lightroom to be quite slow. Topaz is somewhat faster.

I find it slow also, approx. 8 minutes to work on a 36meg file on my machine. Fortunately some say it's much quicker on their computers, I just need to determine what to upgrade on mine.

Then again, time is relative to the importance of the image.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

DWU2 wrote:

I find the new noise removal feature in ACR/Lightroom to be quite slow. Topaz is somewhat faster.

...speed really depends on your machine. It's worth it, if you process many images, to bite der bullet and upgrade your 'puter. If you value your time, IMO. <shrug>

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, I don't find the noise in that image to be objectionable.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

amfoto1 wrote:

First of all, I don't find the noise in that image to be objectionable.

I’m assuming this is after running it through Denoise. Although, as has been stated before, noise shouldn’t be a problem at 320 ISO. That being said, there’s no need to shoot soccer at. 1/2000. Cut that in half and you’re at 160 ISO.