All three images look about a stop underexposed to me (using a calibrated monitor). There also appears to be some color shift. Both could be due to the lighting in the gym.

After I applied gentle noise reduction, I tweaked the image further first using Photoshop Adjustments/Curves to brighten it up and then applying Adjustments/Photo Filters (cooling... mostly LBB... a little 80) to remove the color tint that was likely caused by the lights.

Are you using Anti-Flicker when shooting "under the lights"? I found it to be a big help reducing underexposure problems.

Do you set a Custom White Balance or at least take a reference shot of a color checker or neutral target under the lights, to make later color correction quick and easy?

But you were asking about noise reduction. Frankly I don't see severe noise in your images. Just as an example, I took the first image through Imagenomic Noiseware plug-in in Photoshop. I applied LIGHT noise reduction (compare some of the out of focus areas at ridiculously high magnification). I like Noiseware and have been using it with various Canon cameras for some five or more years.

Another noise reduction tool I've recently heard a lot of positive things about is DXO PureRaw. Examples I've seen have been amazing and I may need to give it a try. As I understand it, PureRaw is a stand-alone which only works with RAW files, converts them to a 16 bit TIFF or DNG after applying noise reduction. The image then can be worked in any other editing software in whatever manner you wish.

Recent versions of Topaz Denoise are another good NR s'ware I hear. I guess it can either be a plug-in or a stand-alone. But from what I've seen, DXO PureRaw does a little better job. (I tried an older version of Denoise some time ago, but preferred the results from Noiseware and have used it instead.)

See what you think of your image after light NR in Noiseware, brightening and a little color correction, below...

_______________________(reply)

Dear Wise guy. I did not post it in the gallery for openers. And---regardless of your views on synthetically filtered algorithmic images which apparently you prefer and value---I attempt to capture the image I see before me---which is exactly what I did with the roofer shot which I made from street level with the first generation of the revolutionary Sigma FoveonX3 sensors (SD9--I have 5 Sigma DSLRs) and a non-Sigma manual lens. Maybe you demand more or post process in what was never intended---that is your choice. But I favor taking what I see and like and as with the film days am careful and take just one picture. Not a range to choose from dozens for movements and dozens for exposure----as amateurs are inclined to do with that ability of modern cameras. They only have their final image on the cutting room floor, so to speak. To me that is not photography and that is why I use the right camera for the right purpose. And certainly the Sigma FoveonX3s are at the top of my list as it is to professionals in Germany and Japan and not in the USA or on uHH.-----Eric

It's not doctored. It's just a copy of the thumbnail.

Here is the image you posted on January 14 https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-725289-9.html#12850157



The image is 2268x1512 pixels (3.43MP) and the file size is 2.93 megabytes.

It shows that you took the image with a Sigma SD9 on 4/17/2017 at 2:10AM (you did not have the clock set correctly).

It's not very impressive. Don't you have a better example?