Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Digital Noise
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Dec 14, 2018 17:38:30   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
jonjacobik wrote:
Why the problem? I shoot a lot of wildlife, often from forests and no always on sunny days and frequently late in the day. I start with my camera settings ISO 1000 at 1/2000 and RAW! I never shoot jpg it cuts into burst mode ability. If I'm shooting swallows, I might bump the speed to 1/3200 and I might even push the iso to 1600. Either way, there will be noise.

When I open my images in Adobe Bridge, they are dark. First step, exposure +3, shawdow +3 simply can't be helped.

To the cynics out there are lots of ways to shoot wildlife and control the lighting, kill it, take it in doors and stuff it, but that's not I want to do it.

I didn't ask how stop noise, only how do you fix it.

All those made suggestions - thanks.
Why the problem? I shoot a lot of wildlife, often ... (show quote)


Why do you need to bump the exposure up in post (if the shot is properly exposed)? Underexposure is a sure way to increase noise. Maybe add some exposure compensation in-Camera so they come out at least properly exposed and preferably as far to the right as possible.

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 18:32:02   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
TriX wrote:
Why do you need to bump the exposure up in post (if the shot is properly exposed)? Underexposure is a sure way to increase noise. Maybe add some exposure compensation in-Camera so they come out at least properly exposed and preferably as far to the right as possible.

Because it might not be the way you want it to look. You might have used base ISO with an aperture and a shutter speed that did not happen to make the image as bright as you wanted but the camera could not read your mind.

But if you get enough exposure you will probably end up with little or no noise, regardless of whether the image ends up as ETTR or a little darker or brighter.

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 18:43:31   #
wolfman
 
Kmgw9v wrote:
DXO



Reply
 
 
Dec 14, 2018 19:27:35   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Quote:
...But if you get enough exposure you will probably end up with little or no noise, regardless of whether the image ends up as ETTR or a little darker or brighter.


Exactly my point. The OP says that the shot is dark and needs to be pulled up in post, and then he is bothered by noise. One obvious answer is to stop underexposing.

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 20:48:45   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
TriX wrote:
Exactly my point. The OP says that the shot is dark and needs to be pulled up in post, and then he is bothered by noise. One obvious answer is to stop underexposing.

Easier said than done.

It's simple if you are exposing in broad daylight (net EV about 15), open shade (EV 12) or down to sunset (EV 9 to 12). See Exposure Value. In most such situations with any modern full frame camera you are not going to see any noise close to base ISO. A modern crop sensor (1.5 or 1.6 crop) is only about a step behind the performance of a full frame sensor.

But if you are shooting nighttime sports or in deep shade you will probably be below EV 9. There really isn't much you can do about noise in that case because there simply aren't enough photons to be had. For action shots you can't slow the shutter enough and open the aperture wide enough.

It's the exposure that determines the signal. A higher ISO to make the image brighter amplifies both the signal and the noise at the same time keeping the signal to noise ratio (S/N) constant.

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 21:38:44   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
selmslie wrote:
...It's the exposure that determines the signal. A higher ISO to make the image brighter amplifies both the signal and the noise at the same time keeping the signal to noise ratio (S/N) constant.


I agree that low light high ISO is a challenge, but there’s no mystery as to how to optimize - I learned it early on when shooting indoor sports without a flash - FF sensor, fast lenses, shoot raw, ETTR (or EBTR) and use the highest performance SW you can find for raw conversion and noise reduction - no secrets, just not inexpensive.

Now where we disagree is the continuing discussion of ETTR/EBTR usefulness, ISO invariance and all the permutations of the discussion on noise, DR, S/N, etc. IF all cameras were truly ISO invariant (and that definition gets kicked around a lot), which they aren’t, there would be no need for ISO adjustment, but every camera we discuss has an ISO adjustment. The contention that amplifying the signal from the sensor (raising the ISO) is useless because both the signal and the sensor noise is also amplified and the S/N remains unchanged ignores the fact that when you don’t use the full DR of the A/D (by underexposing), the SYSTEM S/N is degraded and the resolution of the SYSTEM is decreased. Why? First, because the A/D chain contributes its own noise (contributors such digitization error, aperture uncertainty, reference voltage error, and LSB variation all add to the “noise”) which is constant. So, if you intentionally use only 6 bits of a 12 bit A/D (or whatever), the S/N is degraded, because the signal is lower while the noise is constant compared to using the entire DR of the A/D. Now we’re discussing noise, but let’s not forget the effect on the resolution. Sure, you can multiply the output of the A/D by a constant (in post) to get the value back up, BUT you can’t replace the resolution you lost by underutilizing the DR of the A/D. All those missing values are just interpolated or remain missing. So why pay for a 12 bit A/D in camera and process with 16-bit SW but limit your entire system’s DR and S/N by underexposing? Bringing up an underexposed shot in post IS NOT the same as correctly exposing in the first place. It’s worse in some cameras than others (many Canon users know underexposing is the kiss of death for noise) but it always hurts S/N and resolution, and there is no valid reason to do it unless you’re unsure of your metering/exposure and want to leave some “headroom”. The OP says that his shots are dark, so why not just expose “correctly” and have less noise to deal with in post - it’s a “no-cost” improvement.

For further reading if anyone’s interested: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 22:46:33   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
jonjacobik wrote:
While taking photos under ideal conditions is always the best way, sometimes you gotta stretch the light, use a high ISO to get the shot. I've tried a bunch of software to eliminate noise, but wondering if you know a better one.
Light Room - just not much help
Photoshop - A lot of features but the trade sharpness is servere
Topaz - Not bad if you get their pro add-in but still a trade off.
Photolemur - some, but I never the overall look
Luminar - better than Photoshop but difficult
Corel PSP - Newest version is pretty good

Seems like in this ai age, someone would have better.

What do like?
While taking photos under ideal conditions is alwa... (show quote)


Lightroom is my go-to, but when it's really bad, like an ISO 6400 from a D800, I use DXO PhotoLap, which has Prime noise reduction. Like Lightroom, it works on the raw file.

Reply
 
 
Dec 14, 2018 22:47:46   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
selmslie wrote:
Also NeatImage and a couple more. They all do the same thing - remove noise by reducing sharpness. There is no magic bullet.


DXO Prime works on the raw file and it analyzes noise and compares it to image data, and removes the noise - but it only works on raw files.

If you set the luminance level to 30 instead of the default of 40, you will keep a lot of fine detail.

This is a good article that compares several noise reduction strategies.

http://lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-optics-pro-9-prime-noise-reduction/3/

Reply
Dec 14, 2018 23:42:59   #
jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA
 
ChristianHJensen wrote:
If you get a lot of digital noise at ISO 400 to 640 there is something seriously wrong with your camera


Noise shows on some backgrounds at 1000. Many shots are just fine.

Reply
Dec 15, 2018 00:10:53   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
TriX wrote:
... The contention that amplifying the signal from the sensor (raising the ISO) is useless because both the signal and the sensor noise is also amplified and the S/N remains unchanged ignores the fact that when you don’t use the full DR of the A/D (by underexposing), the SYSTEM S/N is degraded and the resolution of the SYSTEM is decreased. ...
For further reading if anyone’s interested: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p2.html

My wife's Lumix ZS50 uses a 12-bit raw file and there is no extra stop of DR. It is limited, like all 12-bit cameras, to a numeric range of 0-4095 - not much to work with.

The original articles addressing the need for ETTR were written 10-15 years ago based on 12-bit Canon cameras. Even Canon has moved on with the use of 14-bit raw files. This makes a big difference.

Regardless of whether a camera ISO invariant, the ratio of signal to noise is still the primary indicator of whether or not noise will be visible.

Lack of invariance only means that you cannot produce the same basic image at widely different ISO settings. But a change of one stop is not going to make a big difference in noise performance.

What all of this means is that the need for ETTR is not as critical as when Reichmann introduced the method in 2003 using his 12-bit crop sensor Canon. To continue to promote its benefits for the currently available Nikon, Sony and even Canon 14-bit full frame cameras is a bit of an exaggeration.

Sure, we should not underexpose by two or more stops. But it's no longer critical.

Reply
Dec 15, 2018 05:56:07   #
Largobob
 
Kmgw9v wrote:
DXO


I agree, Kmgw9v. DxO Photolab Elite, has a very good noise reduction processor. It also allows for "local adjustments", which I find very helpful.

Reply
 
 
Dec 15, 2018 06:22:09   #
traderjohn Loc: New York City
 
jonjacobik wrote:
While taking photos under ideal conditions is always the best way, sometimes you gotta stretch the light, use a high ISO to get the shot. I've tried a bunch of software to eliminate noise, but wondering if you know a better one.
Light Room - just not much help
Photoshop - A lot of features but the trade sharpness is servere
Topaz - Not bad if you get their pro add-in but still a trade off.
Photolemur - some, but I never the overall look
Luminar - better than Photoshop but difficult
Corel PSP - Newest version is pretty good

Seems like in this ai age, someone would have better.

What do like?
While taking photos under ideal conditions is alwa... (show quote)


How fast is your lens??

Reply
Dec 15, 2018 08:42:22   #
bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur
 
jonjacobik wrote:
While taking photos under ideal conditions is always the best way, sometimes you gotta stretch the light, use a high ISO to get the shot. I've tried a bunch of software to eliminate noise, but wondering if you know a better one.
Light Room - just not much help
Photoshop - A lot of features but the trade sharpness is servere
Topaz - Not bad if you get their pro add-in but still a trade off.
Photolemur - some, but I never the overall look
Luminar - better than Photoshop but difficult
Corel PSP - Newest version is pretty good

Seems like in this ai age, someone would have better.

What do like?
While taking photos under ideal conditions is alwa... (show quote)


I primarily shoot birds, where preserving fine feather detail is important. Unfortunately, like you I end up shooting, not only in low light environments, but with high ISO settings. It is not unusual for me to use f 4/0, SS 1/60, and ISO of 3200. I shoot RAW and usually set EC at +1 in these low light environments. I use a full frame camera.
I convert my RAW images in DPP, export to PS, apply Topaz DeNoise 6 aggressively to the entire image. After doing this I use the History Brush (shortcut Y) and paint the bird. This removes all noise reduction to the area painted. In a light colored bird, often no further noise reduction is needed. In a dark colored bird I will reapply noise reduction via Topaz again to the entire image, but at a much reduced level to reach a compromise between NR and preservation of detail of the bird. Seldom am I interested in preserving detail in the background.
I find this much easier and quicker than attempting to isolate the bird via a mask and new layer, especially with a bird located in foliage or with multiple birds.
This method was demonstrated to me by Daniel Cadieux in Bird Photographer Net.

Reply
Dec 15, 2018 09:09:56   #
Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC
 
DXO Lab 2 or DXO Nik Define 2? I like Topaz Denoise 6 as well as both DXO software.

Kmgw9v wrote:
DXO

Reply
Dec 15, 2018 09:35:38   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Topaz Dinoise works for me.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.