selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That is a perfectly rational approach to noise reduction.

Like most other aspects of photography, noise is not a binary option where you either see it or you don't. It's more gradual - cant see it, almost see it, might see it, starting to show ... until finally it's obvious and annoying. All of this can happen within a single image.

Any form of noise reduction tends to reduce sharpness. The ideal approach is to apply it where you can tolerate a loss of sharpness (like out of focus areas or areas with smooth tonality) and limit the reduction where you want to preserve the sharpness. A little noise can even enhance the apparent sharpness.

mkahn

If your images are dark, that is most likely contributing to your problem. Raise your ISO to make sure that you are not under exposing, just make sure that you aten’t blowing out the highlights. Then you can use the software tools to correct the noise relating to the higher ISO. Run tests to see results from different ISOs to see how far you can go. Make sure to shoot on RAW.

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

That's the real limit and the reason for noise. My Tamron 150-600 is f6.3 at 600mm. Better glass would certainly help, but I don't have $12,000 for a 600 mm prime.

So, I've got live with noise if I want to push the extremes of low-light wildlife photography.

When I head into the woods, I'm looking for all those creatures posing in the sunlight, but most are hiding in the shade.

tomcat

Thanks for posting this my friend. I learned something today that I did not know. I did not realize that this ETTR concept is 15 years old and now I understand the need to do it arose from those 3-6 MP sensors in that era. I had assumed that it was something that one of us UHH'ers came up with a couple of years ago. I am having a great success at rescuing noisy images at high ISO values shooting high school sports now with my 85 and 135 mm f/1.8 lenses and Topaz AI Clear. I set my shutter to 1/500 s, aperture at f/1.8 to 2.0 and let the ISO float. Topaz AI Clear can rescue me from ISO values of 25,600 with great results, so I no longer worry about noise and can now concentrate on keeping up with those youngsters on the court. I've also moved closer to the court, but keep an eye out for errant passes--that ball does hurt.....

However, as previous posters have said: these improvements do not come cheap. The wide aperture lenses of f/1.8 to 1.4, the FF cameras in the ++ $2,500 range. Unless you shoot with that Sony RX10-4 model that a poster showed from some stage shows last week. I still am thinking getting one of those to keep from lugging around my 40 lbs of stuff. His shots from that camera were phenomenal.

Again, thanks for the post.

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

That's what I do. Auto-iso on and 1/2000 often produces nice images at iso 3200 - iso 10000, but they have noise.

That's why I'm looking to find the best tools to resolve noise.

My camera will go to ISO 51,200, but what's the point if the photo is unusable.

Thanks

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

I love your answer. That helps a lot. I'll give your technique a try.
Thanks again for sharing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Of course that does not make the concept totally obsolete and irrelevant, just old and less relevant to modern cameras, especially full frame.

If you can expose several stops brighter than your camera thinks is a "normal" exposure without blowing any of the highlights that you care about, you might be able to come up with an image with noticeably less noise.

But if the exposure increase is only a stop or two, there is a good chance that you won't see the change in noise, especially if you can't already see it at all at the lower exposure.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Every stop and 1/2 stop you can eek out prior to noise reduction SW is a big help, and if you can pick it up with technique instead of HW, then you can save big $ or big weight. 1 stop is the typical difference between FF and APS bodies or between M43 and APS, so if you can pick it up by better/more careful exposure techniques and raw conversion, then so much the better. 1 stop can be the difference between a low noise shot at ISO 3200 or a visibly noisey one at 6400, or the difference between a blurry indoor basketball shot at 1/250 and a sharp one at 1/500. One example is raw conversion. For Canon shooters, my measured results show that initial raw conversion with DPP are about 1/2 stop quieter than the conversion done with ACR.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Steve Perry, the wildlife photographer, shoots at ISOs of 8000 at times. His work turns out beautifully. Check him out. He has a new video on high ISO post production but the technique does get a little convoluted and there might be quicker and easier ways to get the end result he does. He ultimately used PS.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

I use MacPhun's Noiseless CK to good effect. Their other offerings are good, too. They will plug in to PSP and LR, and can also be used stand-alone.

picsman Loc: Scotland

Try a trial version of DxO elite version. Best I have tried.

leftj Loc: Texas

The best thing is a camera that you can shoot at high ISO without a noise problem. Fuji X cameras fit that category well and I'm sure there are others as well.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

A lot depends on your camera also. My Nikon D4s allows ridiculously high ISO's without noticeable noise. The D5 is supposed to be comparable or better. However, to get to these levels it costs money and megapixels. Larger pixels capture more light. Megapixel envy is something that can be avoided for 90+% of pictures and produce cleaner results.

Neilhunt

Several posters have proposed ETTR and EBTR, but those don't help in low light, unless it's a stationary subject and you have a tripod, since in order to expose to the right, you need at least one of: a faster lens, a slower shutter, or higher ISO sensitivity. If you crank ISO, you are not winning with ET/BTR, because there you are raising the noise floor as much as you will does it in post. If you have a faster lens, or can handle a slower shutter, then you already don't have a low light problem (although ETBTR would then be applicable).

RRS Loc: Not sure

l look at your last statement and agree but the OP states that the first thing he does is to lighten the shot by 3 stops. It appears that he is under exposing all of his shots by 3 stops. Now that doesn't give you much head room and I'm not talking ETTR either. I also shoot wildlife and BIF and understand that to freeze action you will need a faster shutter speed and if your aperture is wide open as it often is the only other alternative is to raise the ISO. Now back to he point, maybe the OP could post a shot because if he is trying to eliminate all noise the image will suffer, some noise is acceptable. I use Topaz first followed by PS if it's really bad. I can't remember the last time the noise was so bad that I had to use DXO. I have to question how long can someone continue to do the same thing over and over and not realize that maybe they need to change how or what they are doing to get a better outcome. Fix the exposure first and then see if you have elevated some of the noise and then too maybe his noise procedures that he is using might now work better.