How much noise can we tolerate? (Page 2): I am aware of that. I'd rather avoid noise than manage it. Usually the first thing I do when developing the raw information in Capture One is...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

camerapapi wrote:

I hope you understand that noise is more noticeable in low light and when the sensor gets hot. High ISO does not necessarily mean noise because noise is the result of low light levels and underexposure.
Today we have excellent denoise softwares which are making noise much more manageable.

I am aware of that.

I'd rather avoid noise than manage it. Usually the first thing I do when developing the raw information in Capture One is to raise the black point and cover up the noise in the deep shadows.

If I don't want the detail in this shadow area, setting the black point to 9 for this image makes the noise go away.

(Download)

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Orphoto wrote:

Regular UHH readers tolerate a huge amount of opinionated noise.

Just might be the best and most accurate comment I have ever read on this forum! 😎

MJPerini

Tests like these are a really good idea to help understand the performance and practical limits of your camera.
You only know this stuff by testing yourself.
In real world photography different subject and different pictures as well as print or display size, tolerate noise differently, but the tests give you a good baseline from which to work.
Most of my background was as a commercial studio photographer in New York ...I learned early, Test everything.

It is easy to get spoiled by the flexibility of Digital capture, but Knowing is always a better approach to guessing and fixing after the fact.
Thanks

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

billnikon wrote:

With Topaz Denoise I no longer have issues with noise.

Topaz Photo AI is even better than Denoise. I was in doubt that it could be better as I used Denoise for years and was happy with the results, but Photo AI proved to be better.

User ID

chrisg-optical wrote:

Try the same test in daylight. Shooting high ISO in daylight (for higher speed e.g.) will usually produce quite acceptable noise levels (without additional NR), compared to indoor artificial light, due to higher signal level.

Around here, daylight can be low light and interior lighing can be plentiful. Seems like actual illumination level is more important than whether theres a roof over your head.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

RightOnPhotography wrote:

Topaz Photo AI is even better than Denoise. I was in doubt that it could be better as I used Denoise for years and was happy with the results, but Photo AI proved to be better.

I had a different result. I too used Denoise, but that was before Topaz released the new AI version of denoise. I currently have Photo AI, the newer Topaz Denoise and newer Sharpen and I find that often, I get better results using the improved stand alone Denoise and sharpen instead of Photo AI. Seems too often I find that applying the software separately is better than the one do it all program.

As a quick unrelated aside, I also got Topaz Gigapixel and that is a gamechanging upsizing program. With the advances in AI, the results are breathtaking and Topz keeps updating its software frequently as AI continues to improve. Way back when, Genuine Fractals was the upsizing software and it was really only for emergencies. The Topaz stuff is scary good.

Bill_de Loc: US

User ID wrote:

This is subjective, but we two agree at 3200. br ... (show quote)

Sometimes printing on canvas can make a positive difference.

---

User ID

Bill_de wrote:

Sometimes printing on canvas can make a positive difference.

---

Cool. And then if you wanna share it online you just take a phone snap of the canvas !

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

User ID wrote:

Around here, daylight can be low light and interior lighing can be plentiful. Seems like actual illumination level is more important than whether theres a roof over your head.

Right, but simulating daylight requires bright artificial lights. Even if it's cold outside you can quickly take a series of shots of a scene while the sun is out....no setup required. Are you in northern Alaska?

User ID

chrisg-optical wrote:

Right, but simulating daylight requires bright artificial lights. Even if it's cold outside you can quickly take a series of shots of a scene while the sun is out....no setup required. Are you in northern Alaska?

Simulating daylight ?!?
Cold outsde ???
No set up ?
That stuff is not about noise.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

chrisg-optical wrote:

Right, but simulating daylight requires bright artificial lights. Even if it's cold outside you can quickly take a series of shots of a scene while the sun is out....no setup required. Are you in northern Alaska?

The brightness of the sun is not the problem. It's the depth of the shadows.

In broad daylight, the light in open shade coming from a clear sky is only about 3 stops darker. But when you include a lot of deep shadows in the image the scene's DR can get higher.

Indoor lighting ratios are commonly much higher than daylight landscapes.

User ID

selmslie wrote:

The brightness of the sun is not the problem. It's the depth of the shadows.

In broad daylight, the light in open shade coming from a clear sky is only about 3 stops darker. But when you include a lot of deep shadows in the image the scene's DR can get higher.

Indoor lighting ratios are commonly much higher than daylight landscapes.

Thaz deeeeeep !

Canisdirus

I don't even think about noise anymore...the software can get rid of practically anything now and stay sharp.

druthven

In my opinion, how much noise that can be tolerated lies in the eyes of the beholder and the subject matter. Less tolerance in a pastoral scenic, a lot more in the winning goal in the world Cup. In some cases the grain such as that produced in a Tri X photo can enhance the mood of a photo.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

lukevaliant wrote:

looks like #6 is the winner

agree totally !
Peter