PDA

View Full Version : Getting discouraged by noise



Kellie
07-25-2007, 10:14 AM
Ugh. I need to stop looking at Canon pictures. :p I'm sure it's just me and needing to work on nailing exposure, but I find myself avoiding anything above ISO 400 like the plague! A lot of my pictures are taken in low light situations. My niece was born a few days ago and I took pictures of her in the hospital. I didn't want to bother with the SB-600 (I rarely use it - I much prefer natural light) so I had to up the ISO. Even the ISO 400 pictures look noisy and they were not underexposed at all. I shoot RAW with no in camera noise NR because it slows down Capture. I apply the NR in post. Should I use the camera's NR instead? I see photos taken at ISO 1600 with the 5D (and even the 30D) and think I could never get that. I'm sure there is some NR applied some of the time, but even sooc pictures look nice.

I love the Nikon pictures below ISO 400. I love Nikon color and I really don't like the feel of the Canons I've held. I try them out every time I walk into a big box store. :o Maybe I just need more low light lenses. I'm even thinking about selling the Tamron 90mm for another 1.4 or 1.8 prime because I'm not really getting into macro and need the extra stops. :rolleyes: (anyone want to trade me for an 85mm f/1.8 LOL)

What more can I do? Are there any tips for reducing noise? For those of you who use Capture, what do you set the NR to either in camera or in post? What about USM - do you apply the same settings to high ISO pictures as you do to everything else?

BTW, I am not pixel peeping. The noise bothers me even when viewing normal sizes.

coldrain
07-25-2007, 10:30 AM
Of course the Canon's are less noisy (more colour noise, less other noise), but still you should be able to get some good ISO 800 shots.

Worst thing you can do is underexpose! By all means, shoot with the histogram into the BRIGHT area. This will make a big difference, noise wise.
Also, use a specialized noise reduction tool like noise ninja. And sharpen only after ALL image processing, and after noise reduction. And sharpen (if you use photoshop for that) in lab mode, only in the lightness channel.

What I would do is:
1. "develop" the RAW in your favorite RAW processor.
2. Get the result in 16 bit mode in photoshop.
3. Get rid of the noise with noise ninja, letting NN evaluate the noise in that photo
4. Do whatever else post processing you want to do
5. sharpen when needed.

With all these measures, your photos will be a LOT less noisy, and much nicer.

Kellie
07-25-2007, 10:38 AM
Thanks! I sharpen in Capture (last step - using USM) because Capture only applies USM to the luminosity channel. I'll try the steps you listed, though. I need to download a trial of NN...

I'm always afraid of blowing highlights and have heard it is better to underexpose, but I'm going to work harder on getting the exposure perfect.

thebac
07-25-2007, 10:44 AM
Can you post some samples?

Unless you're shooting a D2X, you should be fine up to ISO 640 (and 800 should be fine most of the time as well). In addition, if you're not a pixel-peeper, even 1600 should be OK.

In general, if you're shooting high ISO, avoid sharpening too much, it brings out more noise (or try selective sharpening instead of sharpening the whole picture).

And just like coldy said, avoid underexposure. In light tones, Nikons tend to deal better with noise than Canons (the "color noise" coldy refers to), but Canons absolutely kill Nikons in the shadows at higher ISOs.

coldrain
07-25-2007, 10:46 AM
You often read about that "blowing high lights" stuff.

But... what is BAD about blowing highlights in the 1st place? Aren't highlights in reality not blown too?
Thing is... the density of information is a LOT bigger at the light part in RAW.
So you have a LOT more play in the light part of the spectrum than in the dark part. And the darker a prt of the photo is, the least photons the photodiode can count. And with higher ISO, the more problematic that low count will be error wise, when the data gets amplified... so MUCH more noise.

My advice, if you mind the histogram, make sure the histogram is mostly on the RIGHT, not on the LEFT. So... under exposure is a big no-no, and light over exposure is not all that bad, since it is easily correctable. Much better correctable than under exposure.

If you have photoshop, you can use its USM too, since in LAB mode you can apply USM to only the lightness channel too.

aparmley
07-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Ugh. I need to stop looking at Canon pictures. :p I'm sure it's just me and needing to work on nailing exposure, but I find myself avoiding anything above ISO 400 like the plaque! A lot of my pictures are taken in low light situations. My niece was born a few days ago and I took pictures of her in the hospital. I didn't want to bother with the SB-600 (I rarely use it - I much prefer natural light) so I had to up the ISO. Even the ISO 400 pictures look noisy and they were not underexposed at all. I shoot RAW with no in camera noise NR because it slows down Capture. I apply the NR in post. Should I use the camera's NR instead? I see photos taken at ISO 1600 with the 5D (and even the 30D) and think I could never get that. I'm sure there is some NR applied some of the time, but even sooc pictures look nice.

I love the Nikon pictures below ISO 400. I love Nikon color and I really don't like the feel of the Canons I've held. I try them out every time I walk into a big box store. :o Maybe I just need more low light lenses. I'm even thinking about selling the Tamron 90mm for another 1.4 or 1.8 prime because I'm not really getting into macro and need the extra stops. :rolleyes:

What more can I do? Are there any tips for reducing noise? For those of you who use Capture, what do you set the NR to either in camera or in post? What about USM - do you apply the same settings to high ISO pictures as you do to everything else?

BTW, I am not pixel peeping. The noise bothers me even when viewing normal sizes.


What more can I do?
Honestly? In one sentence: Improve your light.

I'm going to make a suggestion (in a very long drawn out post) and its only that so please don't read into it.

I've been there - I know exactly where you are and I've felt your pain. Let me share something with you that I came across around the first of the year and it changed my photographic life completely.

Lighting Journey: Where are you? (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/11/lighting-journey-where-are-you.html)

The first step of improving the light in your photos (and therefore reducing noise; unless noise is what your after for a specific look) is believing that natural lighting is best! You have to - its a necessary evil. Then you get over it and move on, move forward in your lighting journey. . .

I used to be a pro-natural-light-anti-flash photographer - I believe I even got a little sensitive about it and had a negative attitude towards those trying to get me to see the light. But, I grew tired of missing tons of shots of my niece and nephew and/or tired of all the excessive noise - Most of the time, with F1.4 and 1.8 lenses I found myself shooting at ISO 3200 usually at or near wide open on those lenses and still not getting the shutter speeds to freeze the motion or I was tired of sacrificing sharpness/detail for faster SS/more noise (with my XT and 30D mind you!) not to mention the added time required for a pass through the noise reduction software. Then you have to also consider that shooting at 1.4 because the low light requires you to does not mean that this is the correct aperture for the photo you're intending to create. Limiting yourself to only available light is sorta like only allowing a symphony to use one instrument - Yes there are beautiful things that can be done with just that one instrument but there is so much more we/they can do if you just give them more options.

So . . . where was I? I started to learn more about flash. I then gave up my high ISO kings (the canon gear) for Nikon. 1. because I've always wanted to shoot with Nikon, just naturally curious and 2. because they do have a superior flash system.

I'm just saying - I will never shoot available light because its convenient or easy again. IF the shot calls for it then sure I'll use it, but the whole idea of this is to understand light more and if you can get available to work, great, if not whats the best way to use flash to create the better image. I'm still a noob in the world of off camera lighting but its opened up more possibilities and I feel I can be more creative and most of all I'm not stuck at ISO 3200 F1.8 1/30 anymore. . . :D

Best of luck to you.

Oh and yes, I was ignorant re: flash so naturally I feared it and was against it.

Here is what I was shooting before starting my lighting journey - most likely ISO 1600-3200 F1.4-2.0:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/60567571-L.jpg

And here is just a few weeks into it all a little better light thanks to some flash and a cheaper lens than the image above (by all means this isn't a terrific image - but compared to my shooting while trying to avoid flash it stood as a turning point for me:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/116246466-L.jpg

Just incase you're wondering I believe I'm in stage 4.

pagnamenta
07-25-2007, 11:09 AM
Excellent examples above. It's amazing what a little bounce flash can produce. Yes it's difficult to learn and get the hang of, but after you start getting the great results, you'll be really happy. I've shot the Nikon D80 side by side with the Canon 30D and they were very comparable up to ISO 800. Yes, the Canon was better, but the Nikon still makes great images. Yes, once you nail the exposure, you'll get better results, but that can only happen with fast lenses or flash. You've got a flash, learn to use and and don't spend more money investing in low light primes.

Kellie
07-25-2007, 11:26 AM
Thank so much for the helpful replies! I will try to post some examples, but I'm thinking it's mostly due to underexposure. Rarely is the histogram stacked up towards the right side. More often than not I clip the shadows.

aparmley - thank you! Wonderful examples! That blog entry looks very informative and I will definitely read the whole thing. I'm not completely anti-flash. Part of it might be laziness and not wanting to pull out the flash and learn to use it properly. :o I usually just attach it, point it to the ceiling and snap away. Most of the time this does produce great results, but my technique could definitely use some work.

(I still want a 85/1.8 - or better yet, 85/1.4, though LOL)

Kellie
07-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Finished the article - what a great read! I would say I'm a 1.5. I'm definitely not a competent on-camera flash user, but I *want* to learn how to use light properly but lack the skills and equipment at this time.

tcadwall
07-25-2007, 12:24 PM
Kellie,

your thinking wasn't ALL wrong... Nikon cameras are often said to under expose a little... IOW most people want to bump the exposure compensation a little. And - Jpg images will blow out very easily. When you are in RAW you can safely expose to the right on the histogram as mentioned. I try to bring the majority of the data to the right while still not clipping.

A couple other things to look at would be if you are going by the meter, what metering mode are you using and is it appropriate for the shot.. Maybe a refresher from the thom hogan book that I am pretty sure you have.

I totally agree with the whole thread though... Don't be too good to use a flash.

Wait a minute... What am I saying!?!?!?! YOU NEED FASTER GLASS - and I am looking for a Tamron 90mm steal....;)

toriaj
07-25-2007, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't mind taking the Tammy off your hands either!

I don't know anything about flash ... that's one aspect of photography I have completely avoided ... :eek: but I have NO problems with noise as long as the exposure is correct. I only see it if I raise the exposure significantly in PP (as in 3 stops or more.)

Are you using the flashing Highlights feature in the LCD? I used to, didn't understand it well, and it was bad for my photography. I kept turning down the exposure until nothing was flashing, and then wondered why my pics were so dark. I don't know the technical reasons ... but from experience I've learned that a few flashy places are okay. They don't show up in PP or in a print. Just avoid having entire sections of the LCD flashing (unless it's the sky, which is harder to avoid overexposing in some situations. I have a graduated filter coming in the mail!!!)

Jcon turned me on to NeatImage for noise reduction. It has manual controls, and I've been happy with it. I also liked the auto results with Noiseware. Good luck, I'm glad you're going to post some pics.

jcon
07-25-2007, 02:30 PM
Aparmley said it all perfectly! So I will just say I agree with everything he said.

I dont think faster glass will help, you already have fast glass.. including a 1.8 lens! I now use flash 90% of the time, and if used properly, you cant tell it was used. Like Aparmley mentioned, you are using the brand that offers a superior lighting set-up, take advantage of it!

Get a copy of The Speed Of Light from Nikon, it gives many examples on how the SB-800s can be used as the mainand only light source. Its very helpful when just starting out with flashes.

When I do use higher ISO levels, I run the photos through NEAT IMAGE and they look wonderful. I got Tori to use this program(like she said above)... I guess youre next on my list;) Its free, but if you want to do more advanced work like batch, you will want the paid version for around $30. Well worth it.

Kellie
07-25-2007, 04:17 PM
I knew I could count on all of you for great advice/encouragment. :D

I have listed the Tamron for sale on a few boards, but no bites yet. It's an awesome, amazingly sharp lens, but for low light portrait type stuff I do it's just not filling a need. If anyone is really interested, feel free to PM me.

I think what I should do is get a SB-800 to complement the SB-600. Or can I use another SB-600 off camera? I really don't know anything about flash photography. :o


Are you using the flashing Highlights feature in the LCD? I used to, didn't understand it well, and it was bad for my photography. I kept turning down the exposure until nothing was flashing, and then wondered why my pics were so dark. I don't know the technical reasons ... but from experience I've learned that a few flashy places are okay. They don't show up in PP or in a print. Just avoid having entire sections of the LCD flashing (unless it's the sky, which is harder to avoid overexposing in some situations. I have a graduated filter coming in the mail!!!)

That is exactly what I do! I have my LCD set to highlights and try hard to have no flashing places. I'm going to change it to histogram view and forget about those blown highlights that don't matter anyway.

aparmley
07-25-2007, 06:01 PM
I knew I could count on all of you for great advice/encouragment. :D

I have listed the Tamron for sale on a few boards, but no bites yet. It's an awesome, amazingly sharp lens, but for low light portrait type stuff I do it's just not filling a need. If anyone is really interested, feel free to PM me.

I think what I should do is get a SB-800 to complement the SB-600. Or can I use another SB-600 off camera? I really don't know anything about flash photography. :o



That is exactly what I do! I have my LCD set to highlights and try hard to have no flashing places. I'm going to change it to histogram view and forget about those blown highlights that don't matter anyway.

For those of you that shoot RAW, don't forget, the image and histogram you see on your camera is "Processed." The camera applies your JPEG settings otherwise it can not render a RAW image for preview. So you'll get some clipping on your camera's LCD but in your editor you'll have some room to play with - That is as long as you didn't completely blow out the highlights.

toriaj
07-25-2007, 06:36 PM
That is exactly what I do! I have my LCD set to highlights and try hard to have no flashing places. I'm going to change it to histogram view and forget about those blown highlights that don't matter anyway.
I wondered about that ... I think the flashing highlights feature has its place, but it can be misleading! Unfortunately I'm not in a good position to offer you a fair price on the Tammy ... only $100 or so I'm afraid:eek: so don't worry about it.

VTEC_EATER
07-25-2007, 06:50 PM
I wondered about that ... I think the flashing highlights feature has its place, but it can be misleading!

I'm not really seeing why the "Highlights" feature has a reason for being there. Maybe if you are into HDR or something, but you can easily see if you have blown highlights or shadows right in the histogram, so it seems like a pointless feature.

I'm open to hearing where its feature deserves merit, but right now I'm not seeing it.

aparmley
07-25-2007, 06:54 PM
I'm not really seeing why the "Highlights" feature has a reason for being there. Maybe if you are into HDR or something, but you can easily see if you have blown highlights or shadows right in the histogram, so it seems like a pointless feature.

I'm open to hearing where its feature deserves merit, but right now I'm not seeing it.

Well, they both show you different things. The histogram shows you if there is any luminance clipping and if its more in one color channel than the other. But the blinking highlight screen shows you exactly where the highlights are blown. . . if you blew out the skin on your subject you'd probably want to back it down, but if you blew out a cars windshield behind your subject and you backed down the exposure simply based on the histogram, you're gonna end up with an UE image.

Both has its advantages and disadvantages.

XaiLo
07-25-2007, 10:34 PM
Well illustrated Apmarley. Kellie I'll just add a couple of things... one thing I've noticed at least when it comes to a blown highlight, is that it may be more aptly veiwed as blown contrast. What I mean by that is what ever is really blown per se is in reality in relation to the light source; for instance there is no way to get rid of specular highlights. So if one were trying to compensate for a specular highlight it would ruin the exposure. Just like there is no real way to compensate for the harseness of the midday sun. Secondly we tend to translate the light we see and try to extrapolate that into the light the lens should be able to capture. This is more of a psychological hurdle than anything else... but it can be a source of great frustration though simular the technologies are light years apart, no pun intended. Try as we may we are still limited by the physics of the camera and lens.

Rooz
07-26-2007, 01:18 AM
kell, couple of things...why do you trun high iso NR off ?? maybe you're really good at PP NR but i suck at it and cant be bothered for the rare times i use high iso's so i always have it turned onto high. i shoot at iso800 without a worry in the world. in the face of redundant iso arguments about nikon v canon, i've also posted plenty of examples at 1600/ 2000 showing the shots are useable. there is no difference between canon and nikon up to iso800.

i'm a considerable distance behind andy and i have just discovered the wonders of light and am now on a steep learning curve to improve flash photography. rather than wrestling with high iso's i want to get the light right and that can't be done with iso. well not at the moment anyway. i have also found that site andy referred to and i love it. its my new "bible" :)

iso is a nice convenience but getting the lighting right is by far more preferable. ask yourself, how many GREAT images, pro or amateur, are taken at anything over around iso400 ? answer ? pretty much none.

aparmley
07-26-2007, 04:57 AM
ask yourself, how many GREAT images, pro or amateur, are taken at anything over around iso400 ? answer ? pretty much none.

Well, there is this one guy. He lives down unda. Shoots Canon, he can get some pretty darn good high ISO stuff. . . ;)

Rooz
07-26-2007, 05:04 AM
Well, there is this one guy. He lives down unda. Shoots Canon, he can get some pretty darn good high ISO stuff. . . ;)

hell andy, i'm using empty corona boxes and baking paper as a lightbox...does that sound to you like someone in the market for a MkIII ? :D

tcadwall
07-26-2007, 05:55 AM
Kellie

I skimmed the responses to your last post in this thread, and don't think anyone addressed the SB-600 question you posed.

I am pretty sure that your D80 has a controller for 2 different lighting groups. This means that you could have different lighting settings for 2 GROUPS of off-camera flashes. The SB-800 would expand that capability if you placed it ON camera. However, if you are just going to use the D80 as the controller, you could controll many SB-600's without the need for a SB-800 (or other) controller. It is only when you get very complicated (going for 3 or more GROUPS - different settings - of flashes) that you would NEED to have the controller feature of an SB800.

IOW - adding an SB-600 would be fine.... That would be the first step I would take if I was expanding to multiple off - camera flash units.

Kellie
07-26-2007, 03:16 PM
Kellie

I skimmed the responses to your last post in this thread, and don't think anyone addressed the SB-600 question you posed.

I am pretty sure that your D80 has a controller for 2 different lighting groups. This means that you could have different lighting settings for 2 GROUPS of off-camera flashes. The SB-800 would expand that capability if you placed it ON camera. However, if you are just going to use the D80 as the controller, you could controll many SB-600's without the need for a SB-800 (or other) controller. It is only when you get very complicated (going for 3 or more GROUPS - different settings - of flashes) that you would NEED to have the controller feature of an SB800.

IOW - adding an SB-600 would be fine.... That would be the first step I would take if I was expanding to multiple off - camera flash units.

Thanks! That might have to be my next purchase after I learn how to use the one I have. LOL


OK, I downloaded Neat Image and am going to try that instead of Capture NX's noise reduction. What I usually do for a low ISO photo is any base adjustments (RAW adjustments) then defog (low intensity/high radius USM such as 14/40/0), levels and curves, any color adjustment needed, capture sharpening (normal USM) and then save as a JPEG or TIFF depending on if it needs more work. If it's a noisy shot, I apply Capture's NR with an intensity between 5-10 and sharpness between 5-8 after the base adjustments but before anything else. Then I skip the last USM because this tends to add noise back into the photo. If I am going to use Neat Image, at what point in my work flow should I do this? I prefer to do everything in Capture, but I will do the USM, levels and curves, etc. in PSE5 if I need to convert the file to TIFF first. Is this what others do? Once I'm happy with my work flow I have a hard time straying from it or trying something new. :o

Rooz - I turn off NR because I read in Jason Odell's Capture NX ebook (http://www.luminescentphoto.com/capturenx.html I highly recommend it!) that applying NR in camera increases the image's rendering time in Capture because it is applying that NR to the NEF file. I tested this out and it's very true. The files load much quicker with NR turned off. He says that if you are shooting JPEG it is fine to leave it set to normal in camera, but when working with a raw file you have more control over the noise reduction in Capture NX or another program. I'm still not all that impressed with Capture's noise reduction, though. So I'm hoping Neat Image will be better.

Kellie
07-26-2007, 03:19 PM
This is more of a psychological hurdle than anything else... but it can be a source of great frustration though simular the technologies are light years apart, no pun intended. Try as we may we are still limited by the physics of the camera and lens.

I agree. I need to accept the fact that I can't necessary capture a scene the way my eyes see it. I practiced a bit today and realized that most of the blown highlights are not important parts of the picture anyway.

jcon
07-26-2007, 04:09 PM
OK, I downloaded Neat Image and am going to try that instead of Capture NX's noise reduction. What I usually do for a low ISO photo is any base adjustments (RAW adjustments) then defog (low intensity/high radius USM such as 14/40/0), levels and curves, any color adjustment needed, capture sharpening (normal USM) and then save as a JPEG or TIFF depending on if it needs more work. If it's a noisy shot, I apply Capture's NR with an intensity between 5-10 and sharpness between 5-8 after the base adjustments but before anything else. Then I skip the last USM because this tends to add noise back into the photo. If I am going to use Neat Image, at what point in my work flow should I do this?

I do all my basic edits on NX, then open the photo(s) in NI and apply my noise reduction there. Then if a photo needs a little sharpening(which I usually do), I open the filtered(NI term) photo in NX and apply USM, I usually use the following USM settings, although it can vary depending on photo, but here are my usual settings...

Intensity: 50-75
Radius: 2-3
Threshold:0

After the USM, I am finished editing that photo. I dont use other software except NX and NeatImage, unless I need specialized editing, then I use Adobe CS3.

There are alot of different settings in NeatImage, play with it for awhile and see which you prefer, although the basic auto applied settings work well.

Hope this helps, Kellie.

Spookonthe8ball
07-26-2007, 04:12 PM
Greetings to all,
I have used this program (the free one) for 1 image and did the lightest option that was available. Is this software junk, or are there better choices? It worked for what I wanted it to do, but as a rule I have very few noisy images I need to deal with. I have noticed many like "Neat Image", but I hesitate to buy software unless they do exceptionally well.
Any advice to this is welcome information.
Spook

jcon
07-26-2007, 04:15 PM
You dont HAVE to buy Neat Image, only if you want a few extra added features, like Batch and saving with zero loss of detail(90% as apposed to 100%).

I used the free version for a very long time, til I realized I needed batch capabilities.

Kellie
07-26-2007, 04:19 PM
Thanks, Jason! I just tried one picture and it worked pretty well. I have no idea what levels to use. What do you use on a moderately noisy picture?

Kellie
07-26-2007, 04:27 PM
One more NI question - does the version that you pay for strip the exif data?

jcon
07-26-2007, 05:11 PM
The Pro version does not strip EXIF data, I just checked to make sure, and its still intact.

I wish I could give a "basic" setting for you but I really cant, it can change from photo to photo, which can make batching pretty difficult. What I did when first starting out, was use the basic settings that the program chose, then magnify the picture to 60% or so and click preview, then tweak the settings as you see fit.

If you want you could email me a practice picture that you feel has alot of noise and I could apply the settings I would use, then email you the finished picture, along with the settings I used. If so my email is jaylsworth@aol.com

swgod98
07-26-2007, 05:19 PM
Jason- Just here lurking now.

You post a lot for a lurker :D

jcon
07-26-2007, 05:27 PM
You post a lot for a lurker :D

LOL... it's a joke :p

toriaj
07-26-2007, 06:26 PM
Greetings to all,
I have used this program (the free one) for 1 image and did the lightest option that was available. Is this software junk, or are there better choices? It worked for what I wanted it to do, but as a rule I have very few noisy images I need to deal with. I have noticed many like "Neat Image", but I hesitate to buy software unless they do exceptionally well.
Any advice to this is welcome information.
Spook

I used Noiseware for quite awhile, and was happy with it. Now I use NeatImage, which has manual controls. But if you're looking for a good result with minimal effort, and no $$, Noiseware is for you!

TNB
07-26-2007, 07:27 PM
I used Noiseware for quite awhile, and was happy with it. Now I use NeatImage, which has manual controls. But if you're looking for a good result with minimal effort, and no $$, Noiseware is for you!
Since I have yet to use any noise software and have shot at 1000+ ISO for indoor sports without using the High NR settings, can you or anyone else provide examples of:

Original photo without using noise software,
Modified photo using Noiseware,
Modified photo using NeatImage,
Modifided photo using Noise Ninja,
Modified photo using *****.

Thanks.

Here's one photo if anyone wants to try some noise reduction software on it and repost it. I'm just sort of curious if software, such as Noise Ninja will be worth it since I'll be shooting a night baseball game on Saturday, will be shooting without a flash, and will probably be shooting at ISO 1000+.


I shot the following photo indoors, handheld, and without a flash at IS0-1000 using a D200. I also don't have Noise Ninja or any of the other noise reduction programs though I did use CS2 for some post processing.

http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/70716/Hc94370.jpg

Kellie
07-26-2007, 08:16 PM
Since I have yet to use any noise software and have shot at 1000+ ISO for indoor sports without using the High NR settings, can you or anyone else provide examples of:

Original photo without using noise software,
Modified photo using Noiseware,
Modified photo using NeatImage,
Modifided photo using Noise Ninja,
Modified photo using *****.

Thanks.

Here's one photo if anyone wants to try some noise reduction software on it and repost it. I'm just sort of curious if software, such as Noise Ninja will be worth it since I'll be shooting a night baseball game on Saturday, will be shooting without a flash, and will probably be shooting at ISO 1000+.

I just tried running it through Neat Image and it said it couldn't make a device profile and then when I applied the NR (only 20% luminance channel) it got very blurred. I'm not sure, but I think you need a full size file. Or it could be that I haven't got a clue what I'm doing yet. :D

Kellie
07-26-2007, 08:20 PM
The Pro version does not strip EXIF data, I just checked to make sure, and its still intact.

I wish I could give a "basic" setting for you but I really cant, it can change from photo to photo, which can make batching pretty difficult. What I did when first starting out, was use the basic settings that the program chose, then magnify the picture to 60% or so and click preview, then tweak the settings as you see fit.

If you want you could email me a practice picture that you feel has alot of noise and I could apply the settings I would use, then email you the finished picture, along with the settings I used. If so my email is jaylsworth@aol.com

Thanks! I have an ISO 1600 shot to send. :eek: It actually isn't terribly noisy, but it definitely needs some sharpening which will probably make it quite noisy.

Do you do anything to the chrominance channel since the Nikon noise is supposedly mostly luminance? The default for chrominance is 100% and luminance is only 60%.

Spookonthe8ball
07-26-2007, 08:41 PM
TNB, I just used auto setting on Noiseware. I noticed some noise reduction in the holders arm comparing your original and modified. The EXIF data got stripped somewhere along the way.

TNB
07-26-2007, 09:24 PM
Kellie,
Thanks for trying Neat Image anyway.


TNB, I just used auto setting on Noiseware. I noticed some noise reduction in the holders arm comparing your original and modified. The EXIF data got stripped somewhere along the way.
I also noticed the difference in the players' faces, socks, etc. Thanks.

I just finished playing with the Noise Filter in CS2 and though it could just be me since I really don't know how to use it, the Noiseware version photo seems slightly better. However, since the CS2 filter has sliders, I may just have to play with it for awhile on a trial and error basis. It did take a while to load, but that could just be my slow notebook.

Rooz
07-27-2007, 05:35 PM
the beauty of flash photography. i am loving this new discovery and wonder why i never took it seriously before now.

a dark room, good flash technique learnt from andy and strobist.com = great quality shots without worrying about iso and PP at all. this is straight out of the camera with one exception. my normal -0.3 or -0.7EV no longer applies when you get the lighting right so i had to bump it back up to 0EV. no sharpening or colour changes or contrast adjustments needed. funny how you feel you need to adjust the camera in some circumstances but thats cos your trying to compensate for your own poor technique.

learning about flash has also tought me more about light in general and i feel my outdoor non flash photos are turing out much better cos i'm alot more conscious of light.

aparmley
07-27-2007, 09:29 PM
I used NI a lot. . . then I noticed it was changing the color of my images. . . slightly but enough
that it really pissed me off. So I purchased the professional version of noiseware. That was my noise reduction app of choice. But, I haven't used any NR since I sold all my high ISO kings. . . . :D Very ironic. ;)

jcon
07-27-2007, 09:36 PM
Thats interesting.... Were you using the pro or freeware of NI when you noticed the color change? I havent noticed any change in color on my photos...

Also interesting you havent used it since switching to Nikon... speaks volumes for the lighting system.

toriaj
07-27-2007, 09:36 PM
Lookin' good, Rooz! I've never learned about flash photography either ... most of my shots are landscapes. But I think it will be the next "big" thing I need to learn :) One thing that holds me back is that using a flash makes people very aware that I am taking pictures. Bye bye candids, hello friends being even MORE annoyed that I am taking pictures all the time!

Rooz
07-27-2007, 10:18 PM
true tor. when taking pics of friends or out and about you generally dont have the same flexibility with flash, unless you are covering an event as a photographer. but i suppose 70% of my photos are at home with the family, (surprised huh ? :D), or macros in the garden or local parks etc so i'm free to use strobes and flash. i just never tried before cos i didn't know how. what i;ve noticed since is a remarkable improvement in colour and sharpness simply by knowing how to use light a little better.

don't get me wrong, there is a place for high iso no doubt but not as much as i thought. i used to always think "ambient light is unparalleled", that is true in many situations but ive now been getting shots with flash where you couldn;t tell if it was ambient light or not and thats something i've always wanted.

aparmley
07-28-2007, 09:37 PM
Thats interesting.... Were you using the pro or freeware of NI when you noticed the color change? I havent noticed any change in color on my photos...

Also interesting you havent used it since switching to Nikon... speaks volumes for the lighting system.

It was the freeware version. I struggled trying to figure out why I was getting color shifts in all my processed photos through NI. . . I could never figure it out so I never shelled out the deniro for the PRO version. But, there it was - I'd open both the before and after images in CS2 and view them side by side - clear as day. I wouldn't be surpised if I was to blame some how - I could never figure it out though. . . :confused: Maybe the creators of NI shot Nikon and decided to mess with Canonites? :D

jcon
07-29-2007, 01:54 AM
LOL... Thats definitily strange! Ahwell, aslong as you were happy with the choices you made after... thats all that matters!

XaiLo
07-29-2007, 08:47 AM
Apmarley, I use Picturecode's NoiseNinja it comes as a photoshop plugin. You might want to check out their demo and see what happens.

aparmley
07-29-2007, 10:39 AM
Apmarley, I use Picturecode's NoiseNinja it comes as a photoshop plugin. You might want to check out their demo and see what happens.

Thanks XaiLo - Haven't used NR since switching to Nikon and I don't plan on it. :p

Kellie - Just remember when you find yourself looking at photos - what is more important to consider is the skill of the photographer not so much the gear. I've spent a lot of time on pbase and they only thing it has taught me is that anyone can use a Canon 1D to take a shitty photo but the skilled photographer can make a gallery worthy print using an XT or D40. I know that sounds very cliche, but it does so for a reason - its true. You can get all hung up over how smooth high ISO looks from Canon cameras, which will not do you any good, or you can work to become better with your gear and figure out how to best take photos that would have forced you before to use ISO 1600. . .

Kellie
07-29-2007, 12:02 PM
Kellie - Just remember when you find yourself looking at photos - what is more important to consider is the skill of the photographer not so much the gear. I've spent a lot of time on pbase and they only thing it has taught me is that anyone can use a Canon 1D to take a shitty photo but the skilled photographer can make a gallery worthy print using an XT or D40. I know that sounds very cliche, but it does so for a reason - its true. You can get all hung up over how smooth high ISO looks from Canon cameras, which will not do you any good, or you can work to become better with your gear and figure out how to best take photos that would have forced you before to use ISO 1600. . .

Oh, I totally agree and am committed to learning and practicing. I have been reading the strobist blog and find it incredibly informative and interesting. My SB-600 has been out more in the past two days than it has been in the past 5 months! :D I just wish I had another one now. ;)

My brother and sister-in-law asked me to take more pictures of my niece today (they are fully aware I'm not a pro - they just hate their p&s). I'm going to practice a few things I've learned.

TNB
07-29-2007, 08:28 PM
Nothing like practice and having relatives to practice on. I especially like to practice on my cats since they don't usually complain. I also purchased Noise Ninja online today after taking a lot of photos around 1000+ ISO last night at the baseball game.

aparmley
07-30-2007, 06:45 AM
I just wish I had another one now. ;)


Ya, I hear you - I want another SB-800 or SB-600 + 4 PWs. . . . :(