High ISO and noise reduction

Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up to
(usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a spur of the
moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed out) and
hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO* buying a
monopod). I was able to clean them up using noise reduction, but I'm
curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise reduction vs shot softening.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as not
to loose edges.

TIA

P.

Pboud wrote:
Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up
to (usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a spur of
the moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed out)
and hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO* buying a
monopod). I was able to clean them up using noise reduction, but I'm
curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise reduction vs shot softening.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as not
to loose edges.


I don't mind noise unless it really detracts from the shadows. That
being said at their size on photo.net your shots look great.

Greg

I agree with the OP: the noise at that res is OK.

Note that with a monopod you maybe be able to get your shutter speed lower
however that will result in even more motion blur in your shots since your
subjects are moving, which may or may not be what you want.

As for NR it really depends. If your lens is super sharp you can apply
massive amounts of NR and it still looks OK and maybe add a little unsharp
mask, afterwards, too.

You will need to do some tests and see what works for you.


"Pboud" wrote in message
news:9Ayfj.55218$5l3.48044@edtnps82...
Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up to
(usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a spur of the
moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed out) and
hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO* buying a monopod).
I was able to clean them up using noise reduction, but I'm curious as to
the 'acceptable' level of noise reduction vs shot softening.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as not
to loose edges.

TIA

P.

Pboud wrote:
Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up to
(usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a spur of
the moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed
out) and hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO*
buying a monopod). I was able to clean them up using noise
reduction, but I'm curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise
reduction vs shot softening.
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as
not to loose edges.

TIA

P.

Some noise (grain) can add character to a shot, and even at "larger size"
I have no problems with the small amount of noise in your images. The
detail is still there, and it could be lost with too much noise reduction.

Was this an outdoor event? The performers look rather cold!

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
Pboud wrote:
Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up to
(usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a spur of
the moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed
out) and hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO*
buying a monopod). I was able to clean them up using noise
reduction, but I'm curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise
reduction vs shot softening.
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as
not to loose edges.

TIA

P.

Some noise (grain) can add character to a shot, and even at "larger size"
I have no problems with the small amount of noise in your images. The
detail is still there, and it could be lost with too much noise reduction.

Was this an outdoor event? The performers look rather cold!

Cheers,
David


New Years show, about -20C with the windchill.. You can see the flame
heaters in the full band shots (to the left of the bass player). They
were bundled up something fierce. :P

P.

pboud wrote:
[]
New Years show, about -20C with the windchill.. You can see the flame
heaters in the full band shots (to the left of the bass player). They
were bundled up something fierce. :P

P.

Thanks!

David

When you start looking for noise, regardless of ISO, in APS sized dSLRs it
is not difficult to find.
What to do with it is another question, more aesthetic than anything else.
More often than not what is objectionable on a computer monitor will be far
less so in a print.
I have experimented with the Adobe controls, Noise Ninja and more recently
Noiseware. These methods are all effective for cleaning up high ISO high
noise images but less so for the more common noise you see at lower ISOs.
Particularly for lower ISO noise when you sharpen the image for printing
often the noise reappears, telling you how the software "lowered" the noise
to begin with.

flambe wrote:
When you start looking for noise, regardless of ISO, in APS sized dSLRs it
is not difficult to find.
What to do with it is another question, more aesthetic than anything else.
More often than not what is objectionable on a computer monitor will be far
less so in a print.
I have experimented with the Adobe controls, Noise Ninja and more recently
Noiseware. These methods are all effective for cleaning up high ISO high
noise images but less so for the more common noise you see at lower ISOs.
Particularly for lower ISO noise when you sharpen the image for printing
often the noise reappears, telling you how the software "lowered" the noise
to begin with.


I caught that one a few times

P.

G.T. wrote:
Pboud wrote:
Hey guys

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO
up to (usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots; this was a
spur of the moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300
maxed out) and hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO*
buying a monopod). I was able to clean them up using noise reduction,
but I'm curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise reduction vs
shot softening.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865


Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective? I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as
not to loose edges.


I don't mind noise unless it really detracts from the shadows. That
being said at their size on photo.net your shots look great.

Greg
Thanks.. I was happy with them; so, apparently, was the band

Pboud wrote:

I was recently shooting a night concert and had to crank the ISO up to
(usually) unreasonable levels to get clear shots;

You seem overly concerned over noise. From a technical POV that's
important, but from the 'emotional impact' (call it 'wow factor',
if you like) it's usually not a big problem.

However, between the JPEG compression and the reduced display
size, blowing up the images to 2x or 3x (I know, unfair! :-)
shows rather smoothed areas where one would expect textures
(e.g. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6793849, the
violin, which exhibits sharp contours. The jeans show some
texture, the coat however is widely texture free ...)

So I would say you maybe overdid NR there a bit --- or maybe the
"compression for the Web" was too enthusiastic.

this was a spur of the
moment thing, so I was stuck well away (had to use 70/300 maxed out) and
hand-held (absolutely *no* room for a tripod.. I'm *SO* buying a
monopod).

1/50s is already on the very short side for moving people,
and 1/25s (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6793849)
is really slow: the motion blur of the hand shouldn't be much
more --- unless you really want motion blur.

Shooting with a faster lens would help a lot. F/2 instead of
f/4.5 would give you roughly 1/120s, f/1.4 even 1/250s, and also
help the AF a lot. Yes, even fast fixed focal length lenses like
stopping down for maximal sharpness, but with the motion blur
you already have lost maximum sharpness. (It also means moving,
usually closer, for you loose the 'convenience' of changing the
focal length on the fly).

I was able to clean them up using noise reduction, but I'm
curious as to the 'acceptable' level of noise reduction vs shot softening.

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=795865

Some noise can actually increase the apparent sharpness ---
personally I prefer some noise than plasticy or watercoloured
images. I also prefer slight under- to oversharpening, but
that's a question of taste.

Is there a rule of thumb on level of aggressiveness for NR or is it
strictly subjective?

Try not to loose details.

I tried to stay below the 50% mark for NR so as not to loose edges.

50% in what context? (There are many NR programs and procedures,
none of them easily comparable to each other!)

Just "50% NR" is like saying "I shot 35". 35 what? 35 Pictures?
35mm film? 35mm focal length? 35 subjects? 35 year old people?
The number 35?

-Wolfgang