We use high ISO more and more: how do you get rid of noise?

Asher Kelman · Nov 18, 2009

I wonder how many little secrets different photographers have found in best dealing with noise?

Who just uses ACR or the controls in Photoshop or perhaps Noise Ninja? Where does DXO fit into your habits? I ask because I am using my G10 or 5DII in low light and would love to know what you guys find to be the most powerful and least destructive tools for your own low light work.

Thanks for sharing!

Asher

beth anthony · Nov 18, 2009

i love nik's dfine software for noise control.
dxo i only use if i need to play with the perspective an straighten a lot of lines.
lightroom b3 has a pretty good noise removal feature, much better than i expected.

Mike Shimwell · Nov 18, 2009

I almost never use luminance reduction in LR/ACR, but do use the chroma noise slider at the minimum level to take out any speckling. As Beth says, LB beta3 appears much improved in dealing with chroma noise.

I use Dxo because I much prfer it' colour rendering sometimes. I've not tried Dxo 6 yet, but have a 'special' offer that makes it sense to upgrade before Christmas...

Mike

Mike Bailey · Nov 18, 2009

Neatimage does the job for me, mostly for the Canon 5D and 20D. This however is done with custom noise profiles and then using only 50% noise reduction to help reduce the inevitable destructive effects (smearing, etc.) that any noise reduction will cause. Lately I've also been using the Nikon D700, but its high ISO performance has been so superb that I haven't needed help. Now that I mention, it, though, maybe it's time to profile that, too, for the rare 3200 and 6400 shots.

ACR and Lightroom both seem to be pretty destructive with their noise reduction when you really need it (higher ISO that is), so I tend to keep both chromatic nad luminance settings at zero and deal with it after the fact with Neatimage if needed.

Mike

Bart_van_der_Wolf · Nov 18, 2009

Asher Kelman said:
I wonder how many little secrets different photographers have found in best dealing with noise?

Just the usual suspects; ETTR + NeatImage (with a custom profile for the best results). I only apply noise reduction if the noise distracts at final output dimensions (noise can help the illusion of sharpness).

For stationary scenes one can average multiple exposures to reduce noise, preferably before demosaicing (which requires special software).

Cheers,
Bart

Asher Kelman · Jan 12, 2010

So I'm taking it that the current recommendation is Neat Image. So is there any advantage to using the 64 BIT PS plugin version versus the stand-alone version for OS X?

Thanks,

Asher

Cem_Usakligil · Jan 12, 2010

Asher Kelman said:
So I'm taking it that the current recommendation is Neat Image. So is there any advantage to using the 64 BIT PS plugin version versus the stand-alone version for OS X?

Hi Asher,

Do not discount the Dfine 2.0 by Nik software. Both Neat Image and Dfine do an admirable job IMO. Neat Image offers better manual controls though.

Re. the stand-alone version of Neat-Image, I have never used it. I always use the PS plug-in.

HTH,

Daniel Buck · Jan 13, 2010

if/when I shoot higher ISO (or sometimes when I'm stacking multiple flash shots in the dark, compounding the noise) I'll run them through noise-ninja, mostly to hit a little bit of the chroma noise. Luminance noise I'm generally ok with, but I like to back off on the chroma noise a bit.

Asher Kelman · Jan 13, 2010

Thanks Cem, Bart and Daniel,

I decided to go with Neat Image right now. I did a quick try and one pays a price for noise removal even here! I have to read about the various controls and see what I need and perhaps limit what I'm doing to chrominance noise. I might thing of adding back edges somehow as they get blurred!

Asher

Leonardo Boher · Jan 13, 2010

Sometimes I use Noiseware.

Bart_van_der_Wolf · Jan 13, 2010

Asher Kelman said:
Thanks Cem, Bart and Daniel,

I decided to go with Neat Image right now. I did a quick try and one pays a price for noise removal even here! I have to read about the various controls and see what I need and perhaps limit what I'm doing to chrominance noise. I might thing of adding back edges somehow as they get blurred!

Asher,

You'll get the best results if you take a moment to create a noise profile for your camera at the correct ISO setting (a target image is under Tools>Calibration Target). Also set Neatimage to the Tools>Advanced mode. Then, using that profile on your actual images, turn down the Y-channel noise reduction amount from its default 60% to 40% (or 50%). There will be hardly any loss of resolution.

You can then use the component viewer to tweak the last tiny bit of resolution loss out of the Cr and Cb channels, just leave a little noise and no visible detail will get lost.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf · Jan 13, 2010

Leonardo Boher said:
Sometimes I use Noiseware.

Hi Leonaro,

Yes, Noiseware (and NoiseNinja) are also very good. I like Neatimage because its behavior can be tuned so well.

Cheers,
Bart

Asher Kelman · Jan 13, 2010

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
Asher,

You'll get the best results if you take a moment to create a noise profile for your camera at the correct ISO setting (a target image is under Tools>Calibration Target). Also set Neatimage to the Tools>Advanced mode. Then, using that profile on your actual images, turn down the Y-channel noise reduction amount from its default 60% to 40% (or 50%). There will be hardly any loss of resolution.

You can then use the component viewer to tweak the last tiny bit of resolution loss out of the Cr and Cb channels, just leave a little noise and no visible detail will get lost.

Bart,

As always you are a treasury of knowledge and guidance!

Thanks,

Asher

nicolas claris · Jan 14, 2010

I have for now left Noise Ninja on the side of the road to the profit of the (expensive but efficient) Dfine… (Niksoft)

Asher Kelman · Jan 15, 2010

Thanks everyone, I'll start testing!

Leonardo Boher · Jan 15, 2010

I use Noiseware. It has lot of features to get ride of the noise! And sometimes I use the High Pass technique, it works perfect smoothing tonal transitions.

Phil Marion · Feb 9, 2010

I use Photoshop for noise reduction. I have never bothered with the expense of a 3rd party plug-ins for a few reasons: a) don't feel like spending that much money b) I don't print my photos (I view them only on LCD monitors c) I have 64 bit CS4 and they didn't have PS plug-ins for noise reduction at that time. perhaps they do now.
When I use PS noise reduction (in the filter menu) I always apply it on a separate layer so I can play with the opacity slider later. I even use a surface mask to protect the edges from noise reduction.

Does anyone use a surface mask?

So do the usual suspects make a 64 bit Windows plugin now?

Bart_van_der_Wolf · Feb 9, 2010

Phil Marion said:
Does anyone use a surface mask?

I think the specialized Noise Reduction applications build their own. I use Neat Image and it does separate detail from non-detail based on spatial frequencies, derived from (test and/or actual) image samples and/or by user input to the control sliders for different levels of detail. Neat Image doesn't need a separate Photoshop surface mask to protect image detail, but one could by applying the noise reduction to only one layer and add a mask.

So do the usual suspects make a 64 bit Windows plugin now?

Neat Image does: http://www.neatimage.com/win/photoshop/index.html
Noise Ninja does: http://www.picturecode.com/nn_plugin_win64.htm
Noiseware does: http://www.imagenomic.com/nwpg.aspx

These all have superior noise reduction (and detail retention) compared to the simple Photoshop tools.

Cheers,
Bart

Phil Marion · Feb 10, 2010

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
Neat Image does: http://www.neatimage.com/win/photoshop/index.html
Noise Ninja does: http://www.picturecode.com/nn_plugin_win64.htm
Noiseware does: http://www.imagenomic.com/nwpg.aspx
Cheers,
Bart

Whoa!!! THANKS...though a simple 'YES' would have been sufficient. Much appreciated. I feel almost obligated to buy one now - ha ha.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
These all have superior noise reduction (and detail retention) compared to the simple Photoshop tools.Bart

No doubt. But I always felt it quicker (and cheaper) to go through PS. With edge masks I was thinking I was better able to target the noise and save the edges/detail from destructive smoothing.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:
I think the specialized Noise Reduction applications build their own. I use Neat Image and it does separate detail from non-detail based on spatial frequencies, derived from (test and/or actual) image samples and/or by user input to the control sliders for different levels of detail. Neat Image doesn't need a separate Photoshop surface mask to protect image detail, but one could by applying the noise reduction to only one layer and add a mask.Bart

I was under the impression - from forums like this, luminous landscape, POTN, dpreview ect.. that they just had better specialized algorithms, not that any edge mask was created. Maybe this is one and the same...
i guess now that I am getting better at photography (it is just a hobby) I am spending more time on postprocessing so I will open the wallet and get a plug-in. I REALLY like using an edge mask because I can them even modify the mask and paint out areas that I know have NO noise. In my thinking, sometimes there is no reason for any global noise reduction in some areas no matter how good the program.

I guess I'll continue to use my edge masks - unless I find these plugins are so good that the added work is pointless.

FYI - I use a handy tool (a downloadable PS script) from thelightsright.com to quickly generate my surface masks. It is customizable so I can choose surface masks of differing edge detail. Read on - it can also be used to target specific tones and colors:

http://www.thelightsright.com/tlrprofessionalmasktoolkit

Check it out and give your opinions on this tool...... it can also be used to target specific tones and colors:

Asher Kelman · Feb 10, 2010

Phil Marion said:
Whoa!!! THANKS...though a simple 'YES' would have been sufficient. Much appreciated. I feel almost obligated to buy one now - ha ha.

Phil,

The information on noise removal is so worthwhile. It made me switch away from Photoshop [to Capture One] for this. Bart's advice has influenced and guided many thousands of folk, so he's worth listening to!. Look at the response to his lens focus adjusting method here!

Asher

Asher Kelman · Nov 6, 2012

I'd like to update this thread with a link to Sebastian's remarkable progress in dealing with noise. See post # 151, here.

Asher

Joachim Bolte · Dec 5, 2012

Asher Kelman said:
I wonder how many little secrets different photographers have found in best dealing with noise?

Who just uses ACR or the controls in Photoshop or perhaps Noise Ninja? Where does DXO fit into your habits? I ask because I am using my G10 or 5DII in low light and would love to know what you guys find to be the most powerful and least destructive tools for your own low light work.

I develop my RAW's in ACR, and use the NR in there in a way that reduces as much noise as possible (color as wel as chromatic) without causing too much artefacting. I crossreference the results as Smart Objects in Photoshop, and if there is any more NR to be done I use the free Ximagic denoiser plugin.

If the original is already JPG, I only use the Ximagic plugin. Amazing results, for noise reduction as well as removing JPG-artefacting

Asher Kelman · Dec 5, 2012

Joachim Bolte said:
I develop my RAW's in ACR, and use the NR in there in a way that reduces as much noise as possible (color as wel as chromatic) without causing too much artefacting. I crossreference the results as Smart Objects in Photoshop, and if there is any more NR to be done I use the free Ximagic denoiser plugin.

If the original is already JPG, I only use the Ximagic plugin. Amazing results, for noise reduction as well as removing JPG-artefacting

Joachim,

That's a workflow I might try. Ximagic seems very sophisticated and has versions for both Windows and Mac. and also works in 16 BIT and Paint Shop Pro, The Gimp, IrfanView, XnView too! Would be great if you could report back on how it compares with SNS-HDR in your images!

Asher

fahim mohammed · Dec 6, 2012

Joachim.

Thanks for bringing Ximagic to our attention. Never knew of it. But shall definitely give it a try.

Best regards.

jake klein · Dec 7, 2012

I rarely use any. Should I? I just take em' as they are. I'll often use it in a layer in PS along with a very slight blur then inverted and painted on at 50% opacity on the background to "smooth" it out.

Joachim Bolte · Dec 12, 2012

jake klein said:
I rarely use any. Should I? .

Only one who can answer that question is you yourself...

Sometimes noise works, sometimes it doesn't. And one could even try to get rid of noise to put a 'nicer' noise in the picture.
I have some scans of real film noise that I sometimes use as overlays for B&W pictures. Digital noise just doesn't look convincing, but I do want that gritty appearance.

Arthur Haselden · Feb 4, 2013

Sebastian Nibisz said:
Hi,

I finished work on a new noise reduction algorithm. The following comparison.

Without NR / New algorithm (auto level) / Old algorithm (level 8).

Nikon D700, ISO 3200.

The new algorithm will be available in the SNS-HDR 2.0 (update will be free).

Regards,
Sebastian

Sabastian,

I did a raw conversion from your provided nef file. It's a bit different process for noise reduction. I have been discussing it with Bart over at LuLa.

I think the advantage is it keeps the file looking natural. Most NR packages seem to take on an artificial look.

The disadvantage is it leaves some random noise in the file. Of course a standard NR package can be used at low settings to reduce noise further.

The colors I selected going through the process are a bit different. Ignore than and look at the detail.

This process is simply splitting RGBL, doing NR on those channels, recombining, splitting CMYL, Doing NR again, recombining, splitting HSL doing NR, recombining.

What I am finding is the image takes on a more film like look. It seems to have better modeled the de-bayer to smooth tones across all pixels.

I originally posted this in the wrong thread, which was a linked HDR software thread. Rather than hijack that I moved it to this NR thread. I did a conversion using the provided nef so people can see im not taking my own low iso shot. This is an ISO3200 shot! With a bit of sharpening it would look like a good low ISO shot.

Arthur Haselden · Feb 5, 2013

Here is my conversion of Imaging resource Nikon D800 ISO 3200 NR0
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fineart48/8447544957/sizes/o/in/photostream/

The full size image will be available until the end of March when flickr ends its free Christmas gift.

Download the nef, compare your own conversion in C1, DxO, or LR.

Jerome Marot · Feb 5, 2013

I am not exactly sure that I understand how you reduce the noise, but the results are pretty good. However, there is a disadvantage to your process: the image is darker and the colours less saturated.

Chris Calohan · Feb 5, 2013

This is something I've been dinking with since I got into Photoshop/ACR and I've developed my own method of regaining the saturation lost with conventional noise reduction.

What I do will probably make some of you toss up your hands and run screaming from the room but even working from a 72 dpi file, it's not a bad recovery.

We use high ISO more and more: how do you get rid of noise?

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

New member

pro member

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

pro member

pro member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Co-founder/Administrator

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

pro member

New member

pro member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member