Yes, it is called Expose to the Right, and is even more important for higher ISOs.
Noise is always more prominent in the lower quarter tones on the histogram, and under exposure makes it worse.
I should mention that Expose to the Right is based on the assumption that you are shooting in RAW format, and are going to correct the "over exposure" in your RAW converter by sliding the exposure slider to the left, that is under exposing your RAW file in post processing.
If you are shooting jpgs, just expose like your meter says with a grey card, or by Sunny 16, or and incident light meter. Do not Expose to the Right if you shoot jpg files.
Under exposing only adds more noise. And depending on the camera, a higher ISO can produce LESS noise than a lower one if you implement ETTR, certainly with a Canon.
The image on the left was shot as suggested by the meter (1/60 at F5.6 @ ISO 100). The image on the right was shot with the identical settings but at ISO 800. It was normalized to produce a similar visual match. The ISO 800 image has less noise than the ISO 100 image thanks to ETTR!
One may use the same aperture and shutter speed (because you are somehow restricted to those settings), it can be advantageous to increase ISO because it can reduce the noise as seen above!
Under exposing even the lowest ISO capture, or using a ‘normal’ exposure without ETTR will add more noise to the image than using ETTR when appropriate for the capture (lots of light).
One can see that the noise really resides in the shadow tones in the left lower corner of the image, and indeed is clearly greater on the lower ISO image on the left.
And I see we Mac drivers can finally look forward to getting 64 bit support for CS4 and CS5 for NoiseWare Pro. I had given up on ever seeing this, so this is great news!! I can finally shut down my 32 bit CS4, and just use 64 bit CS5, since NoiseWare was the main reason I still kept CS4 alive.
Andrew, I see that Imagenomics has posted that it plans to release a 64 bit version of NoiseWare Pro for CS4 and CS5 in OS 10.7. Good news, but it does not seem to e available just yet.-- http://www.imagenomic.com/cs5.aspx
Andrew, I see that Imagenomics has posted that it plans to release a 64 bit version of NoiseWare Pro for CS4 and CS5 in OS 10.7. Good news, but it does not seem to e available just yet.-- http://www.imagenomic.com/cs5.aspx
About friggin time! Of course now, LR does an awesome job in some ways better (using PV2010/2012).
I agree with exposing to the right under high ISO conditions. Those quarter tones will look really bad if you try to pull up the exposure in the post. I know of a few pro shooters who don't yet know this though...
I've tried most of the trial versions of these de-noising plugins, and don't find them to be any better than LR3 for my shots (mostly pro sports under stadium lights). Topaz works well with clean lines and borders in the shot, but faces can get kinda weird.
I use the NR sliders in LR3 and find them helpful, and LR4 will be even better.
But there are times when I need to pull out all the stops, and find NoiseWare easier, ( and usually better ) than anything else.
I do have Topaz DeNoise 5 and just do not have the same affection for it that I have for NoiseWare. Maybe I just don't understand how to use DeNoise 5 as well, but that is why I like NoiseWare, I don't have to understand or adjust it. Just choose Default or Landscape and move on. ?? My laptop has DeNoise 5, and not NoiseWare, and so I have used it now and again, but I always find that I wish I have my NoiseWare in the end.
Like Andrew, I am looking forward to the new, improved, 64bit MAC OX 10.7.+ version of NoiseWare!!
The real trick with ETTR, is that even native ISO 100 images are better too.
I use the NR sliders in LR3 and find them helpful, and LR4 will be even better.
I was about to ask if anyone used Lightroom to treat noise.
I used to use an external software years ago when Lightroom first came out, but since its latest versions had improved on noise a lot more, I'd stopped using anything else because it was fine.
I haven't used NoiseWare. Is it that big of an improvement over Lightroom now in terms of quality, or it is Noiseware's ease of use that's better?
What most products do not make clear, is that noise reduction is highly image dependent, to a certain extent.
Noise reduction, to me, is something of a black art. But yes, I think NoiseWare can reduce noise better than LR3, usually, and I can do it locally, rather than globally. I can even paint it on with a brush via an adjustment layer.
Noise Ninja, Neat Image and several others all required a specific profile for your specific camera and the ISO used. That meant for a series of images shot at different ISOs, you had to run each effort separately with different profiles.
LR3 ( and LR 4 ) just have two main sliders for noise reduction - the Luminance slider and Color Noise slider. I do think LR3 noise reduction works pretty good, but it is not a local editor, but a global editor. You cannot just do the sky only, or the red blouse, say. The adjustment brush in LR does not work with the Noise Reduction engine.
Thus, I still like NoiseWare because it is so simple for me - I only have to choose Default, Landscape, Night Scene, or Portrait ( which are easy choices ), and hit the button and I am done.... Easy Peasy! No ISOs to worry about, or camera profiles.
Now the truth is, I do my noise reduction on an adjustment layer in Photoshop, and I frequently only do it to a selected portion of my image - like the sky portion which I want grainless - but after the selection I don't really have to think about it at that point. I can then blend with the Opacity slider in PS to taste.
I like the noise reduction in NoiseWare because I do not think it costs as much fine image detail sharpness as some other de-noisers, either. But again, this is image and program dependent. I suspect if one is a real expert with all the sliders in Neat Image, or Noise Ninja, or Topaz DeNoise5 that you can get great results. I have used all of these from time to time, but I just find the simplicity of NoiseWare appealing, and the results outstanding.
My limited experience with LR 4 beta is that the noise reduction engine continues to improve, and the basic new Raw engine in LR4 creates even less noise in its renderings as well. Remember to ExposeToTheRright helps keep noise down as well.
Thanks for clarifying and sharing your experiences, Pathfinder! Yes, it is a shame about the adjustment brush not working for noise in LR3 for parts of an image.
Noise Ninja was the app I used to use (I'd forgotten the name until you mentioned it---see how long it has been? ). I found it cumbersome to figure out at that time for what I needed to do.
I do the "expose-to-the-right" technique, and it's been going pretty well for what I'm shooting right now, but there may be times when I shoot in really low lighting (eg performances) where I may need very specific noise touch-ups so it would be nice to try something different.
I think I may give Noiseware a try, especially after you mentioned it being able to preserve a bit more image details than in LR3. Thanks again!
I have been using Nik Software's DFine for my noise processing. I have been very happy with how simple and effective it is on things. I have used it succesfully on a fireworks shot at night to remove the noise in the smoke shot at ISO1600 and it removed the noise, not the smoke. I like that I can tell it where to measure the noise and it uses that. For those times I want to apply the noise processing into just certain areas, I use the PhotoShop integration to place it on its own layer and then brush it in through a mask.
Straight out of Camera (Cropped)
Same Crop after DFine
Yes, there are some artifacts but it is acceptable to me as for this image I am not planning on printing it very large.
I've written some of my own denoising software--the basic algorithms are not that complex--which allows me access to a lot more knobs and sliders. For example, I can pick out hard edges and alter the strength of denoising to preserve the edges, or I can have it color- or intensity-dependent. In addition, I can custom tune it to a particular camera/sensor to take into account noise inhomogeneity that occurs on all sensors, so that the strength of denoising is applied more strongly in areas of higher inherent noise.
But, it's a pain in the ass to use, and in the end was only really useful in a handful of shots where existing denoising programs fail. Thus, aside from the fun of writing the code, and what I learned about noise, it's not much use. Certainly, it's way too complex for anyone else to ever want to use it!
But, it's a pain in the ass to use, and in the end was only really useful in a handful of shots where existing denoising programs fail. Thus, aside from the fun of writing the code, and what I learned about noise, it's not much use. Certainly, it's way too complex for anyone else to ever want to use it!
I couldn't have said it better!
That's my feeling about many of the noise reducing program. If you really know how to use their knobs and sliders, most of them work pretty good on certain images.
Andrew, I see that Imagenomics has posted that it plans to release a 64 bit version of NoiseWare Pro for CS4 and CS5 in OS 10.7. Good news, but it does not seem to e available just yet.-- http://www.imagenomic.com/cs5.aspx
I was about to ask if anyone used Lightroom to treat noise.
I used to use an external software years ago when Lightroom first came out, but since its latest versions had improved on noise a lot more, I'd stopped using anything else because it was fine.
I haven't used NoiseWare. Is it that big of an improvement over Lightroom now in terms of quality, or it is Noiseware's ease of use that's better?
If you have existing rendered images (TIFFs, PSDs etc), then I’d use Noiseware which is quite good. But for original raw data, just do it in LR.
For those looking for a freeware RAW or raster image noise reduction, the latest beta versions of Raw Therapee have a very advanced, although complicated, noise reduction capability.
Like Lightroom, it is a "non-destructive" image processor and you can save the processing profiles for batch processing. It's not as fast as Lightroom, but it's free to try and free to own, and there are versions for Windows, OS X and Linux operating systems (some 32 bit and 64 bit).
The latest version is still in "beta", and some of the interface is still not ready for production work, but it's looking very hopeful overall.
For those looking for a freeware RAW or raster image noise reduction, the latest beta versions of Raw Therapee have a very advanced, although complicated, noise reduction capability.
Like Lightroom, it is a "non-destructive" image processor and you can save the processing profiles for batch processing. It's not as fast as Lightroom, but it's free to try and free to own, and there are versions for Windows, OS X and Linux operating systems (some 32 bit and 64 bit).
The latest version is still in "beta", and some of the interface is still not ready for production work, but it's looking very hopeful overall.
Comments
Noise is always more prominent in the lower quarter tones on the histogram, and under exposure makes it worse.
I should mention that Expose to the Right is based on the assumption that you are shooting in RAW format, and are going to correct the "over exposure" in your RAW converter by sliding the exposure slider to the left, that is under exposing your RAW file in post processing.
If you are shooting jpgs, just expose like your meter says with a grey card, or by Sunny 16, or and incident light meter. Do not Expose to the Right if you shoot jpg files.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
The image on the left was shot as suggested by the meter (1/60 at F5.6 @ ISO 100). The image on the right was shot with the identical settings but at ISO 800. It was normalized to produce a similar visual match. The ISO 800 image has less noise than the ISO 100 image thanks to ETTR!
One may use the same aperture and shutter speed (because you are somehow restricted to those settings), it can be advantageous to increase ISO because it can reduce the noise as seen above!
Under exposing even the lowest ISO capture, or using a ‘normal’ exposure without ETTR will add more noise to the image than using ETTR when appropriate for the capture (lots of light).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
One can see that the noise really resides in the shadow tones in the left lower corner of the image, and indeed is clearly greater on the lower ISO image on the left.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
And I see we Mac drivers can finally look forward to getting 64 bit support for CS4 and CS5 for NoiseWare Pro. I had given up on ever seeing this, so this is great news!! I can finally shut down my 32 bit CS4, and just use 64 bit CS5, since NoiseWare was the main reason I still kept CS4 alive.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
About friggin time! Of course now, LR does an awesome job in some ways better (using PV2010/2012).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I've tried most of the trial versions of these de-noising plugins, and don't find them to be any better than LR3 for my shots (mostly pro sports under stadium lights). Topaz works well with clean lines and borders in the shot, but faces can get kinda weird.
But there are times when I need to pull out all the stops, and find NoiseWare easier, ( and usually better ) than anything else.
I do have Topaz DeNoise 5 and just do not have the same affection for it that I have for NoiseWare. Maybe I just don't understand how to use DeNoise 5 as well, but that is why I like NoiseWare, I don't have to understand or adjust it. Just choose Default or Landscape and move on. ?? My laptop has DeNoise 5, and not NoiseWare, and so I have used it now and again, but I always find that I wish I have my NoiseWare in the end.
Like Andrew, I am looking forward to the new, improved, 64bit MAC OX 10.7.+ version of NoiseWare!!
The real trick with ETTR, is that even native ISO 100 images are better too.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I was about to ask if anyone used Lightroom to treat noise.
I used to use an external software years ago when Lightroom first came out, but since its latest versions had improved on noise a lot more, I'd stopped using anything else because it was fine.
I haven't used NoiseWare. Is it that big of an improvement over Lightroom now in terms of quality, or it is Noiseware's ease of use that's better?
Film/TV Stills Photography
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt." ~ Henry J. Kaiser
Noise reduction, to me, is something of a black art. But yes, I think NoiseWare can reduce noise better than LR3, usually, and I can do it locally, rather than globally. I can even paint it on with a brush via an adjustment layer.
Noise Ninja, Neat Image and several others all required a specific profile for your specific camera and the ISO used. That meant for a series of images shot at different ISOs, you had to run each effort separately with different profiles.
LR3 ( and LR 4 ) just have two main sliders for noise reduction - the Luminance slider and Color Noise slider. I do think LR3 noise reduction works pretty good, but it is not a local editor, but a global editor. You cannot just do the sky only, or the red blouse, say. The adjustment brush in LR does not work with the Noise Reduction engine.
Thus, I still like NoiseWare because it is so simple for me - I only have to choose Default, Landscape, Night Scene, or Portrait ( which are easy choices ), and hit the button and I am done.... Easy Peasy! No ISOs to worry about, or camera profiles.
Now the truth is, I do my noise reduction on an adjustment layer in Photoshop, and I frequently only do it to a selected portion of my image - like the sky portion which I want grainless - but after the selection I don't really have to think about it at that point. I can then blend with the Opacity slider in PS to taste.
I like the noise reduction in NoiseWare because I do not think it costs as much fine image detail sharpness as some other de-noisers, either. But again, this is image and program dependent. I suspect if one is a real expert with all the sliders in Neat Image, or Noise Ninja, or Topaz DeNoise5 that you can get great results. I have used all of these from time to time, but I just find the simplicity of NoiseWare appealing, and the results outstanding.
My limited experience with LR 4 beta is that the noise reduction engine continues to improve, and the basic new Raw engine in LR4 creates even less noise in its renderings as well. Remember to ExposeToTheRright helps keep noise down as well.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Noise Ninja was the app I used to use (I'd forgotten the name until you mentioned it---see how long it has been?
I do the "expose-to-the-right" technique, and it's been going pretty well for what I'm shooting right now, but there may be times when I shoot in really low lighting (eg performances) where I may need very specific noise touch-ups so it would be nice to try something different.
I think I may give Noiseware a try, especially after you mentioned it being able to preserve a bit more image details than in LR3. Thanks again!
Film/TV Stills Photography
"When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt." ~ Henry J. Kaiser
Straight out of Camera (Cropped)
Same Crop after DFine
Yes, there are some artifacts but it is acceptable to me as for this image I am not planning on printing it very large.
Whole image
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
But, it's a pain in the ass to use, and in the end was only really useful in a handful of shots where existing denoising programs fail. Thus, aside from the fun of writing the code, and what I learned about noise, it's not much use. Certainly, it's way too complex for anyone else to ever want to use it!
I couldn't have said it better!
That's my feeling about many of the noise reducing program. If you really know how to use their knobs and sliders, most of them work pretty good on certain images.
I just want to make toast!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If you have existing rendered images (TIFFs, PSDs etc), then I’d use Noiseware which is quite good. But for original raw data, just do it in LR.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Like Lightroom, it is a "non-destructive" image processor and you can save the processing profiles for batch processing. It's not as fast as Lightroom, but it's free to try and free to own, and there are versions for Windows, OS X and Linux operating systems (some 32 bit and 64 bit).
The latest version is still in "beta", and some of the interface is still not ready for production work, but it's looking very hopeful overall.
http://rawtherapee.com/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Very nice