Noise reduction

wrote:

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).
I also process everytrhing through CS3 and LightRoom.

Can I hear some recommendations for plug-ins and/or standalone noise reduction applications please.

Neat Image, runs as standalone or as a PS plugin. Works very well.

Colin D.

wrote:

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).

Flash is a goods thing to have, and many of us even have to spend extra $400 for the thing that can flash. So, I would say it’s better to learn to take advantage of the flash, even learn to use flash in day light etc..

I also process everytrhing through CS3 and LightRoom.

Can I hear some recommendations for plug-ins and/or standalone noise reduction applications please.

I am professional photographer, been messing with Photoshop for over a decade (started with v2.x or something like that) and never used any noise plug-in or noise command (it’s just not my style).

Back to your question, I have heard several of them but I don’t use any to recommend (as I recommend to learn to love flash instead), but you should be able to find plenty end users’ feedbacks.

Just GOOGLE for something like "NOISE plug-in" or something like that then you should be able to get millions of hits.

I’ve tried Neat Image, Noise Ninja and Noiseware Pro, and by far prefer the latter. I find it keeps detail much better than the others.

Toby

"Colin.D" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

wrote:

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain). I also process everytrhing through CS3 and LightRoom. Can I hear some recommendations for plug-ins and/or standalone noise
reduction applications please.

Neat Image, runs as standalone or as a PS plugin. Works very well.
Colin D.

wrote in message

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).
I also process everytrhing through CS3 and LightRoom.

Can I hear some recommendations for plug-ins and/or standalone noise reduction applications please.

want the luxury of speed offered by the

higher ISO’s but I hate the noise

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

KatWoman wrote:

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

More pixels in the same area as a lesser pixel sensor will create MORE noise, not less.

John wrote:

KatWoman wrote:

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

More pixels in the same area as a lesser pixel sensor will create MORE noise, not less.

You forgot the LENS and feature of the camera.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:45:58 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

wrote in message

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).
I also process everytrhing through CS3 and LightRoom.

Can I hear some recommendations for plug-ins and/or standalone noise reduction applications please.

want the luxury of speed offered by the

higher ISO’s but I hate the noise

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

:sigh: Faster lenses seem an eternity away. 🙁

Joel wrote:

John wrote:

KatWoman wrote:

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

More pixels in the same area as a lesser pixel sensor will create MORE noise, not less.

You forgot the LENS and feature of the camera.

We are addressing sensor noise, not optics or CPU features. Get sidetracked if you like and talk about that stuff.

As a general principle, the more densely packed the sensor wells, the more susceptible the sensor is to noise. When gain is applied, noise will be more profound in the denser sensor.

Me, I’ll stick to film rangefinders with very fast lenses.

wrote:

:sigh: Faster lenses seem an eternity away. 🙁

Probably due to a shortcoming in autofocus on fast, short lenses.

Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:05:15 -0500, John wrote:

wrote:

:sigh: Faster lenses seem an eternity away. 🙁

Probably due to a shortcoming in autofocus on fast, short lenses.
Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

Costs like $700 or something. Can’t get that till I pay off some of the bills for what I already have. :/

John wrote:

Joel wrote:

John wrote:

KatWoman wrote:

need camera with more megapixels and/or larger size sensor and format and or
faster lenses (1.4)

More pixels in the same area as a lesser pixel sensor will create MORE noise, not less.

You forgot the LENS and feature of the camera.

We are addressing sensor noise, not optics or CPU features. Get sidetracked if you like and talk about that stuff.

And we are talking about NOISE!

As a general principle, the more densely packed the sensor wells, the more susceptible the sensor is to noise. When gain is applied, noise will be more profound in the denser sensor.

Me, I’ll stick to film rangefinders with very fast lenses.

You are free to stick with whatever you wish, but if you want to true then learn to accept the fact. If you don’t trsu any of us here, then you can GOOGLE then pick the ones you trust, and you should have millions to chose.

John wrote:

wrote:

:sigh: Faster lenses seem an eternity away. 🙁

Probably due to a shortcoming in autofocus on fast, short lenses.
Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

I have never seen nor heard of Canon 50mm f1/1, but I have F1.8, F1.4, and F1.2 is the fastest lens I have.

But fastest lens alone may help some but not all, because it may depend on the feature of the camera and lighting condition. Right now most newer Canon DSLR can do up to ISO-3200, and most of them does super at ISO-800, quite well at ISO-1600, and can be usable at ISO-3200 (yes, there could be some noise but much better than film at ISO-400).

Also, Faster Lens doesn’t always mean Faster Focus, but it’s also mean better "GLASS" (the material uses to make the lens).

Joel wrote:

You are free to stick with whatever you wish, but if you want to true then learn to accept the fact. If you don’t trsu any of us here, then you can GOOGLE then pick the ones you trust, and you should have millions to chose.

Denser sensor well spacing == more noise. Get used to it.

Joel wrote:

John wrote:

Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

I have never seen nor heard of Canon 50mm f1/1, but I have F1.8, F1.4, and F1.2 is the fastest lens I have.

Sorry. I mistook you for the fellow who claimed he has 30 years experience. My mistake.

Canon made/makes an autofocus 50mm (maybe 55) F1/1. Canon also made an F0/.95. I have three of them. Leica makes an F1/1 (Noctilux) as well. For a real stretch, a F0/.07 camera lens (not fax/copier lens) is ‘out there somewhere’ (Used in the film Barry Lyndon).

But fastest lens alone may help some but not all, because it may depend on the feature of the camera

OK, I’ll bite. What feature? Automatic noise reduction? That means removing information not likely to be of the picture, and also removes much of the so-called higher ISO data. Automatic stabilization? Again, we were originally addressing sensor noise. (Remember? Someone claimed that a denser sensor would have LESS noise. Can you keep track?)

Also, Faster Lens doesn’t always mean Faster Focus, but it’s also mean better "GLASS" (the material uses to make the lens).

Short, fast lenses have the MOST difficulty with auto-focus. Long lenses the least. (As an aside, the longer the lens the deeper the focus is at the sensor plane and that helps in the final focus. It is called Depth-of-Focus (as opposed to Depth-of-Field which is in front of the lens.))

Nuff.

"John" wrote in message

Joel wrote:

John wrote:

Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

I have never seen nor heard of Canon 50mm f1/1, but I have F1.8, F1.4, and
F1.2 is the fastest lens I have.

Sorry. I mistook you for the fellow who claimed he has 30 years experience. My mistake.

Canon made/makes an autofocus 50mm (maybe 55) F1/1. Canon also made an F0/.95. I have three of them. Leica makes an F1/1 (Noctilux) as well. For a real stretch, a F0/.07 camera lens (not fax/copier lens) is ‘out there somewhere’ (Used in the film Barry Lyndon).

But fastest lens alone may help some but not all, because it may depend on
the feature of the camera

OK, I’ll bite. What feature? Automatic noise reduction? That means removing information not likely to be of the picture, and also removes much of the so-called higher ISO data. Automatic stabilization? Again, we were originally addressing sensor noise. (Remember? Someone claimed that a denser sensor would have LESS noise. Can you keep track?)

Also, Faster Lens doesn’t always mean Faster Focus, but it’s also mean better "GLASS" (the material uses to make the lens).

Short, fast lenses have the MOST difficulty with auto-focus. Long lenses the least. (As an aside, the longer the lens the deeper the focus is at the sensor plane and that helps in the final focus. It is called Depth-of-Focus (as opposed to Depth-of-Field which is in front of the lens.))

Nuff.

There are no short-cuts to quality. And there is no quick way to achieve perfection. We at Hasselblad realized these simple truths over 50 years ago. Realized that the final quality of a photographic image is a direct result of the quality of every component that goes into the product that produces it. Quality throughout was the cornerstone.

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products.aspx

how dare Hasselblad brag they get better images on their 22,000 dollar baby as you can get on your rebel

with similar lens the image will be better on the larger format more megapixel image

If you are telling me you can get the same NOISE and or quality on this baby with 22 megapixels with a fine fast lens as from a 35mm such as Canon 40 D well please say where to buy that, I want it

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:43:26 -0400, wrote:

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).

….Two points:

1) I hate having to use a flash as well, especially that too-white/blue piece of shit that Canon sticks on the Rebels. I despise flash so much that I won’t even consider buying one that’s adjustable for angle and/or color variance. Flash just sucks overall.

2) We still call it grain 🙂

OM
—
]=====================================[
] OMBlog – http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let’s face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

KatWoman wrote:

[…]
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products.aspx

how dare Hasselblad brag they get better images on their 22,000 dollar baby as you can get on your rebel

Indeed, most uncouth.

with similar lens the image will be better on the larger format more megapixel image

If you are telling me you can get the same NOISE and or quality on this baby with 22 megapixels with a fine fast lens as from a 35mm such as Canon 40 D well please say where to buy that, I want it

I’ve lost track of who you might be speaking to. The key here is more than pixel count. It is also about pixel size. Larger pixels (sensor wells) are less susceptible to noise caused by gain. So a larger sensor can have larger pixels AND more pixels than a nominal 24x36mm digital sensors.

Larger format wins every time. Similarly, the larger the format the less need there is for super-acute resolution because the degree of enlargement is less. It’s all about circle-of-confusion (CoC) there.

FWIW, I sometimes shoot 8×10" film. Then a G9. What a shock, eh? Ya know how it feels to dive naked into a hole cut in the ice? It’s like that.

OM wrote:

1) I hate having to use a flash as well, especially that too-white/blue piece of shit that Canon sticks on the Rebels. I despise flash so much that I won’t even consider buying one that’s adjustable for angle and/or color variance. Flash just sucks overall.
2) We still call it grain 🙂

The smiley helps! Grain is black. Noise is white. Really, apparent grain in a print (B&W in particular) is the space between silver clusters.

John wrote:

Joel wrote:

You are free to stick with whatever you wish, but if you want to true then learn to accept the fact. If you don’t trsu any of us here, then you can GOOGLE then pick the ones you trust, and you should have millions to chose.

Denser sensor well spacing == more noise. Get used to it.

I have been enjoying NOISE free for over a decade, so I am pretty sure I already got used to it. Now, if you need to learn something new then start learning as it may never be too late to learn.

John wrote:

Joel wrote:

John wrote:

Canon had a 50mm F1/1 for digital. No good?

I have never seen nor heard of Canon 50mm f1/1, but I have F1.8, F1.4, and F1.2 is the fastest lens I have.

Sorry. I mistook you for the fellow who claimed he has 30 years experience. My mistake.

Canon made/makes an autofocus 50mm (maybe 55) F1/1. Canon also made an F0/.95. I have three of them. Leica makes an F1/1 (Noctilux) as well. For a real stretch, a F0/.07 camera lens (not fax/copier lens) is ‘out there somewhere’ (Used in the film Barry Lyndon).

I have never owned anything faster than f1.2 but I guess everything is possible except that I have no need for it so never done any research on faster lens than f1.2 (which I bought around 2 decades ago).

But fastest lens alone may help some but not all, because it may depend on the feature of the camera

OK, I’ll bite. What feature? Automatic noise reduction? That means removing information not likely to be of the picture, and also removes much of the so-called higher ISO data. Automatic stabilization? Again, we were originally addressing sensor noise. (Remember? Someone claimed that a denser sensor would have LESS noise. Can you keep track?)

High ISO with lesser noise. I don’t keep track but I have been doing fine at ISO-800 (usually USO-400) and few times I have to go for ISO-3200. I don’t like the noise at ISO-3200 but I have no other choice and it’s usable for small print.

Also, Faster Lens doesn’t always mean Faster Focus, but it’s also mean better "GLASS" (the material uses to make the lens).

Short, fast lenses have the MOST difficulty with auto-focus. Long lenses the least. (As an aside, the longer the lens the deeper the focus is at the sensor plane and that helps in the final focus. It is called Depth-of-Focus (as opposed to Depth-of-Field which is in front of the lens.))

Hmmm may be your fast lens but not mine as Fast Lens often mean Fast Focus, and if it can get the sharpest focus fast then I wouldn’t say it’s difficult. But I could be wrong.

Nuff.

OM wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:43:26 -0400, wrote:

I shoop predominatly in RAW on a Canon XTi. I HATE having to use a flash in most cases so I want the luxury of speed offered by the higher ISO’s but I hate the noise (used to call it grain).

…Two points:

1) I hate having to use a flash as well, especially that too-white/blue piece of shit that Canon sticks on the Rebels. I despise flash so much that I won’t even consider buying one that’s adjustable for angle and/or color variance. Flash just sucks overall.
2) We still call it grain 🙂

OM

Me? flash is the tool helping me making $$$$, and I use flash whenever I can. And I won’t put any shit on my camera gear.

Me? flash is the gilf of fortune so I enjoy the fortune even in day light. And if you two still have problem with flash then I would suggest you two to do more research and learn to master the flash.

Here is something to get you two a good start.

1. Do not put any *shit* on your camera, but to spend some $$$ on a good flash. You can get a cheaper model but if you want to invest for future use than SpeedLite 580EX (or EX II the current latest model). If you have more $$$ to make your life a little brighter then may be 2 Speedlites. And just these 2 flashes alone would cost more than your Rebels <bg>

2. Then learn to use MANUAL mode as that’s the mode flash loves most. Of course you may use with P mode, or AV/TV mode as Flash Fill (outside in daylight)

3. The you two may need to learn to BOUNCE the flash to available object’s around you (front, back, top, side wall etc..). *If* no available object (like wall) around at all time or at all location, then you may need to invest few bucks on the bouncing device like Light Sphere, LumiQuest, Omni etc.

And if your photo always turn out too white, well then you may need to learn to master your camera setting as it sounds like it’s overexposured, and it’s possible that you are using cheapie lens on incorrect setting. And as long as you don’t destroy any channel (especially red) then you should be able to use Photoshop to boost up (recover) the skintone. And if you are RAW converter user then becareful with what you do or some version etc. as it may damage (not much but could be some) some color channel’s, and may add more noise to the image.