Noise and Grain

[loosecanon]

In days of old, when mono film ruled, grain was seen as an integral aspect of a photograph. Sometimes annoying as it lost detail, but more often as part of the aesthetics of the image. Looking at the images of a recent Cartier-Bresson exhibition grain was very evident, but contributed to the image.

Today we often seem obsessed by noise in our images, despite using ISO values unheard of in film days.

Yet programmes like Nik Silver FX include the ability to add grain like effects. However I doubt many users of these programmes turn off noise reduction when starting post processing.

[Black Pearl]

As a general rule i will let noise stay if I'm working on a mono shot or sometime add grain in. I like a bit of grittiness to a mono image, harks back to my love affair with Tri-X I guess.

[Manfred M]

Even in my early film days, I tended to shoot very slow films in order to minimize grain. I shot a lot of Agfapan 25 and Kodachrome 25. I did shoot a bit of Tri-X when I had to do existing light work and found that the grain did work well for certain types of images. That's why I shot a lot of flash - I had to with the films I was shooting.

I continue to be a low ISO shooter as much as possible and usually shoot at or near base ISO.

[Mike Buckley]

Yet programmes like Nik Silver FX include the ability to add grain like effects. However I doubt many users of these programmes turn off noise reduction when starting post processing.

I always turn off noise reduction in my camera and my post-processing software. That's because when I want to use it, I want to be in complete control of what type and how much of it is applied. Even when I do use noise reduction, I do so rarely.

Even so, Nikon cameras apply a certain amount noise reduction at the highest ISO values even when noise reduction is turned off in the camera. I don't know about other manufacturers.

[Black Pearl]

I always turn off noise reduction in my camera and my post-processing software. That's because when I want to use it, I want to be in complete control of what type and how much of it is applied. Even when I do use noise reduction, I do so rarely.

Even so, Nikon cameras apply a certain amount noise reduction at the highest ISO values even when noise reduction is turned off in the camera. I don't know about other manufacturers.

Fuji do the same, even their raw files have a degree of noise shaping applied that can't be removed.

[Manfred M]

Totally agree Mike and Robin - I also do not use the sharpening workflow suggested by Adobe (and others) in their raw converters as I find that sharpening should only be done AFTER noise reduction. Do it before and you will sharpen the noise, which is not usually what we want to see in our images.

[DanK]

Totally agree Mike and Robin - I also do not use the sharpening workflow suggested by Adobe (and others) in their raw converters as I find that sharpening should only be done AFTER noise reduction. Do it before and you will sharpen the noise, which is not usually what we want to see in our images.

In many cases, yes, but if you are doing both within LR, the order doesn't make a difference. The order in which you stack the edits does not dictate the order in which LR does the math in producing the image. It would matter if you did the sharpening within LR and then used any other software to reduce noise later.

[Manfred M]

In many cases, yes, but if you are doing both within LR, the order doesn't make a difference. The order in which you stack the edits does not dictate the order in which LR does the math in producing the image. It would matter if you did the sharpening within LR and then used any other software to reduce noise later.

Lightroom's Develop Module = ACR. This is one reason that I virtually always finish my images in Photoshop, where I apply the sharpening.

Lightroom as a standalone works quite well when the image needs minimal work, but once one gets into heavy duty PP work, it does not fare as well.

[Mike Buckley]

The order in which you stack the edits does not dictate the order in which LR does the math in producing the image.

While that may be true, I'm leery of statements made by the company about that. That's because the product manager of Nikon's most advanced editing tool, Capture NX, which also never used layers, said the same thing in a video still probably on the Internet. He was wrong and it was really easy to prove that he was wrong. So, I always apply common sense when determining my workflow just in case other companies are similarly wrong about their product.

I would probably feel differently about that if Nikon was the only company that didn't understand its own product or if I hadn't had to teach other companies including Adobe during the course of looking for solutions to problems stuff they didn't know about their own product.

[DanK]

While that may be true, I'm leery of statements made by the company about that. That's because the product manager of Nikon's most advanced editing tool, Capture NX, which also never used layers, said the same thing in a video still probably on the Internet. He was wrong and it was really easy to prove that he was wrong. So, I always apply common sense when determining my workflow just in case other companies are similarly wrong about their product.

I would probably feel differently about that if Nikon was the only company that didn't understand its own product or if I hadn't had to teach other companies including Adobe during the course of looking for solutions to problems stuff they didn't know about their own product.

I actually tested this some time ago. I edited an image in LR twice, the second time applying the edits in the reverse order. The resulting images were indistinguishable. I think I posted the results here, but I find the search function on this site hard to use, and I wasn't able to locate the thread.

[Mike Buckley]

I actually tested this some time ago.

I seem to remember that. However, situations can unknowingly change as new capabilities and bugs are added to software. I wouldn't rely on the results of old tests.

[William W]

In days of old, when mono film ruled, grain was seen as an integral aspect of a photograph. Sometimes annoying as it lost detail, but more often as part of the aesthetics of the image. Today we often seem obsessed by noise in our images, despite using ISO values unheard of in film days.

Especially when my Final Image will be a B&W and often for a Sport’s shot that will be viewed as a "print" (even if on line) in a publication or wrap sheet - I have never been afraid to add noise to get the feeling of the old fashioned Tri - X grain that we had in newspaper photos.

Even for Youth Sport, I think grain (aka noise), can be used to add some additional punch and grunt to some images:



*



WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[Manfred M]

Bill - I agree with what you have written and I think that the Tri-X look or the even grainier "pushed" Tri-X look is something we learned were "associated" with sports photography (and some other existing light photography at concerts and event photography) in the B&W prints in newspapers in the middle to latter part of the 20th Century.

I think that this association of grain is something that the photographers from that era readily associate with that type of photography. I wonder if it is the same for the generation that grew up in the digital world where cameras get low noise results while using ludicrous (for film photographers) ISO settings?

[rpcrowe]

I have noise reduction in camera and in Camera Raw turned off because that is apparently the best way to use NIK Dfine noise reduction. Using Dfine at the start of my image processing when I know (because of shooting at a high ISO) I will need noise reduction...

[William W]

. . . I think that this association of grain is something that the photographers from that era readily associate with that type of photography. I wonder if it is the same for the generation that grew up in the digital world where cameras get low noise results while using ludicrous (for film photographers) ISO settings?

I don't know. But I think it is a very good question. I guess there are many 'digital only' Photographers as members here at CiC, so maybe some would care to answer your question . . . ?

WW

[TheBigE]

Interesting read - this maybe a bit of a Newbie question - but if shooting in RAW does Nikon still apply NR to the output file?

[Dave Humphries]

Interesting read - this maybe a bit of a Newbie question - but if shooting in RAW does Nikon still apply NR to the output file?

No Erik, not in (what I'd call) 'general photography' - e.g. not long exposures.


I am less sure with the "Long Exposure NR" feature (on my Nikon D7100), this may affect RAW, my reference book (and the camera's manual) completely overlooks to mention whether it affects jpg only or both jpg and RAW.

For clarity, I'm talking about the feature of that name, which if turned on, will cause a second 'dark' exposure' to occur after the image capture, but only when using exposure times of several seconds; given as "2 or more", or "8 or more", depending what you read.

UPDATE Further reading of my Nikon manual and the David Busch 'thick book' on the D7100 casts no light (excuse the pun) on whether the "High ISO NR" applies to jpg or RAW either. I was just beginning to think it might apply to both, as they didn't give a warning that it only applied to jpgs, when I noticed that (lens) Auto Distortion control, which (I believe) cannot be applied to RAW data (except as a post shooting option) also wasn't differentiated.

Given the way I think High ISO NR and Long Exp. NR works, I believe it should be technically possible for them to be applied to RAW data at the time of capture (because we're talking prior to to A-D for one, and a simple digital mathematical subtraction for the other).

I don't use High ISO NR, preferring to retain more fine detail in the image and use Neat Image after the event as it is more intelligently applied.
I might use Long Exp. NR (on loooong exposures), as the way that works might have some merit over doing it in PP.

I'd be interested in knowing the definitive answer(s), if anyone knows 'without doubt' on this - e.g. has tested themselves or can refer to a Nikon publication or similar respected source.

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Considering that the Nikon D7000 manual explains High ISO NR and Long Exposure NR without making a distinction between raw and jpeg file formats, I assume those two NR capabilities work the same on both file formats. In the case of Long Exposure NR during in-camera processing, Job nr will blink in the area that otherwise displays the shutter speed and aperture setting. So, it would be really easy to conduct a test to confirm whether that capability works on both file formats.

[Manfred M]

I am less sure with the "Long Exposure NR" feature (on my Nikon D7100), this may affect RAW, my reference book (and the camera's manual) completely overlooks to mention whether it affects jpg only or both jpg and RAW.

So far as I can tell, the NR is applied to raw in Nikons if the approach used on the D800 is used across the board. When I set the camera to raw only mode, the NR algorithm does kick in, just as it does when shooting jpeg or raw + jpeg.

The approach Nikon (and others) use is called Dark Field subtraction. After the camera has taken a shot, it takes a second "shot" with the shutter closed is taken for the same duration as the original exposure. This allows the camera to capture any digital noise generated by the camera and sensor. This is subtracted from the original image, effectively cancelling out any hot spots). Fixed systemic noise can be controlled this way, but random noise cannot.