D610: Cheating Noise from HIGH ISO!

[MrSleepin]

i know some people like noisy pics... i am not one of them.

i'm always trying to find ways to beat the noise.

something i have discovered with my new D610, with the built in HDR function (i know some of the other newer nikons also have the built in hdr), you can cheat noise and exposure limitations!

now i don't know if this has been covered or not... i did a quick search, and nothing stuck out to me, so i figured i would share this discovery.

basically what i did, i shot 2 images... one with the built in hdr on, the other is the same subject, lighting, shutter/aperture, just no built in hdr... so the only thing different is the outcome.

Lens: Nikkor 60mm 2.8f
Hand Held! 1/40" at 3.2f with ISO set to HI-2

WITHOUT hdr:




WITH hdr (Exp. Diff @ 3EV. Smoothing set to LOW):





lemme know what you think, or if you have any other tips on noise reduction, SHARE THEM WITH ME!

 

[PaulWog]

Are you shooting as Jpeg? That's just built-in camera noise reduction doing its work. On your HDR shot, you've likely got a softer image with more noise reduction.

Noise reduction can be manually controlled much better if you shoot RAW. Otherwise, you're letting your camera do a lot of the work on the spot without getting to decide afterward.

 

[gsgary]

One with HDR turned on looks crap

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[Derrel]

I would like to see several more scenes done this way, so I could better gauge what it is that I am seeing. It's difficult for me to put into context the kind of lighting that was there at the time. This example shot is kind of "weird lighting" to me. I think the HDR shot looks low-noise, for sure, but there also appears to be almost no shadow values in the shot, and because of that, well it looks "odd" in some way, but I would REALLY love to see how this HDR effect might look under, say shadowy, early-eveniong side-lighting, or whatever. I do not agree with gary that it looks crappy.

 

[MrSleepin]

i'm aware these are both crap images, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
the one with hdr shows a pretty true image. it was a dimly light bedroom, all artificial light.

that's how it looked to the naked eye.

and that's what i was going for....i wanted to make the lighting look as natural as possible. if i wanted the same result without hdr, i would have had to slow the shutter speed even more.

i will definitely add to this thread, once i have more shots.

 

[KmH]

The best way to minimize noise is to nail the exposure by using the ETTR method of exposure control and being keenly aware of light direction and quality.
Optimizing Exposure

If the first shot was not under exposed and so poorly lit from a light quality and direction perspective, there would be a lot less noise in that shot.
The HDR image has quite a bit of wonky looking colors in it and the right side of the laptop being brighter than the left side looks decidedly un-natural.

As mentioned, the in-the-camera HDR feature is doing quite a bit of image editing the non-HDR shot is not being subjected to.
And we don't know what edits the HDR feature actually applies.

IMO, that invalidates your premise.

 

[Braineack]

When I want to cheat in my D600, I press ^ ^ v v > < > < ...

 

[skieur]

Sony has in camera multi-shot noise reduction.

In post, combining images from a burst shoot might work as well.

 

[thereyougo!]

For me, the second shot shows me the problems of HDR. I won't put it as bluntly as Gary, but for me it lacks any kind of punch. It's taken away nearly all the shape and form. The first one is more striking.

There is a problem for me with trying to get a shot to look just as we see it with our eyes. We see in 3 dimensions. Even if Nikon were to bring out a 3D version of the D800, what you would see would not be the same as we see with our naked eyes. YMMV, but I prefer to see some contrast to give an image some shape as the second image is flatter than a pancake to my eyes.

 

[MrSleepin]

i swear some of you guys aren't reading

i'm aware these are both crap images, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
the one with hdr shows a pretty true image. it was a dimly light bedroom, all artificial light.

that's how it looked to the naked eye.

and that's what i was going for....i wanted to make the lighting look as natural as possible. if i wanted the same result without hdr, i would have had to slow the shutter speed even more.

i will definitely add to this thread, once i have more shots.

^^^^
read that as well.

this test was to show how much the hdr option helps with exposure and noise reduction at maximum ISO.

 

[thereyougo!]

i swear some of you guys aren't reading

i'm aware these are both crap images, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
the one with hdr shows a pretty true image. it was a dimly light bedroom, all artificial light.

that's how it looked to the naked eye.

and that's what i was going for....i wanted to make the lighting look as natural as possible. if i wanted the same result without hdr, i would have had to slow the shutter speed even more.

i will definitely add to this thread, once i have more shots.

^^^^
read that as well.

this test was to show how much the hdr option helps with exposure and noise reduction at maximum ISO.

But at what cost? Softer image, and flat lighting.

There is much more to photography than just getting the exposure right, just as there is more to music than just singing in tune. I would not use any kind of jpg based HDR to take photographs if I wanted to describe myself as a photographer. That's the one of the things that the Canon 5D mk III has over the Nikon 610/800. The HDR can be set to take multiple RAW images whereas Nikon doesn't record the RAW images.

In my view, if you are serious about your photography, you should be shooting RAW.

 

[MrSleepin]

i swear some of you guys aren't reading

i'm aware these are both crap images, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
the one with hdr shows a pretty true image. it was a dimly light bedroom, all artificial light.

that's how it looked to the naked eye.

and that's what i was going for....i wanted to make the lighting look as natural as possible. if i wanted the same result without hdr, i would have had to slow the shutter speed even more.

i will definitely add to this thread, once i have more shots.

^^^^
read that as well.

this test was to show how much the hdr option helps with exposure and noise reduction at maximum ISO.

But at what cost? Softer image, and flat lighting.

There is much more to photography than just getting the exposure right, just as there is more to music than just singing in tune. I would not use any kind of jpg based HDR to take photographs if I wanted to describe myself as a photographer. That's the one of the things that the Canon 5D mk III has over the Nikon 610/800. The HDR can be set to take multiple RAW images whereas Nikon doesn't record the RAW images.

In my view, if you are serious about your photography, you should be shooting RAW.

the only time i feel raw is necessary, if i am taking a crucial image(s).

if i am taking random shots or just for fun of it/facebook...whats the point of taking raw images that i'll have to process when a jpeg will do just fine?

would only use this method in a bar or dim-lit building with friends... which happens often, but i usually bring my sb900 along.

 

[Solarflare]

RAW shooting is usually the first step for advanced noise reduction ... not that I would do that myself.

Also, I see noise when its very dark, so I dont get the "want it to look like it looks to the eye" comment. With that, I would want to have a special kind of noise, and I would also make the images all black and white.

With my D600 and image stabilization, I can shoot pictures handheld that look like day, or almost like day, while its so dark I can see hardly anything at all anymore. Heck, I've used my D600 in lifeview as nightvision device so I could see where I'm going.

 

[VigilanteFoto]

Not to side track your thread, but i have only had my D610 for a month and cant figure how to use the HDR. I shoot RAW and JPEG, but when i turn off RAW it wont let me select HDR. What am i missing?

 

[PaulWog]

Again, what you're examining is built-in noise reduction features for jpegs. That's really pointless.