NOISE!!!!!!!!

[SnappingShark]

So, do you take photos for yourself or for clients?
Do you worry about the noise if you know you're only going to be displaying on a screen? Or do you take them with the notion in mind that they may be full size prints?

What are the better programs out there (or slider options in LR) to reduce noise?

For me, although most of my images will be in print (magazines) or on screen - I like to shoot with an ISO I know my camera can handle when they're blown up.

I shoot for myself mostly.

 

[tirediron]

Both. I always worry about noise when I'm at higher ISOs, but only within its relevance to the final product (ie, if I'm shooting for screen, then I worry a lot less than if I'm shooting for large-format print). I use LR and Dfine2 as my primary noise-reduction software.

You have your own magazine?

 

[chuasam]

I only worry about noise if I plan to be doing retouching. Adding in convincingly matching digital noise is a pain.

 

[Overread]

I think it depends on the situation. Much of what I shoot has been wildlife or events where I've got no control over the lighting nor the situation itself. I'm at the mercy of the lighting at the time of the shot and thus many times I either have to twiddle my thumbs and not take a photo or I have to contend with noise in the final version.
And honestly most of the time I'd rather contend with noise and put effort into good software and learning how to tackle the noise - there's quite a bit that can be done with regard to fixing noise and that's without considering that many prints/web displays will often hide much of it.


I think the question becomes more of a factor when you've the option to bring your own control into the situation - then you've got to ask yourself if it worth it to break out the lights or wait for good light to avoid the noise. Eg many a landscape photographer might come back to a specific spot time and time again to get a shot there where the lighting is just strong enough to get the effect they want with the lowest ISO possible; which shows that sometimes all you can control is when you decide to go.


i think noise is something we all come to worry about because most introductory works to digital photography go "keep the ISO as low as possible to avoid noise". It puts a FEAR of noise into many that is a very hard mind-set to shed. In addition those guides often gloss over digital editing if they even mention it at all; thus not only is one thrust into the world with a fear of noise but they are also left without any skill nor real methodology for dealing with noise once they've got it.

 

[Ysarex]

I shoot for myself.

With my most recent camera (Fuji XE-2) I consider both noise and ISO no longer practical considerations. In practical use I treat my camera as if it were noise and ISO less -- (I leave the ISO at base and don't worry about noise).

From a recent test I did.

ISO 6400 (approx. 50% res):

Here's 100% from the above ISO 6400 shot as well as from the same shot at ISO 200 underexposed 5 stops (same exposures -- shutter-f/stop).

Neat Image (new version 8) used for noise filtering.

Joe

 

[table1349]

So, do you take photos for yourself or for clients?

Yes

Do you worry about the noise if you know you're only going to be displaying on a screen?

Yes

Or do you take them with the notion in mind that they may be full size prints?

Yes

What are the better programs out there (or slider options in LR) to reduce noise? Topaz DeNoise

For me, although most of my images will be in print (magazines) or on screen - I like to shoot with an ISO I know my camera can handle when they're blown up.

I shoot for myself mostly.

I always try to get the very best result whether it is for myself or others.

 

[dennybeall]

My background is photojournalism so my mantra is "Get the Shot!". That said I'm going to reduce noise as much as possible but still get the shot and worry about noise later.
Don't shoot much any more as an old retired guy but find that with the newer iterations of Photoshop, and other plug-ins, reducing noise in post is much easier.

 

[Gary A.]

My first dSLR was a 20D back in 2004 or so (whenever they first came out). I used to shoot news back in the film-only days. The 20D's was on par or even worst than Tri-X on noise/grain. I never took the 20D above ISO 1600. But with the latest sensors, I will shoot @6400 with barely a second thought to noise. While I am still very conscience of IQ, as sensors get better, noise is certainly becoming a less significant consideration.

Typically, noise is a distraction, the greater the noise the greater the distraction and the greater the noise competites against the image in attracting the viewer's eye. Noise and acceptance of noise levels is plastic, it changes depending of the subject and subject matter. Generally, if one shoots landscapes or studio or architecture then the less noise the better. But an action image, an image with heightened drama can handle much more noise without being a distraction. Extremes examples are Nick Ut's photograph of the screaming, naked, napalmed little girl running down the dirt road is unsharp and very grainy, but is so powerful and dramatic that the lack of good IQ, of sharpness and grain do not register as significant elements of the photo. Conversely, any Ansel Adams shot of Yosemite, one is immediately impressed by the sharpness and tonal ranges, the high IQ of Adams' images are an integral element of the image. Had Adams photographs of Yosemite had a similar IQ to Ut's image ... His photographs would have failed. In contrast, had Ut's image been perfectly in focus and grainless, it would not had been significantly more successful. (But Ut's peers would have paid homage and granted him Godlike stature.)

When I was a pro, my first consideration was the client. I had to exceed the expectations of the client. IQ was a significant factor in meeting and exceeding the client's expectations. Secondary to the client was my own expectations of who I was and who I desired to be. Even if the photo was to be used as a 1 column by 2" mug shot, I still was careful to produce a high quality photo to match my expectations of myself. I discovered that my expectations of myself were usually higher than my editors/clients.

When I shot for magazines, I tended to take more time for a higher quality photo, both in the capture and in the processing because: 1) magazines had much higher publishing DPI/quality than newspapers; and 2) because typically, I had more time.

Again, that is shooting for the client's expectations.

Today, not having any clients/editors, I still keep kicking my own butt and still try to improve upon the last time I looked through the viewfinder.

 

[SnappingShark]

Thanks all for the replies - sometimes if I need to just get the shot, I will, but my mind is usually on the noise, as sometimes I don't know if it's for cover or just small images in the mag (local neighborhood mags) - most of my own shots though for my own pleasure (street photography) are just get the shot, noise looks good sometimes.

I appreciate the recommendations of software, too!!