What is an acceptable level of noise in pics?

DaveofCali · #1 (**permalink**) 06-12-2006, 09:43 PM

What is an acceptable level of noise in pics? In general, and in submitting to various microstock websites (of which the standards may be different for various websites). I want to know if what I think is realistic or not, since I dunno if I'm filtering my pics too much unnecessarily (and thus, significantly slowing down my workflow).

smphoto · #2 (**permalink**) 06-12-2006, 11:22 PM

That's a good question. I hate to use noise reduction software, but anytime I capture a blue sky I always get noise. I just duplicate the layer, erase out the image with detail (main subject), and then run PS reduce noise on just the blue sky. That way the noise is gone but the detail remains in the main subject.

It's totally subjective. Some sites reject an image for noise which others will accept.

gvictoria · #3 (**permalink**) 06-13-2006, 03:01 AM

Just try shooting with the lowest ISO possible .. 100 or less if possible, i have the Rebel XT and have never used noise ninja or any of those programs, and also if your lighting is optimal you shouldn't have a problem. I usually only see noise in shadows if an image is a bit underexposed, but if it's underexposed i don't even bother. Most agencies have no tolerance for noise of any kind. Check your equipment, your iso, and your lighting.
Hope this helps

DaveofCali · #4 (**permalink**) 06-13-2006, 03:46 AM

^ Most of my photos are taken outdoor at daytime (w/heavy use of the polarizer) or indoor w/ indoor lighting or outdoor at nighttime, thus nothing near optimal studio lighting. I use in camera sharpening because unsharpened pics are too blurry to submit. I use a Nikon D70, which has its lowest ISO setting at 200 (and one of the worst luminance noise performers of all DSLRs). Thus, I do the kind of photography that is most prone to noise, so this is why this is such a big issue to me.

ptlee · #5 (**permalink**) 06-13-2006, 06:59 AM

Hi,

I would avoid the camera sharpening, because that would enhance/bring out the noise artifacts more. Especially, since the camera produces a fair amount of noise to begin with.

It would be advisable to do a noise reduction first to remove most of the noise, before any sharpening is done. So some post processing is necessary. Maybe a bit of extra work, but can be incorporated into a smooth workflow.

It would be good to take in RAW, to avoid introducing jpeg compression artifacts early in the workflow.

Hope this helps.

cheers.

Gracey · #6 (**permalink**) 06-13-2006, 11:06 AM

Dave, you might need to have that camera checked. I have a D70 and don't use in-camera sharpening either, and I don't have a problem with the images being too blurry.

I also haven't had a ton of noise on the D70 - in fact I experienced more noise issues with the D200 than with the D70 (which I still use along with the D200), but as it turns out, it was my own fault.

You also should try to shoot at the "sweet spot" for whatever lens you are using - if I am shooting landscapes (Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4-5.6) I generally shoot around f8 to f11. It's usually pretty sharp, and as long as your shutter speed is set appropriately for the lighting, there shouldn't be blurriness or much in the way of noise. If you are having these issues on a constant basis, you might want to have the camera checked.

hospitalera · #7 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveofCali

^ I use in camera sharpening because unsharpened pics are too blurry to submit.

The blurriness sounds more like a lens issue to me, ... And I second the tip to shot raw rather then jpg alone. SY

suwanneeredhead · #8 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 05:43 PM

Remember in the days of film? Sometimes "grain" was used to tell a story, give a certain feel to the image... I'd like to see that used more in digital work as an artistic statement. That's what the PS "Add Noise" feature is for... when you first look at it, you say, "why in the world would anybody want to add noise?" Then you play with it and see the effect it can give.

Some would argue that if a designer wants noise, they'll put it in. As a graphic & web designer that purchases stock photography en masse, I appreciate a choice and a variety and I don't have time to make major photoshop changes to photos before I use them. The sheer number of photographs on these sites lends itself to that type of variety, and to reiterate I'd like to see more creatively-used noise in shots when appropriate.

hospitalera · #9 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suwanneeredhead

Remember in the days of film? ... and to reiterate I'd like to see more creatively-used noise in shots when appropriate.

Please tell that to the image reviewers!!! I am, mainly shooting film and get regularly told off... SY :shock:

suwanneeredhead · #10 (**permalink**) 06-14-2006, 06:06 PM

LOL! You poor thing. Yes I have had my share of rejections for noise, that was before I was able to shoot in RAW and use Photoshop CS2 and Neat Image on my images. Microstock sites consider noise a bad thing so "creative grain" is just not something they go for.

Can't really TELL them anything, huh?