Noise apps = higher ISO settings?

mcasan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,781
Location
Atlanta
Before the days of powerful noise reduction software (NoNoise, DeNoise..etc.). There was a limit you would push you camera’s ISO setting to give you max shutter speed for shooting sports, wildlife…etc. With the new noise reduction software apps, how much further are you pushing your camera ISO because you think or know that the noise app can mitigate the extra noise?

For example, if you would set your auto IOS to a max of 1600, do you now set auto to 3200 or 6400?
 

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
950
Location
Springfield, Illinois
Nothing is perfect, but it helps quite a bit. I don't think anyone can give you hard numbers on how much higher you can go. It is a taste and judgement sort of thing. I think it is important to not fetishize anti-noise methods, and sometimes noise doesn't hurt a photo.

I would suggest setting ISO without regard to whatever anti-noise program you have. If the only way to get a particular photo is with an absurdly high ISO, then you take that shot and hope you can 'fix' it in post. After all, a photo that can't be fixed is better than no photo at all.
 

JensM

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
1,101
Location
Oslo(ish), Norway
Real Name
As screename
I have some notions to research that problem to see how the Topaz suite fares. It works great on the current crop but not magically so. I plan to run a bit of this and that of older P&S files through it, as well as checking out the "feasabilty" of using such cameras in this day and age, som ancient models are quite intriguing, especially those with CCD sensors. So far I am rather content with what the software do on raw files from the Canon S120, but that one is new(ish) and it hasnt been properly tested yet, just ran some photograpies through it, that wasnt halfway bad to begin with.

I did the same with some raw files from the GX880, on the higher ISO (3200-6400) and those where not exactly great, but usable for private consumption after a spin.
 
Last edited:

frankmulder

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
503
Before the days of powerful noise reduction software (NoNoise, DeNoise..etc.). There was a limit you would push you camera’s ISO setting to give you max shutter speed for shooting sports, wildlife…etc. With the new noise reduction software apps, how much further are you pushing your camera ISO because you think or know that the noise app can mitigate the extra noise?

For example, if you would set your auto IOS to a max of 1600, do you now set auto to 3200 or 6400?
Before I started using DxO PhotoLab, the maximum ISO I was comfortable with on my Panasonic G80 was ISO 800. Now I'm fine with using ISO 1600 (in the test shots I took, the result after denoising was virtually indistinguishable from the ISO 200 shot, even at 100%).

I still don't love ISO 3200 and 6400, because there's so much noise that the AI has to invent detail that wasn't there (which doesn't look great at 100%, but will be OK when viewed at smaller sizes). I might be OK with ISO 3200 on a 20 MP sensor camera though.

Before you conclude that it made 1 stop difference: the main difference for me is actually that I do not worry about noise anymore (at any ISO <=1600). I just leave DeepPRIME noise reduction on by default, and I know the result will be great. Liberating. :)
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,998
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I find I just worry less about ISO. There are times when you can't help raising it, and it's nice to know you have one more tool in post that can help you get the results you are looking for. If anything, I like how it seems to help reduce background noise while leaving the subject sharper, where more generic denoise filters are less discriminating. There are times when I feel like it's cheating, but also times where I feel like it's squeezing more out of existing camera technology. Denoise software is cheap compared to bodies and lenses.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
1,023
Real Name
Joel
I'm still not comfortable with 6400, but 1600 and 3200 are a lot more useful/interesting now. I shot these two last night at 3200/1600 ISO. Just quick edits.
_1421712 ba.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


_1421680 ba.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The latest update to Topaz Denoise 3.2(?) is much quicker than the previous version.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
6,107
Location
Mars
no changes at all in my high iso limit as I find the results look fake/over sharpened 99%of the time, especially when it comes to the fine details in fur/feathers.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
3,300
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
OoC JPEG at ISO 6400, and in-camera noise filter = low.

E-M1_JAK_2015-_7140932_Ew.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

It seems many products are a solution looking for an problem ...

I generally find that noise reduction in Photoshop is adequate when really needed, but it is equally important to use a light touch.

e.g. before and after on the same image.

Before:

E-M1_JAK_2015-_6050799_Ew.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

With NR and straightened:

E-M1_JAK_2015-_6050799_copy_rotated_Ew.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,998
Location
Tanagra (not really)
OoC JPEG at ISO 6400, and in-camera noise filter = low.

View attachment 900353
It seems many products are a solution looking for an problem ...

I generally find that noise reduction in Photoshop is adequate when really needed, but it is equally important to use a light touch.

e.g. before and after on the same image.

Before:

View attachment 900354
With NR and straightened:

View attachment 900355
Nice garage, John.
 

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,979
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
It’s all about the light. The latest software is clever and I do use it but it doesn’t fix a photo with poor light. My images are always significantly better, noise reduction software or not, with ‘good’ light in the first place.

Note: ‘good’ light might not mean bright light and could be about contrast or direction etc.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,911
My friend shots a D500 and the 500mm f5.6 (after dro0ping his f4) and to get fast shutter speeds he was always at 6400 and above. My G9 topped out at 3200 at the shoulder hours. Not any more. I am using the On1 product and use 32/6400 a lot. Take a look at some of my recent bird shots, both he and I agree that we can't tell the difference between M43 and DX sensors now. The new AI doesn't put in detail that is not there is just enhances what is there. There is a post on Petapixel that says the AI programs bring in parts of other images, pure BS. Turn off your internet and run the AI Denoise software , still works. It is nothing more than using a data base of parameters and then appling that and masking to various parts of the image. Something you can do in PS if you want spend a week/month doing it. Cameras are computers, imaging programs and just more sophisticated versions. Digital photography is not silver based photography. You can't say "only this much electronic processing is allowed" once you go to the dark side because each new digital camera takes the process to a new level with improved processing engines.
 

RevBob

Super Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
4,652
Location
NorthWestern PA
Real Name
Bob
I'm a huge fan of DXO's Deep Prime. There are always going to be situations where the lighting is difficult and a flash isn't an option. I now happily set 3200 as the upper limit knowing that noise is far less of a problem than in the past.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,792
Location
France
It’s all about the light. The latest software is clever and I do use it but it doesn’t fix a photo with poor light. My images are always significantly better, noise reduction software or not, with ‘good’ light in the first place.

Note: ‘good’ light might not mean bright light and could be about contrast or direction etc.

With exact the same light, you may want to incease ISO to have a faster shutter speed or more depth of field.
So having better ISO handling can help.
It doesn't solve everything, but it helps.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,792
Location
France
I've adapted a little bit my way of shooting.
I always try to keep ISO level as low as possible, but if I can't, I know the image would still look good (if the rest of the image is OK, of course :) ).

What I like the most about DxO DeepPrime reduction (that I use - only when needed - as a preprocessor for Lightroom) is not the noise reduction itself (it's good, but I don't care so much about noise).
It's the way colors are saved in underexposed areas.
With lightroom, the colors are washed out when there is too much noise.

Before DeepPrime, I would never have used my 9 mm f/8 oly pancake on my GM5 for indoor shots :)
(ISO 3200-6400 needed...)
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,980
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I see that some are getting good results with 6400, but I try not to go over 3200, since it often seems to loose detail when I do. I don't necessarily mean because of the noise reduction you have to use later. I mean at 6400 I find the details are not there in the out-of-camera image, even in the RAW. It seems hard to predict when that might happen, at least for me, so I just stay at 3200 or below.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom