An attempt at Noise Reduction

[Brownbear]

I recently photographed a bunch of eagles in low light, and I no matter how hard I tried I couldn't manage to expose to the right and almost all were photographed using an iso of 3200, SS 800, Aperture 6.7, Exp Bias +1.3

At full size all have noise and I expect that even though they are eagles they will all end up in the bin and I will just have to try again. But I thought I would give noise reduction a try. I don't like how it smudges things and changes the colours in an image.

No noise reduction



Here is an attempt at noise reduction using Lightroom... (And likely a different S curve)




I would appreciate hearing how I might try to reduce the noise level in this image using Lightroom 5, so I can try again and see if I can do a better job of it, or if it is just not possible to do well, then I would appreciate knowing that too.

Thank you.

[Geoff F]

I will have a closer look at the original but I suspect that part of the trouble is that the main subject isn't absolutely sharp. So any reduction is going to be even worse.

However, I will see if a bit of selective sharpening might help

[Brownbear]

Hi Geoff,

Would it help if I posted a sharper eagle full of noise? ie; to see what is possible? If yes, let me know and I will do just that.

I will have a closer look at the original but I suspect that part of the trouble is that the main subject isn't absolutely sharp. So any reduction is going to be even worse.

However, I will see if a bit of selective sharpening might help

[Shadowman]

Since you are willing to try again, was 6.7 aperture the widest you could attain or did you choose for maximum sharpness of the lens?

[ajohnw]

It would need to be all or part of the original full sized image Christina.

The usual approach is to remove as much noise as possible keeping as much subject detail as you can while the image is full sized. Then reduce and sharpen the shot. The reduction will remove noise too. The important thing is not to sharpen while there is any noise left but sometimes there has to be a bit left.

There are also numerous types of noise reduction routines. If you have several there is a need to experiment to see what they can do.

John
-.

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

6.7 was the widest I could attain. A 300 mm lens with a 1.4 extender on it. I couldn't use a slower shutter speed (800 is super slow already for birds in action/flight) and I tried a higher iso but that was disastrous... The extender was needed because the eagles are on the other side of a river bank (not accessible unless one has a boat) or high up in the trees... and I couldn't get any closer... Sunshine needed....

Since you are willing to try again, was 6.7 aperture the widest you could attain or did you choose for maximum sharpness of the lens?

[Geoff F]

As previously mentioned, it is difficult to see problems, and deal with them, when using small size internet images.

But I've had a bit of a go at selectively sharpening the main subject then using a light Blur Brush over the background.

Then a fraction more boost to the highlights.



In both cases, I used a layer with a Luminosity Blend Mode. Sharpening on a layer with this blend mode often helps with difficult conditions; and a Luminosity blend Curves just changes the brightness without increasing saturation which adds to the noise problem.

For me, any noise reduction starts with the Raw image as one of the first stages of conversion.

[Brownbear]

It would need to be all or part of the original full sized image Christina.

Hi John,

Here is an original (Should be full size raw converted to jpeg by photobucket) (anyone is welcome to give it a go if they wish)



And an edited version



I did do exactly that using the noise reduction program in Adobe Photoshop, and I also tried it in Lightroom. These are the only noise reduction programs I have. At one point in time I had a trial of Topaz but I still didn't like the noise reduction effect.

Yes, when smaller the noise is less evident but I wish to be able to do the same with a full size photo, and learn to do this, if it is possible. If it is not possible to do very well then I will just have to find better light and expose to the right... This photo is exposed to the right.

Thank you.

The usual approach is to remove as much noise as possible keeping as much subject detail as you can while the image is full sized. Then reduce and sharpen the shot. The reduction will remove noise too. The important thing is not to sharpen while there is any noise left but sometimes there has to be a bit left.

There are also numerous types of noise reduction routines. If you have several there is a need to experiment to see what they can do.

John
-.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

I really don't see any troublesome noise in either version (in first post) - but that doesn't surprise me, when you downsize to display online, most of it will be averaged away.

As John suggests, if you want us to see the noise, you must post a simple crop from the image (say just the head), with no downsizing at all.

However, I have to ask; why would you do that?

If, by the time the processing is finished, a presentable image results - why worry about the noise your audience cannot see?

Yes, sure, I know it is there at 100% when pixel peeping in PP, but does that matter?
The answer is, only if the image is so aggressively cropped that for your audience, it ends up being 1:1 or almost that - I know some of mine had in the past.

In this particular shot you are lucky the background contains a lot of fine detail, which is also helping mask the noise I suspect, a shot with a blue sky would be far less forgiving - and easier to judge the noise reduction experiments with - if I cannot persuade you not to bother

Just my thoughts,

[Brownbear]

Thank you for doing this Geoff. It looks better but of course this is a small size. I will try this on the full size raw image after I look up luminosity layers. Can you let me know the settings you used for noise reduction so I have something to start with and try?

As previously mentioned, it is difficult to see problems, and deal with them, when using small size internet images.

But I've had a bit of a go at selectively sharpening the main subject then using a light Blur Brush over the background.

Then a fraction more boost to the highlights.



In both cases, I used a layer with a Luminosity Blend Mode. Sharpening on a layer with this blend mode often helps with difficult conditions; and a Luminosity blend Curves just changes the brightness without increasing saturation which adds to the noise problem.

For me, any noise reduction starts with the Raw image as one of the first stages of conversion.

[Brownbear]

Hi Dave,

The noise is very apparent full size, and I wish to be able to print a full size image with no noise, or at least not horribly visible noise, and it is horribly visible.

I just tried to post a full size version but I don't think it worked... How do I do this with the raw original?

Actually the images of the eagle against a blue sky had the least noise of all, likely because I was able to expose to the right.

Hi Christina,

I really don't see any troublesome noise in either version (in first post) - but that doesn't surprise me, when you downsize to display online, most of it will be averaged away.

As John suggests, if you want us to see the noise, you must post a simple crop from the image (say just the head), with no downsizing at all.

However, I have to ask; why would you do that?

If, by the time the processing is finished, a presentable image results - why worry about the noise your audience cannot see?

Yes, sure, I know it is there at 100% when pixel peeping in PP, but does that matter?
The answer is, only if the image is so aggressively cropped that for your audience, it ends up being 1:1 or almost that - I know some of mine had in the past.

In this particular shot you are lucky the background contains a lot of fine detail, which is also helping mask the noise I suspect, a shot with a blue sky would be far less forgiving - and easier to judge the noise reduction experiments with - if I cannot persuade you not to bother

Just my thoughts,

[Dave Humphries]

The noise is very apparent full size, and I wish to be able to print a full size image with no noise, or at least not horribly visible noise, and it is horribly visible.

I rarely print, but believe the paper (or canvas) texture will also help mask noise- may be not all though.

Personally, I don't use/trust ACR (read LR) noise reduction, I prefer Neat Image (which you'd have to use in PSE) for dealing with noisy images - however, my mis-trust is based on an earlier version of ACR/LR noise reduction, I believe it is supposed to be better now, but I have not re-evaluated (my opinion) since the changes.

I just tried to post a full size version but I don't think it worked... How do I do this with the raw original?

DropBox would be a preferred method of providing the RAW file.

But a simple jpg conversion of a 700 x 700 crop from the image will do - that could be posted without getting downsized (I would think).

[Brownbear]

Dave, Thanks for advising and sharing... Can you direct me to drop box?

Geoff, never mind those settings I can see that they would not be the same for a full size image.

I rarely print, but believe the paper (or canvas) texture will also help mask noise- may be not all though.

Personally, I don't use/trust ACR (read LR) noise reduction, I prefer Neat Image, which you'd have to use in PSE for dealing with noisy images - however, my mis-trust is based on an earlier version of ACR/LR noise reduction, I believe it is supposed to be better now, but I have not re-evaluated (my opinion) since the changes.



DropBox would be a preferred method of providing the RAW file.

But a simple jpg conversion of a 700 x 700 crop from the image will do - that could be posted without getting downsized (I would think).

[Dave Humphries]

Dave, Thanks for advising and sharing... Can you direct me to drop box?

Link now provided above in my post.

[Brownbear]

Here is the link to the original raw file for anyone who wishes to take the time to demonstrate an edit that will improve the photo (more exposure needed) and noise reduction.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yeosc938e6m73cg/266.NEF

Dave. Thank you.

[Richard Lundberg]

Not sure why you drop boxed the eagle against the sky instead of the first image of an eagle against the rocks, but if someone could tell me how to dropbox it back to you with my edits I'd be happy to do so. I have a dropbox account but I'm not sure that matters and I don't know how to use it in the first place.
I cropped it to approx 3000x3000 first, then applied motion blur 4 horizontal and out of focus 2, in Focus Magic. Then I gave it +2 exposure. Vibrance didn't do anything for it. I didn't see how noise reduction would do anything either but didn't try it.
It looks like the aperture should have been closed down, shutter speed increased, and higher ISO, if that was doable. That would have increased the noise, I suppose, but noise wasn't the problem as far as I could see. What were the parameters for that shot?
You can't really upload full res tiffs to this forum without jumping through a lot of hoops, so it's difficult to c and c anything and have it be meaningful or even visible. I've been searching the photosharing apps for the right one but haven't found the right one yet. They either degrade the image or cost money I guess.

[Brownbear]

Hi Richard,

I'm sorry about that. The reason I uploaded the image against the sky was because it was sharper and I figured it would be easier to work with. (in response to Geoff's comment)

Photographed at F4 300 mm, SS 1000 Exp Bias +2 ISO 3200, so I figured it would be easier to work with to demonstrate noise reduction.

I'm trying to improve my post processing skills and these photos are noisy to me at full size (speckles) so I wanted to see if someone could do a better job than I did of it, so I could learn how to lessen noise with more finesse... As Geoff's edit showed me so I'm going to try it.

The first image was photographed at 3200, SS 800, Aperture 6.7, )500 mm with an extender, Exp Bias +1.3. I had an extender on my camera so I couldn't open the aperture... Dropping the shutter speed even lower was not an option, and I tried a few shots at a higher iso but the exposure was still too dark (by that time it was becoming darker)... ie; I tried to expose to the right but couldn't and the images are underexposed, and once I increase the exposure they are noisy to me.

This is the first time I've used drop box too... And I know as much as you do about it. Sorry about that.

Thank you for trying. I appreciate the efforts. Perhaps the lesson for me is that I have to find better light, ie; these shots were just not possible to do well. (for me anyway)

Thank you for your efforts.

Not sure why you drop boxed the eagle against the sky instead of the first image of an eagle against the rocks, but if someone could tell me how to dropbox it back to you with my edits I'd be happy to do so. I have a dropbox account but I'm not sure that matters and I don't know how to use it in the first place.
I cropped it to approx 3000x3000 first, then applied motion blur 4 horizontal and out of focus 2, in Focus Magic. Then I gave it +2 exposure. Vibrance didn't do anything for it. I didn't see how noise reduction would do anything either but didn't try it.
It looks like the aperture should have been closed down, shutter speed increased, and higher ISO, if that was doable. That would have increased the noise, I suppose, but noise wasn't the problem as far as I could see. What were the parameters for that shot?
You can't really upload full res tiffs to this forum without jumping through a lot of hoops, so it's difficult to c and c anything and have it be meaningful or even visible. I've been searching the photosharing apps for the right one but haven't found the right one yet. They either degrade the image or cost money I guess.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

Just for interest I had a look at the image you posted in 'Dropbox' which was the eagle with whiteish sky. It showed up as only 1680 px width which suggested a crop??

Looking at it closely it appeared very pixelated rather than noisy but as you know I'm no expert, but as you know from experience capturing these birds is not easy and getting good exposure is not always simple. Anyway as you said 'have a go' I did with basic PSE tools.



I tried capturing some minor birds yesterday, very embarrassing results

Grahame

[Brownbear]

Hi Grahame,

I uploaded the raw file to drop box which should've been 6000 pixels wide, and as I am unfamiliar with drop box I don't know what happened. The composition is not cropped, just smaller. The sky is white because I was exposing as high as I could.

I like your version better than mine... I see you added needed space. It doesn't look noisy to me but of course it is small size.

I still have embarrassing results.. And I know if you set your mind to it your birds in flight would be wonderful.

Thank you for the effort. Given the fact that I can't upload a full size raw photo, lets everyone forget the edits. I will play with a photo tomorrow trying to follow Geoff's technique.

Thank you to all.

Hi Christina,

Just for interest I had a look at the image you posted in 'Dropbox' which was the eagle with whiteish sky. It showed up as only 1680 px width which suggested a crop??

Looking at it closely it appeared very pixelated rather than noisy but as you know I'm no expert, but as you know from experience capturing these birds is not easy and getting good exposure good is not always simple. Anyway as you said 'have a go' I did with basic PSE tools.



I tried capturing some minor birds yesterday, very embarrassing results

Grahame

[Brownbear]

Hi again,

Sorry, I don't know why a raw unprocessed image would appear pixelated. I looked in drop box and the file size is 33.4 MB so that the image was 1600 pixels doesn't make sense to me, but it could be me.

Hi Christina,

Just for interest I had a look at the image you posted in 'Dropbox' which was the eagle with whiteish sky. It showed up as only 1680 px width which suggested a crop??

Looking at it closely it appeared very pixelated rather than noisy but as you know I'm no expert, but as you know from experience capturing these birds is not easy and getting good exposure is not always simple. Anyway as you said 'have a go' I did with basic PSE tools.



I tried capturing some minor birds yesterday, very embarrassing results

Grahame