7D how to reduce noise

Just tried your raw (i've never processed a 5d MK2 file before so i've not built up experience yet). The lightroom file after a basic processing is still showing the grain pattern i dislike intensely. It basically looks like someone has daubed a tiny paint brush all over the photo that makes it look like everything has a texture over the whole photo, that shows itself up even in detailed areas.
Dpp's output cleans up well in bokeh areas and it's noise pattern mixes in well with fine detail that's not as noticeable in a lot of cases.

I'm a wildlife photographer so i guess DPP suits me more than other subject matter as well.
Feathers and fur suit DPP's noise pattern well and then there's usually a lot of bokeh or completely diffuse areas behind the subject in my photos that cleans up well for me in DPP, and annoys the hell out of me with lighroom/acr's pattern of noise.

The difference is narrowed a bit with the subject matter in your photo i must admit, but i still prefer DPP and thats before i get started mentioning the colour output i prefer in DPP too. I won't go there because this thread is about noise :LOL:

arad85 said:
26MBytes: http://www.arad85.co.uk/hosted/talkp/IMG_7455.CR2

Bear in mind my findings on sharpness which is that LR should be set to around 45-50 to get the same sharpness as Standard is for DPP.
Click to expand...
 
I must admit I'm not a fan of DPP, I think it's total junk to use... but I have played with DPP, CS5, Noiseware Community, Neat Image, Rawtherapee, Raw Shooter Essentials and Topaz DeNoise - not an extensive list but a few to choose from and for me the best results are from CS5. I find that DPP is a bit too smeary.

But whatever you like the look of is the one to go for.

Back to the question. I'd over expose a little if at all possible and back off in post capture processing, after that do a little NR if required and then try not to worry too much about it.
 
Last edited:
Werecow said:
The difference is narrowed a bit with the subject matter in your photo i must admit, but i still prefer DPP and thats before i get started mentioning the colour output i prefer in DPP too. I won't go there because this thread is about noise :LOL:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see if you don't like a stippled effect DPP is better, but I dislike the out of focus effect DPP tends to give the picture.

As to colour output - take a look at my link and the couple of pages before the high ISO. I compare colour rendition with a colour chart too ;)
 
Oggy said:
You can invariably find sites that will agree or disagree with anything. The best thing is to give it a go.
Click to expand...
Doh.. do I have to do everything around here ;) :D
 
Surely ETTR is mainly about DR, any effect on noise is a bonus... I personally believe that ETTR works for me on both those counts and that's the thing that matters for each of us - what works for us.
 
I have to :) a bit when I read people complaining about noise in their 3200ISO digital shots.

I can only guess a lot of them never tried the same thing on film, especially colour slide?

I used a Canon D60 (yes that's right - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/) and it wasn't really useable above 400ISO despite it's small MP count.

The high ISO output of most high end digital cameras (yes even Canon) is streaks ahead of what was available only a few years ago.

David
 
Thing to also remember is that if it's intended for the web, a smaller websized version won't show any noise. If it's in print the noise doesn't show anywhere near as much either.

As David says, try shooting some film, some velvia 50 and see what the noise is like in that.
 
And that's why I like the noise to have some speckle - heck, I've even added it to a fair proportion of my prints, but then it suits the effect I'm after. I think it's more representative of a film look...
 
in camera noise reduction

what its is for is when i go to very low light football games,
i also usw a sigma 70-300mm 2.8

i might have to play around with PP


thanks for all your reply's
 
iron maiden said:
in camera noise reduction

what its is for is when i go to very low light football games,
i also usw a sigma 70-300mm 2.8

i might have to play around with PP

thanks for all your reply's
Click to expand...

Sigma 70-300 f/2.8? There's no such thing!

Either you have an f/4-5.6 or a 70-200!
 
iron maiden said:
really sorry jim
120-300mm 2.8
Click to expand...

Aha makes sense!

One of my must have lenses!
 
i dont get the ETTR mentality in this instance.

shooting sports, if you *could* expose to the right, wouldn't you just decrease your iso? therefore decreasing the issue that the OP has in the first place?

hopefully i'm just missing something here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top