A noise related question

[RichardC27]

I've recently bought a Sigma 120-400mm lens, replacing a Canon 75-300 USM, and started shooting in RAW rather than jpeg. Something I've noticed is that, using my new lens, my shots come out with noticeably more noise for a given ISO setting than before. Is this down to the higher quality glass showing up the sensor's limitations, or due to shooting in RAW and getting uncompressed image data to play with, hence no in camera image enhancement taking place? I'm just curious as to what's causing the effect.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Interesting, I wouldn't have thought it was much to do with the new glass. I suggest to know for sure you should take some shots with another lens to compare if you can.
My guess is you just seeing all the new detail in the raw, without tone and levels they can appear noisy I suppose..

... Just a guess.

 

[alexnail]

Jpegs produced in camera go through a noise reduction process which RAW files do not. This is the difference you are seeing. You can still reduce the noise afterwards of course and, in my opinion, the benefits of RAW vastly outweigh its slight incovenience at times.

Alex

 

[towershot]

Some-one asked this sort of question in the AP mag,
It,s due to shooting raw ,you are used to jpeg and as said above ,jpeg sharpens images in Camera

 

[RichardC27]

So it's worth using the noise reduction tools in photoshop when processing a raw file then? I have tried this on a couple of occasions without much success, although I'm still a complete photoshop numpty.

 

[alexnail]

Photoshops noise filter isnt the best to be honest. The algorythm it uses is quite crude and you may find the out of camera jpeg has better detail retention for the same level of noise reduction.
The best option would be to buy a program like noise ninja or neat image. Both of these are excellent and prodcue images with extremely low noise and excellent detail retention.

If you want to do it with photoshop layer masks can be used so that you keep the detail int eh most important areas.

Alex

 

[RichardC27]

Thanks Alex, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. Yet more expense then...

 

[alexnail]

did somebody tell you that photography was cheap?

 

[RichardC27]

did somebody tell you that photography was cheap?

As with my other hobbies, I don't actually have the money to do it properly. My girlfriend is getting a little annoyed at the amount of money photography is starting to cost

 

[Yv]

There are free noise reduction programs that work too and are so much better than anything photoshop can do. Try Noiseware community edition, its a free standing, the plug in costs money, but at least you can see how you get on with it.

 

[RichardC27]

There are free noise reduction programs that work too and are so much better than anything photoshop can do. Try Noiseware community edition, its a free standing, the plug in costs money, but at least you can see how you get on with it.

Nice one, thanks. So to use that, I would have to import the raw file into Photoshop, do all the PP, then save as a jpeg and run Noiseware to get rid of the noise?

 

[Yv]

basically yes, though when i had it free standing, I tended to adjust levels, etc, save as a max quality jpg, then run NR before doing any more advanced pp if any was needed, but it comes down to your choice and preferences and often, the image itself.

 

[RichardC27]

All I'm really capable of is adjusting levels and stuff like that at the moment, I'm still pretty early on in my photoshop learning curve. Thanks Yv, I'll download that software tomorrow and give it a go.