[dmnf]

I did some stage photography the other day and used very high ISO settings 6400 and 12800. I shot in RAW and Pentax K-r with kit lens.

I know it will be noisy but I am wondering if there is post processing technique to improve it?

Here is an example with just tone curve changed. I use Faststone, Lightzone, and PS.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Heie]

Can you include the RAW file? I'd like to have a go at it using LR4 and Topaz DeNoise. See what can be accomplished from that combo.

-Heie

[dmnf]

Sure. I think I am not allowed to upload such a large file.
Please go to Dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uodlwega2l2upr/IMGP2880.PEF

[carrrlangas]

I am not very keen on PP high iso yet but I see some thing from the exif.
You shot at 55mm f/5.6 which is wide open for the kit lens. You´ll be better off with any 50mm f/2 or faster, manual focus for even cheaper. Any 50mm prime will be at least 3 stops faster than the kit lens.
Secondly, I see you used 1/400sec shutter speed. I think you could get away with 1/60 if your timing is good. Or 1/125 to be safe. That´s at least 2 stops more of light.

So, if you shoot with a 50mm f/2 lens at 1/125, that´s a total of 5 extra stops which would require ISO 400 to achieve the same exposure as in your shot.

Regarding ISO, the sensor can manage ISO 100 through ISO 1600. Above that, higher ISO equivalents are achieved through in camera PP. So I prefer to set ISO 1600 as the upper limit, deliberately underexposing the shot. Then brighten and apply noise reduction in PP where I think I can get better results than the camera.
Hope it helps, sorry if you already knew.

[Just1MoreDave]

I did what I usually do with a high ISO shot. I set the white balance, then see what the noise looks like first before any other adjustment. In Photoshop CS5's Adobe Camera RAW Detail panel, I turn the sharpening down to zero and view the image at 1:1 on the speaker's face. Then I start with color noise because I hate color noise and my camera makes a lot of it. I move the detail slider to zero and starting from zero, raise the color slider until the color splotches aren't colorful any more. This seems to be about 10 or 12. Then I raise the detail slider to taste. Then I do the same with Luminance until the ugly texture looks better.

The noise is more obvious in some areas, especially dark shadows at the top. If you crop away those parts, that helps. I ended up moving the tint towards the green side a little, something like -7. And I thought the hand which appears behind the speaker's hip was weird, so I cloned it out.

If you had used a fast 50mm prime, the background would have been more out of focus. That would make it easier to use really aggressive noise reduction on the background and a lighter touch on the speaker (separate layers and a mask in Photoshop).

[dmnf]

Regarding ISO, the sensor can manage ISO 100 through ISO 1600.

I didn't know about this part. So beyond 1600, it is digital synthesized? Like digital zoom.

[RGlasel]

I didn't know about this part. So beyond 1600, it is digital synthesized? Like digital zoom.

That is not entirely correct. Unlike digital enlargement, where the camera's logic interpolates raw data to do anti-aliasing, with high ISO settings, the camera has to both adjust the raw data to handle colour shifts and random noise, and interpolate what data there is in order to fill in pixels where there is no reliable raw data. Synthesized means the creation of something new, not the modification of existing data. Because each pixel only registers the amount of light after it passes through a red, green or blue filter, all digital images need some post-processing. I don't know what intensity of light is necessary to eliminate the effect of random noise in the sensor, but ISO 1600 is probably pretty close to the mark.

[carrrlangas]

I am no expert, but anyway, to keep it simple: The camera can perform analog amplification (and PP) of the signal for ISO 100 through 1600. Above this value, it can do digital amplification (and PP). You can turn off NR for ISO100-1600 range (not sure about K-r) but not for higher ISO values.

[dmnf]

Thanks.
I think I got it. Stay below 1600 and don't care about the physical behind. If I go beyond 1600, turn on NR. This is how it is designed for. But still be prepare to expert noise as ISO goes higher.

[Heie]

Sorry it took me so long - a few projects popped up last minute at work and I didn't get home near midnight. But, as promised, here's my attempt. LR4 and Topaz DeNoise.

Straight Noise Reduction
Attachment 192158

NR with WB adjusted using the dropper in LR4 and using the (assumed white) N264 text on the keyboard lower left as the 'white card'. I then used the spot brush in LR4 with Noise Reduction +100 and Sharpness -100 to smooth out the noise/artifacts of the background/screen. I also locally dropped the shadows a bit and Clarity +10 on the brush as well.

Attachment 192160

Also, I would agree with the advice given above. It would be well worth it to invest in a relatively cheap prime 50mm lens. The difference between f/5.6 and an aperture of about f/2 would drop your ISO dramatically. And in combination with that, if someone is just speaking, and not moving around a lot, I find that you can get away with 1/50s or even slower if you time it right (i.e. wait for a pause in their speech/movement). That would also drop your ISO considerably.

Hope this helps, and again, sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

-Heie

[dmnf]

thanks for the suggestions. I will try the LR tricks.

[carrrlangas]

Thanks.
I think I got it. Stay below 1600 and don't care about the physical behind. If I go beyond 1600, turn on NR. This is how it is designed for. But still be prepare to expert noise as ISO goes higher.

Sure, but this depends on what you are going to do with the photo. If it´s for the web? you can use the ISO you want and noise will go away when you resize the image. If you are printing small, try to drop the ISO. If you are printing big, get really fast glass and good PP.

Heie, in my experience it´s difficult to judge motion blur on the camera screen (and time consuming) so I prefer to stay above 1/90 unless lighting is really bad. I prefer a noisy image than a blurred (even slightly) one.

[dmnf]

Thank you Heie to introduce Topaz Denoise. I think it does the magic. Can you tell me the settings you use in the Topaz Denoise? I will download it and try it myself.

[Heie]

Heie, in my experience it´s difficult to judge motion blur on the camera screen (and time consuming) so I prefer to stay above 1/90 unless lighting is really bad. I prefer a noisy image than a blurred (even slightly) one.

Oh I agree with you 100%. I was merely saying that sometimes you can get away with a much slower shutter speed when someone takes a dramatic pause (i.e. I would guess she had her arm raised for a good second), and if you time it right, it can work. But I concur with you entirely - noise > blur

Thank you Heie to introduce Topaz Denoise. I think it does the magic. Can you tell me the settings you use in the Topaz Denoise? I will download it and try it myself.

No problem. It has presets, you'll see when you download it. I used the RAW - STRONGEST preset, and then tinkered with the sliders a little bit from there (i.e. ADJUST/CLEAN COLOR, REMOVE GRAIN, DETAIL, etc). The biggest changes are with the presets, and then you can fine tune. I recommend using the presets first, find the one that is closest to what you are looking for, and then fine tune from there.

Also, notice that the second is a lot less noisy than the first - I also smoothed/blurred a lot of the noise away manually in LR with the adjustment brush.

But yea, I *LOVE* DeNoise. It's pretty much turned my K-5 into a FF camera noise-wise

-Heie

[wildman]

I was more bothered by the tonal range and WB (a bit muddy) than just the noise so I tweaked that also. I did not go for an extreme NR - a little grain is not always that bad.

ACR+PS+Noiseware.

Note: not directly comparable - I had to downsize it (1204x800) to post it as an attachment.