[Edgar_in_Indy]

I know how to use the noise reduction in Photoshop but i'm no way near a master of photography in any way so my photos won't ever be anything better than snaps I shouldn't think. But I DO try my best.

I think the shots you posted on flickr look great, and your family is lucky to have somebody making such a nice photographic history.

When you shoot in low light, do you have sharpness set to normal? And do you have noise reduction turned on in camera or do you use Photoshop to process the image's noise afterwards?

I think that a lot of people on here (myself included) shoot in RAW, so for RAW shooters there is no sharpness/noise reduction to set. You also have a lot more control over how your final image turns out.

As far as the impact that noise has on your final image, it also depends on how you're using the image. The K-30 makes 16MP images, which are very large. When you are viewing the image down-scaled on a screen, or on a normal size print, much of the noise that is apparent at 100% view will seemingly disappear. Noise reduction software can help even more.

As an example, here are a couple images I posted in another thread from an ISO series I shot with my K-30. These images were shot at ISO 12,800 and 25,600, but after being down-sized and noise processed they are still very usable as web images or as 4x6" prints. Be sure to click on each image to view the larger version:





You can find my full K-30 ISO series with two different test scenes at the following link:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-30/195322-pentax-k-30-iso-series...size-pics.html

[snake]

Snake,

I know how to use the noise reduction in Photoshop but i'm no way near a master of photography in any way so my photos won't ever be anything better than snaps I shouldn't think. But I DO try my best. When you shoot in low light, do you have sharpness set to normal? And do you have noise reduction turned on in camera or do you use Photoshop to process the image's noise afterwards?

I don't use photoshop; I use Lightroom (among other programs when needed).

I shoot in RAW. NR in cam is off because it's not that great. Noise reduction is handled in post via Lightroom and I'm rather conservative with its use, which is why I have some grainy, but detail-rich, sharp photos. I'm shooting in the dark, using fast-moving subjects, like heavy metal musicians, so I don't have the luxury, in many cases, of running low shutter speeds.

Sometimes I use the grain from the noise (after a mild amount of NR) as part of the composition. Sometimes I even jack up the ISO as part of the original composition to get that pleasing grain it can produce in the right situation.

The only way you'll get it is via practicing.

[jrpower10]

I looked at your third photo. Regarding whether that's acceptable noise depends on what you're going to do with the photo. Posting on Facebook, for instance, it's fine. If you try to make a large print, though, it will look grainy. That may be OK too depending on the look you're after. Like others have said, try shooting in RAW. Took me awhile to come around to that, but hte quality of my final products made a big leap when I figured that out. Everyhing cleans up better from a RAW file than a jpeg.

[richardstringer]

Do you shoot in RAW or just rely on in-camera JPEGs?
I think one of the best things you can do is learn to shoot in RAW in low light situations. Then do the noise reduction and sharpening in lightroom or whatever post-processing tool you use.
That way you can see in real-time the effect as you adjust the sliders. The noise reduction and sharpening tools tend to be a lot more "robust" in these software than in camera JPEGs.

I do shoot in RAW.

[richardstringer]

I think the shots you posted on flickr look great, and your family is lucky to have somebody making such a nice photographic history.


I think that a lot of people on here (myself included) shoot in RAW, so for RAW shooters there is no sharpness/noise reduction to set. You also have a lot more control over how your final image turns out.

As far as the impact that noise has on your final image, it also depends on how you're using the image. The K-30 makes 16MP images, which are very large. When you are viewing the image down-scaled on a screen, or on a normal size print, much of the noise that is apparent at 100% view will seemingly disappear. Noise reduction software can help even more.

l

I know how to noise reduction in Photoshop a little bit but i'm not skilled anywhere enough to be able to get shots like that using those massive high ISO's. Plus i've only got Photoshop Elements 11, so i'm not sure how good the noise reduction in Elements 11 is compared to say Lightroom 5 or Photoshop CS6. How would I find out how to become better at using noise reduction in Photoshop? Is there a book that tells me? I have photography books but they don't really go into very good detail about nose reduction and definately don't give me the information I need to get as good high ISO photos as above. Although I am aware that in excellent daylight noise is less visible and on low light shots it's harder to get such a noise free (looking) photo.

[EJMzagsfan]

Off topic but i think that m&m is driving an Aston martin. Pretty awesome.

[snake]

I know how to noise reduction in Photoshop a little bit but i'm not skilled anywhere enough to be able to get shots like that using those massive high ISO's. Plus i've only got Photoshop Elements 11, so i'm not sure how good the noise reduction in Elements 11 is compared to say Lightroom 5 or Photoshop CS6. How would I find out how to become better at using noise reduction in Photoshop? Is there a book that tells me? I have photography books but they don't really go into very good detail about nose reduction and definately don't give me the information I need to get as good high ISO photos as above. Although I am aware that in excellent daylight noise is less visible and on low light shots it's harder to get such a noise free (looking) photo.

Practice.

If you're not good at something, you don't give up and resign yourself to always being at that level. This stuff takes practice. Sometimes years of it. I didn't learn what I do with books, with photo courses (in fact, I have zero art background), or anything else. I learned and get paid for this now. I sat down and learned hands on, which is the only way to learn most things properly. Theory rarely gives someone more than a few percent of a foundation. The majority comes from attacking it yourself.

From looking at your shots, you also have to come to terms with the fact that 95% or more of the shot takes place before the shutter is hit. You have to attack the scene with the settings in the right place, learn the settings and how the cam will behave, and predict the output on the other side of post processing.

---

Last edited by snake; 10-05-2013 at 03:23 AM.

[mattt]

I'd suggest printing a few. Too many people get wrapped up with "noise" sitting in front of a 24" screen at 1:1 enlargement. I shoot to 3200 regularly on my KR, and print those shots. Your machine is a whole generation improved.

IMO, you missed focus on the outdoor shot, or at the very least it is back focused.

Dont be so fussy, people are shooting under conditions that were not possible just 7 or 8 years ago now because of the improvement in the gear. After shooting a pro level film I can tell you people are splitting hairs on the performance of their digital sensors. Document the moment and have fun.