[jbrowning]

I took some pictures at a classroom for fishing with kids this weekend. I had my k20d set on ISO 800 and noise reduction was set at strong. I was using the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 macro lens and still got all this noise. Am I missing a setting that should be taking this noise out or am I not understanding the whole noise reduction thing.



The about photo has no pp other than resizing down for the web. You should also be able to see the EXIF also I believe.

Thanks
Jim

[dosdan]

I took some pictures at a classroom for fishing with kids this weekend. I had my k20d set on ISO 800 and noise reduction was set at strong. I was using the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8 macro lens and still got all this noise. Am I missing a setting that should be taking this noise out or am I not understanding the whole noise reduction thing.

I'm at work now, but doesn't NR only kick in when using "High ISO" which I think is ISO 1600 and up?

[Venturi]

I'm at work now, but doesn't NR only kick in when using "High ISO" which I think is ISO 1600 and up?

The manual doesn't even say what "high sensitivity" is.

But, I was intrigued to find out just how good/bad the in-body NR was so I did some tests tonight. I shot 3 batches of shots with the K20D & DA*50-135mm, tripod mounted using the cable release. Each batch I took one exposure for each of the four (4) NR levels from Off to Strong.

1st Batch: No Flash, 3200ISO, f/11, 1/50s

OFF


WEAKEST


WEAK


STRONG



2nd Batch: Flash, 3200ISO, f/22, 1/125s

OFF


WEAKEST


WEAK


STRONG



3rd Batch: 6400ISO, f/22, 1/180s

OFF


WEAKEST


WEAK


STRONG


Based on what I see - unless someone can show me the error of my ways with this test - I'm just going to turn off the NR and handle it with software in post.

[jamesm007]

I dont see any noise on my monitor? I see blur from the motion of the kids/adults, I see a bright exposure. I see a lack of detail or sharpness perhaps the strong NR? But? Looking at your nice album and the cameras you own your not new to photography, so I will stop here and wait for others to chime in.

Jim, I think you should have used a larger aperture . 1/8 of a second is a long time for hand holding people were moving. Zooms do tend do be soft at the extremities.
Also according to exif data, it looks like you have got the sharpness down to soft in your K20. Maybe that's the whole reason but I still think you needed a faster shutter or shout "Freeze".

[jbrowning]

Thanks everyone for the replies I really appreciate it. I will for sure have to change that sharpness setting on the camera and I will more than likely change the contrast setting also. The place that I see the noise is on the original (10mb) file in the ladies jacket and on her face when I blow up the image to 100% and view it. James your right I'm not new to photography but I still have alot to learn. Thank you for the kind words about my album. I was using the f/6.7? I think it was trying to get the forground in focus along with what I was actually focusing on. Maybe that makes sense and maybe it doesn't. I guess what I am saying is that I was hoping to get everyone/everything in focus for these shots so the Fountain Creek Nature Center could use them in their newsletters (which is what I was shooting these for).

Back to the drawing board. At lunch I will see if I can find those two settings and change them. I really don't remember changing them but maybe I did at one time.

Thanks everyone for helping me figure this out.

Jim

[jeffkrol]

Thanks everyone for the replies I really appreciate it. I will for sure have to change that sharpness setting on the camera and I will more than likely change the contrast setting also. The place that I see the noise is on the original (10mb) file in the ladies jacket and on her face when I blow up the image to 100% and view it. James your right I'm not new to photography but I still have alot to learn. Thank you for the kind words about my album. I was using the f/6.7? I think it was trying to get the forground in focus along with what I was actually focusing on. Maybe that makes sense and maybe it doesn't. I guess what I am saying is that I was hoping to get everyone/everything in focus for these shots so the Fountain Creek Nature Center could use them in their newsletters (which is what I was shooting these for).

Back to the drawing board. At lunch I will see if I can find those two settings and change them. I really don't remember changing them but maybe I did at one time.

Thanks everyone for helping me figure this out.

Jim

Pixel peeping is bad for the soul... it's the print that counts. There are many ways to reduce noise. No way to increase real sharpness/detail.
FOOD for thought for today
Re: No really, it isn't: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review
The conclusion is that noise is resolution dependent. If you compare two cameras having the same sensor size and technologies but different resolutions (pixel densities), the one with the lower resolution (lower pixel density) will have less noise at the pixel level, as the above exercise has demonstrated.

This site always tests cameras at 100% pixel resolution, and so noise comparisons between cameras of different pixel density, even with the same sensor size, are skewed in favor of the one with lower pixel density, because of the result of the above exercise. Properly resample the higher pixel density to the pixel dimensions of the lower pixel density one, and the comparison becomes fair -- and moreover is a truer indication of what you will see when viewing prints from the cameras at the same distance.

For a quick rule of thumb for comparing cameras of different pixel density fairly, divide the noise measurements of each (as they are done on this site) by the square root of the MP count, which is the linear resolution relative to image size. Note that the noise figure of the higher MP camera will be divided by a larger number, and so come into line with the lower MP camera as a result.

When one does this exercise, it becomes apparent that the main factor in image noise is sensor size. The result is largely independent of MP count for a fixed sensor size. Pixel density, which is sensor area divided by MP count, is poorly correlated to noise because both MP count and sensor size will vary from camera to camera, but only one of those factors is tied to noise level.

[rburgoss]

Are you using fine sharpening in camera? I found this setting produces more noise than acceptable.

Robert B

[Marc Sabatella]

The place that I see the noise is on the original (10mb) file in the ladies jacket and on her face when I blow up the image to 100% and view it.

Noise reduction is more an art than a science, and note the operative work is "reduction", not "elimination". Even with some NR applied, a shot aat ISO 800 is going to have some noise visible at 100% in some places - that's just life. If you want more control, shoot RAW and handle it in PP, but you can't eliminate it entirely (at least, not without completely ruining the picture).

I guess what I am saying is that I was hoping to get everyone/everything in focus for these shots so the Fountain Creek Nature Center could use them in their newsletters (which is what I was shooting these for).

Sure, and small aperture is good for that - but if it comes at the price of a shutter speed too slow to stop motion, you've got to compromise.

Realistically, for the quality, size, and purpose a picture is going to reproduced in a newsletter, I think what you have already is fine.

[jbrowning]

Thanks everyone. I finally found where the sharpeining function is. It was in the middle and I moved it over to the right on click along with the contrast.

Am I pixel peeping or noise peeping? All I'm wanting to do is get the least amount of noise as possible in low light conditions (as everyone else does).

Well the folks at Fountain Creek Nature Center is very happy with the photos I sent to them. So maybe it is me that is being over critical of my photos. I mean these folks don't have the funds for a "REAL" photographer so they let me "play" photographer for them and I want to do the best job I can. Maybe it will lead to other things.

Thanks
Jim

[Arpe]

Pixel peeping is bad for the soul... it's the print that counts.

Only if you make prints!