Noise

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Conrad" <Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote in message
news:1126618811.cc92a2cc2665ffd0befa638be9a48dc4@teranews...
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
> areas. This is not a problem at smaller print sizes but becomes a major
> problen at 12x18, 20x30, etc. Any suggestions welcomed.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon
>
>
> --
> Conrad

There are several noise reduction programs available. Neatimage is my
favorite. Comes with a plugin for several of the popular photoediting
programs.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1126618811.cc92a2cc2665ffd0befa638be9a48dc4@teranews>,
Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway says...
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
> areas. This is not a problem at smaller print sizes but becomes a major
> problen at 12x18, 20x30, etc. Any suggestions welcomed.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon
>
>
> --
> Conrad

Did you blow up 35mm film images to 12x18 and 20x30 without seeing
grain?

The limit of acceptable prints from 8 megapixels is going to occur right
around 11x14. You can try Neat Image, but if you're going to prints
that size regularly medium format is a better choice.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Conrad wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
> areas. This is not a problem at smaller print sizes but becomes a major
> problen at 12x18, 20x30, etc. Any suggestions welcomed.
>

I like the neat image plugin. You can apply it as a layer is PS, then
erase this "noise reduced" layer where noise isn't a problem and the NR is
blurring fine details. You can also adjust the opacity if needed to keep
things from looking "plastic". Worse case you can create a couple of layers
of various NR settings. Also neat image has lots of variables as far as
what kinds of noise gets cut out. Great for making large landscape prints
with clean skies and still good details like tree limbs, leaves etc.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rudy Benner Wrote:
> "Conrad" wrote in message
> news:1126618811.cc92a2cc2665ffd0befa638be9a48dc4@teranews...[color=blue]
>
> > I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma
> 70-300mm
> > lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
> > areas. This is not a problem at smaller print sizes but becomes a
> major
> > problen at 12x18, 20x30, etc. Any suggestions welcomed.
>
> There are several noise reduction programs available. Neatimage is my
> favorite. Comes with a plugin for several of the popular photoediting
> programs.

Thanks Rudy. I'l look for Neatimage.


--
Conrad

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Conrad" <Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
> areas. This is not a problem at smaller print sizes but becomes a major
> problen at 12x18, 20x30, etc. Any suggestions welcomed.

You still haven't fessed up as to what ISO you used. With the 300D Rebel,
noise is nonexistent at ISO 100 and 200, and ability to rescue shadow detail
superb, so there's no need to ever see noise.

If you are going to spend the money to make a 12x18 or 20x30 print, you
should use a sturdy tripod, ISO 100, and shoot in RAW mode. IMHO, the nicest
thing about the Canon dSLRs is the amazing cleanliness of the ISO 100
images.

(Sorry about the rant.)

By the way, if you have images you shot at higher ISO and have to rescue
them, if you shot them in RAW mode, the better RAW converters sometimes have
noise reduction. In particular, RSE (RawShooterEssentials, which is free)
does a good job of reducing noise in ISO 800 images from the 300D.

http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Conrad wrote:

>>
>> I like the neat image plugin.
>>
>> Stacey
>
> I've downloaded the free Mac plug-in and will give it a try
>
>
>

I'm not sure if the trial is a "plugin", I think it's a stand alone
application only. Still work well but can't be used as a layer very easily.
You'll have to play around with the settings till you find something you
like, the default settings are WAY too strong IMHO.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Conrad" <Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
>>> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
>>> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
>>> areas.
>>
>> If you are going to spend the money to make a 12x18 or 20x30 print, you
>> should use a sturdy tripod, ISO 100, and shoot in RAW mode. IMHO, the
>> nicest thing about the Canon dSLRs is the amazing cleanliness of the ISO
>> 100 images.
>
> They may be clean, but there is still SOME noise and doing some cleanup in
> places like blank skies will only improve the image when making larger
> prints, even if shot at ISO100. It's simple to apply a noise filter as a
> layer to ONLY the sky area and make them -noiseless- while having no
> detrimental effect to the other parts of the image.

You're talking about a camera you have no experience with, and you're simply
wrong. If your processing chain doesn't introduce noise (or jpeg artifacts)
sky noise is nonexistent, even viewed at 400% on the screen. In RSE, one can
even crank up the sharpening as high as one likes with no sky noise
appearing (although cranking up detail extraction at the same time will
introduce artifacts for the sharpening to aggravate).

The nice thing about Canon dSLRs is the lack of this sort of cr@p
4/3 and other P&S users have to deal with.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Conrad" <Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
>>>> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
>>>> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
>>>> areas.
>>>
>>> If you are going to spend the money to make a 12x18 or 20x30 print, you
>>> should use a sturdy tripod, ISO 100, and shoot in RAW mode. IMHO, the
>>> nicest thing about the Canon dSLRs is the amazing cleanliness of the ISO
>>> 100 images.
>>
>> They may be clean, but there is still SOME noise and doing some cleanup
>> in places like blank skies will only improve the image when making larger
>> prints, even if shot at ISO100. It's simple to apply a noise filter as a
>> layer to ONLY the sky area and make them -noiseless- while having no
>> detrimental effect to the other parts of the image.
>
> You're talking about a camera you have no experience with, and you're
> simply wrong.


I've used a 10D, does that count? I've looked at samples online and NONE are
noiseless. I guess it depends on if you care about possibly learning
something or if you believe you already know EVERYTHING?

> If your processing chain doesn't introduce noise (or jpeg
> artifacts) sky noise is nonexistent, even viewed at 400% on the screen.

Care to share some noiseless at 400% images? Obviously the OP is seeing some
or he wouldn't be asking the question.

>The nice thing about Canon dSLRs is the lack of this sort of cr@p
>4/3 and other P&S users have to deal with.

Funny at ISO 100 I see no less noise on the canon samples compared to my
E300, guess you needed to slam another -brand- to help you feel better
about yourself today? Of course your brand choice is the BEST, doesn't
owning a canon make you feel so much smarter than everyone else...

You guys turn every thread into "You should buy what I use!" can't you ever
give that BS a rest?
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>> "Conrad" <Conrad.1vav8y@no-mx.Newsgroup.Gateway> wrote:
>>>>> I'm using a Canon 350XT digital rebel with kit lens and Sigma 70-300mm
>>>>> lens. Some pictures display noise - particularly in landscape sky
>>>>> areas.
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to spend the money to make a 12x18 or 20x30 print, you
>>>> should use a sturdy tripod, ISO 100, and shoot in RAW mode. IMHO, the
>>>> nicest thing about the Canon dSLRs is the amazing cleanliness of the
>>>> ISO
>>>> 100 images.
>>>
>>> They may be clean, but there is still SOME noise and doing some cleanup
>>> in places like blank skies will only improve the image when making
>>> larger
>>> prints, even if shot at ISO100. It's simple to apply a noise filter as a
>>> layer to ONLY the sky area and make them -noiseless- while having no
>>> detrimental effect to the other parts of the image.
>>
>> You're talking about a camera you have no experience with, and you're
>> simply wrong.
>
> I've used a 10D, does that count?

I guess you never learned how to use it.

> I've looked at samples online and NONE are noiseless.

Of course. They're all at high compression and a mass of jpeg artifacts.

> I guess it depends on if you care about possibly learning
> something or if you believe you already know EVERYTHING?

Your the one who is simply wrong here: noise simply isn't a problem at ISO
100 if one handles one's files correctly.

>> If your processing chain doesn't introduce noise (or jpeg
>> artifacts) sky noise is nonexistent, even viewed at 400% on the screen.
>
> Care to share some noiseless at 400% images?

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/49396720/original

This was bicubic upsampled in Photoshop to "400%", i.e. by a factor of four
linearly (16 times the pixels). Despite the gross oversharpenning, there's
still no noise.

> Obviously the OP is seeing some
> or he wouldn't be asking the question.

He was shooting at high ISOs. (I realize you don't believe me here<g>, but
he was. Go back and read the thread.)

>>The nice thing about Canon dSLRs is the lack of this sort of cr@p
>>4/3 and other P&S users have to deal with.
>
> Funny at ISO 100 I see no less noise on the canon samples compared to my
> E300,

Since I've never seen an ISO 100 shot from the E300, I'll have to take your
word for it that they're so noisy that NeatImage is required. But noise
reduction is not required at ISO 100 in Canon dSLRs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even made
a 20"x30" print from 35mm film.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

winhag@yahoo.com wrote:
> Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even
> made
> a 20"x30" print from 35mm film.

Me, too, since you removed all previous language from the thread.