What is noise in photography? How do we reduce it?

[KenElevenShadows]

What is noise in photography? How do we reduce it?

https://photofocus.com/photography/what-is-noise-in-photography-how-do-we-reduce-it/

 

[KuruPrionz]

Way back when, I bought a Canon 5d. Full frame, loved the images at low ISO and fast shutter speeds. 

Sometimes I wanted ISO 3200 for low light shooting, mostly indoors. Horrendous noise, I might have considered it an "effect" except there was lots of pattern noise that just looked ugly. 

Eventually I took a break from photography and sold the camera and lenses (wish I'd kept the 135 f2L!!!!). 

And, eventually I wanted to shoot again. That time around I got a Canon T2i (Rebel) which was pretty good overall but still had some notable noise at ISO 3200. 

 

Recently I flipped out of the Rebel and got a Canon 6d. Another full frame but much lower noise at ISO 3200, clean enough that I'm not annoyed by it anymore. 

Bearing in mind I don't shoot the super long exposures that you do. 

 

I'm guessing the newer cameras are much better still but I'll just flog this one unless I win the lottery or something. 

Good article!

 

Did you ever shoot film? I'll see if I can dig up some shots I took where I intentionally used T-Max P3200 pushed to 6400 and developed in straight Dektol with violent agitation. That's the "good kind" of grain/noise!!!! 🙂

[KuruPrionz]

Well, this is the opposite of your title but it's an effect I used a fair bit many years ago. 

T-Max P3200 shot at 6400 ISO and developed in straight Dektol using violent agitation. I did everything "wrong"!!!

I think that sometimes film grain can be a beautiful effect. 

[KenElevenShadows]

I love film grain, and that certainly looks gorgeous like that. I wouldn't change a thing.

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, KenElevenShadows said:

I love film grain, and that certainly looks gorgeous like that. I wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks, I love it too. 

I told my instructor what I was doing and he scowled. He shot 4x5 of the inside of caves, sort of like night photography in a way. Long exposures, on film. He wanted the clearest, cleanest image possible. 

I like clear, clean images too but I have no problem going in other directions.

 

I haven't tried digital film grain simulations in a long time, they are probably better than they used to be by a considerable bit?

[KenElevenShadows]

It depends on what you are photographing. I mean, if I am photographing inside of caves, unless I want a certain look, I want it clean. I want choices.

 

I think you can get a digital film grain simulation pretty close now, but I don't really fiddle too much with that.

[KuruPrionz]

22 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

It depends on what you are photographing. I mean, if I am photographing inside of caves, unless I want a certain look, I want it clean. I want choices.

 

I think you can get a digital film grain simulation pretty close now, but I don't really fiddle too much with that.

I don't know of any caves up here although there probably are some. 

Things can be more difficult to find, most land is heavily forested and somebody brought blackberries here, they are not native and they are very invasive and difficult to get through or around. Good pies, that's the only positive... 

 

Add in that many parts of the year it is very wet. A cave might be filled with very cold water, not my favorite place!!!! 

[KenElevenShadows]

No. And as a night photographer, I prefer being outside although I will make some exceptions for abandoned indoor stuff. But I much prefer being outside.

 

I would consider photographing an Icelandic ice cave, however, something in a glacier. That seems super cool.

[o0Ampy0o]

Anyone here doing 19th Century style photography either with or without vintage tools and techniques?

 

Do you know of anyone who achieves that look with contemporary gear, software and techniques?

[KuruPrionz]

I'm not. 

This lady is - https://www.modelmayhem.com/dandelionqueen

Her avatar photo is of a friend of mine who also models for me. Apparently the photohgrapher was visiting our area from New York. 

I was a photo major in college and during that time film based photography was suddenly exposed to Adobe Photoshop. I started with version 1.07 in 1992. 

 

I also developed (bad pun!) a reaction to fixer and began to avoid the chemistry that is required to do film based photography. 

I was a Type R printer at one point (printing from slide film to positive image).

 

I know Photoshop can mimic sepia tone very well. Getting that film grain look like my image above is something I'm looking for but not very hard to be honest. 

Film grain is neither random, nor is it uniform. Somebody has probably figured it out. I'm just using Photoshop Elements since you can buy it once and use it for a long time. 

[o0Ampy0o]

I am thinking of the depth of field, silky quality and sharpness that is very distinct of the period. I think some of that comes from the large format and lenses of that period. Painters like Jean Léon Gérôme used the Camera Obscura and it is reflected in the same characteristics found in his paintings. He, however, also had an eye, mind, and comprehension of color mixtures with pigment. In person his paintings have brilliant color, not to be confused with garish over-saturation. Truly beautiful color was achieved.

 

 I was watching a Netflix documentary on Nicola Tesla and the photographs of New York were perfect examples.

 

The Waldorf-Astoria where he once lived:

 

 

 

Astor House also where he once lived:

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

Nice photos!

Remember that reporters used to shoot with 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras, you really had to GET the shot back then!!!!

Film was grainier and ISO speeds were lower so exposures were longer. 

A solid tripod was a must have and many photographers used 8x10 cameras. It looks to me like that is what was used on these images.

Much of Ansel Adams work has a similar look but of course a different subject. 

 

One dead giveaway regarding those photos, if you took them with a 35mm camera and equivalent focal length lens, the perspective would not be the same. 

The first photo, 4th building back from the corner on the left middle of the image. That's a tall building and the corner line is almost perfectly straight up. 

If you used a camera without movements built in, the corner line would not be straight like that. The photographer adjusted the angles of the front and back of the camera to get that perspective looking "correct". 

 

Huge film, big lenses, cameras with movements, tripod, skill and patience. Many lenses back then did not have coatings or only the front of the front element was coated. 

That technology was not very far along. The lens hood would have to be deep, it might have even had a bellows lens hood. 

 

As far as I know, everything is still available. The older cameras were built to last, the shutter might need CLA and the bellows might need patched. I think you can get the film but it won't be cheap, and your darkroom won't be small. You will want ventilation!!!! 

I got to shoot a vintage 8x10 once in college. We had an assignment, take a photo of something shiny and do not have the camera in the reflection. 

They had a chrome coffee pot there so I used that, hung a black backdrop in front of the camera and used movements to shoot it from the side but make it look like I'd shot it straight one. The contact print was an 8x10 and looked incredible, except it was just a coffee pot. I got an A though... 

[o0Ampy0o]

A coffee pot can be spectacular though 🙂

[KuruPrionz]

Just now, o0Ampy0o said:

A coffee pot can be spectacular though 🙂

They can be, this one wasn't anything special.

This was just an old school percolator, probably was how they made coffee in the photography department until it died. 

The assignment was about learning camera movements and why reflections can matter. 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

What are "movements" you refer to?

 

I looked up "movement in photography" but all I came up with is the technique used to make headlights on a road look like streaks of light and to do designs and writing with light.

 

Large format cameras are not as prone to the keystone effect. 

[KuruPrionz]

8 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

What are "movements" you refer to?

 

I looked up "movement in photography" but all I came up with is the technique used to make headlights on a road look like streaks of light and to do designs and writing with light.

 

Large format cameras are not as prone to the keystone effect. 

Look up "large format camera movements", lots of explanations including video on YouTube. 

 

Cameras that shoot sheet film, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 - have movements, the front standard that the lens is mounted on can be shifted up, down, left or right. It can be tilted on either or both the horizontal plane and the vertical plane. A fully decked out view camera will also have the same movements on the back standard, the one the film holder is clamped into. 

 

I took photography in college and was allowed 2 full semesters of checking out a 4x5 view camera with full movements and a Rodenstock lens (good stuff!!!).

One day I was practicing the movements and I sat about 6 feet off to the side of a television and adjusted the movements until it looked like I was shooting it from straight on. 

That kept the camera and photographer from being reflected in the television screen and also adjusted the perspective to create the illusion of the location of the camera. 

VERY common in architecture photography, especially vintage images. 

 

If you've used movements it is easy to spot images where movements were used. This is even more true if you've also used the typical 35mm or digital camera that has no movements. You can simulate this to some degree using Photoshop but you are losing pixels if you stretch things to make them look "right". With a view camera, you aren't compromising the information density of the image at all by using movements prior to shooting. 

[KenElevenShadows]

It seems like these large format camera movements are somewhat akin to tilt-shift to correct for perspective, but only more pronounced and seemingly more flexible. But it still has to do with adjusting the plane of focus, or at least the light coming in to the film plane.

[KuruPrionz]

32 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

It seems like these large format camera movements are somewhat akin to tilt-shift to correct for perspective, but only more pronounced and seemingly more flexible. But it still has to do with adjusting the plane of focus, or at least the light coming in to the film plane.

They are definitely akin to tilt shift lenses but yes, much more versatile. 

Lenses usually cover more than is needed and lenses for view cameras especially so. That allows flat plane sliding of the film over to the sides or up and down to adjust the composition as well as tilting and or swinging either or both the lens plate and the film back as needed to get things to look the way you want them and/or get sharp focus to line up with the image you are making. 

 

It's another world, much more versatile than using a Canon 6d (chose your camera here) with a standard lens. It is also much slower, not really suitable for certain genres. Sports comes to mind, I used to shoot ice skating and there's no way I'd take a view camera and try to capture that action. 

[KuruPrionz]

Back on topic. 

Lowering ISO can reduce noise. Increasing the time of exposure can cause more noise. Lowering ISO will increase the time of exposure. There is a sweet spot. 

 

Camera manufacturers all have different ways of dealing with this so everybody will probably need to perform an experiment to find the best combination of ISO and shutter speed for their own camera. As always with long exposures, use a sturdy tripod placed on stable ground. Any camera movement during exposure will "smear" both the noise and the image - not good. 

 

Beyond that, there are software solutions. I'm not up on the latest developments but I imagine they are quite a bit more effective than they used to be. 

[KenElevenShadows]

Sounds about right.

 

Topaz Labs Denoise AI is excellent, and keeps getting better since I reviewed it in Photofocus. Another Denoise AI article here too.

 

I've heard that DxO Pure RAW 3 is excellent, with some saying it's a bit better than Denoise AI. I may get my mitts on a review copy at some point, but not sure yet.

[KuruPrionz]

12 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Sounds about right.

 

Topaz Labs Denoise AI is excellent, and keeps getting better since I reviewed it in Photofocus. Another Denoise AI article here too.

 

I've heard that DxO Pure RAW 3 is excellent, with some saying it's a bit better than Denoise AI. I may get my mitts on a review copy at some point, but not sure yet.

I've found my Canon 6d produces acceptable results with ISO as high as 3200 as long as the shutter speed is short. 

It's pretty rare that I go that high with the ISO so I'm probably mostly fine. Someday I'll test all the options and see what happens. 

I plan on checking out the de-noise options you've listed as well. Thanks for that!