Do I have a noise problem with my NEX-6

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

I've uploaded some images for his analysis in another thread, but Pete is in the UK, so it's 1AM there. But thought perhaps others could see what they see.

[ATTACH alt="A shot with my 85mm f1.2L, probably f5.6-8. Imported from RAW into Camera Raw, "auto" exposure clicked because I tend to underexpose to bring out sky (holdover from color film days). See noise?"]240583[/ATTACH]
A shot with my 85mm f1.2L, probably f5.6-8. Imported from RAW into Camera Raw, "auto" exposure clicked because I tend to underexpose to bring out sky (holdover from color film days). See noise?


Shot through a plate glass window with my Canon 24mm f2, probably f5.6-f8. Imported from RAW into Camera RAW and then converted (as above, forgot to mention) in Photoshop Elements 11, no adjustment


Shot with the 16-50PZ, as the EXIF shows. Again, RAW, opened in Camera RAW, converted in PS Elements 11 with no adjustment

Anyone see noise issues?

Thanks,

Mel

There is a little noise there, but there always is.

Not enough to be considered a noise problem, in my opinion.

All signal and no noise would be great, but I don't think that's even possible.

Cailean Gallimore said:

Cailean Gallimore wrote:

There is a little noise there, but there always is.

Not enough to be considered a noise problem, in my opinion.

All signal and no noise would be great, but I don't think that's even possible.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Cailean!

I'm going to upload 2 more for examination - will appreciate your (and others) taking a close look. I'm looking for images with intense detail, whites and blacks, sky and ranges...

Like the previous images, shot RAW, imported into PS Elements 11 via Camera Raw, no adjustment, just saved as jpegs?

See unusual noise? 2 different lenses - top is Canon FD 24mm f2 about f5.6 with a polarizing filter; bottom is about f8-11 with a Rokinon 8mm

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

Click to expand...

By oversharpening until noise appears, you make noise very visible. You may also get JPG pixelation problems if you zoom in, or try to retarget the resolution.

Mel Snyder said:

Anyone see noise issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, your images show 'color' noise, but lack 'sharpness' details (viewing at 100%). For ISO 100 shots, the 'shadow' areas appear rather noisy.

Start with the RAW file, or the 'neutral' OOC JPG file.

If you are using LR, try the 'clarity' slider - it kind of performs the same trick.

Otherwise, go to your sharpness and noise-control section, and increase the sharpness, but not the noise (keep it down, low detail). Do not add noise-control (it will wash out details).

Then go back to brightness and contrast, and add both to the image, then pull up the shadows afterwards (LR has three sliders for this).

Your images look as if they could receive added contrast, added sharpness, without the noise-pixelation effects that they have now.

It is hard to undo the effect, once in JPG. You'd have to post the OOC JPG to let us/others show you what the result would look like.

Mel Snyder said:

Thanks,

Mel

Click to expand...

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:





Like the previous images, shot RAW, imported into PS Elements 11 via Camera Raw, no adjustment, just saved as jpegs?

See unusual noise? 2 different lenses - top is Canon FD 24mm f2 about f5.6 with a polarizing filter; bottom is about f8-11 with a Rokinon 8mm

Click to expand...

I see the same again - lots of signal with a little bit of noise as is to be expected.

The second shot has so little noise that you really have to look hard to find any.

They look pretty good to my eye.

Thanks, Henry...

Then I may have a problem with the camera. There is no sharpening whatsoever on these images - in fact. no processing whatsoever. I just opened them with Camera Raw and converted them to jpegs in PS Elements 11. There are no effects whatsoever. I moved no sliders in either Camera Raw or PSE 11.

I know they could use sharpening, but I thought that might explain the noise. If there is noise in the images here, I suspect it's in the camera. I purchased it from B&H in February, with an extended warranty, so I guess I could explore replacement options,

I don't use Lightroom (although I could download the new beta, if necessary).

I am puzzled.

Mel

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

blue_skies said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

Click to expand...

By oversharpening until noise appears, you make noise very visible. You may also get JPG pixelation problems if you zoom in, or try to retarget the resolution.

blue_skies said:

Anyone see noise issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, your images show 'color' noise, but lack 'sharpness' details (viewing at 100%). For ISO 100 shots, the 'shadow' areas appear rather noisy.

Start with the RAW file, or the 'neutral' OOC JPG file.

If you are using LR, try the 'clarity' slider - it kind of performs the same trick.

Otherwise, go to your sharpness and noise-control section, and increase the sharpness, but not the noise (keep it down, low detail). Do not add noise-control (it will wash out details).

Then go back to brightness and contrast, and add both to the image, then pull up the shadows afterwards (LR has three sliders for this).

Your images look as if they could receive added contrast, added sharpness, without the noise-pixelation effects that they have now.

It is hard to undo the effect, once in JPG. You'd have to post the OOC JPG to let us/others show you what the result would look like.

blue_skies said:

Thanks,

Mel

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

I don't find any of these particularly soft...one has to expect buildings that far in the distance to be slightly "heat waved."

As for the noise; these looks pretty normal to me. My NEX-7 (and a friend's NEX-5n that I borrowed) definitely has more noise at ISO 100 than I'm used to - but it typically only shows itself when I've taken some adjustment a bit too far.

Incidentally, I find this low-ISO noise much less noticeable when processing RAWs in Aperture than I do in LR/ACR. LR/ACR, though, always handles it in a much more "organic" fashion, which I find really pleasant. I usually process anything under ISO 800 in Aperture and anything over it in LR.

Noise levels seem ok to me. With noise it mostly comes from thermal noise (dark current).

Typically in a CCD, noise doubles with every 6C temperature increase. So you will see more noise in your images on a hot day than you will on a cold day.

Also if you typically underexpose to preserve the sky you will get more noise. Because with sensors there is always a level of noise and with any sensor to get an image you need to get the signal above the noise floor. If you underexpose the signal now is lower so the noise will be more prominent. In words the signal to noise ratio will be worse.

Do you have a defective camera? I don't think so. I don't think sensors have more general noise than another so much as more hot pixels/dead pixels than another.

The Nex has several noise reduction features like regular noise reduction, multiple shot noise reduction, long exposure noise reduction (for night shots).

I would up the exposure and see what it looks like.

Best,

Greg.

Mel could you possibly post a jpeg OOC? I mostly shoot jpeg and can tell right away if something is wrong. Right now I see a slight hint of noise compared to my jpegs, but that's because jpeg is processed. What bothers me is the last picture - when I look 100% 1:1 at checkers on the table - a little bit too much noise for that ISO, I may be wrong?

BTW there are lots of detail - no problems there.

Can you just shoot JPG OOC images? Not neutral (that is for post-edit) - ie. set sharpening and contrast to +1,or even +2, and use vivid mode (or landscape).

How do these JPG images compare to the RAW?

If your flow is faulty, you'll notice that the JPGs will have more sharpness & contrast, but lower noise levels.

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Thanks, Henry...

Then I may have a problem with the camera. There is no sharpening whatsoever on these images - in fact. no processing whatsoever. I just opened them with Camera Raw and converted them to jpegs in PS Elements 11. There are no effects whatsoever. I moved no sliders in either Camera Raw or PSE 11.

I know they could use sharpening, but I thought that might explain the noise. If there is noise in the images here, I suspect it's in the camera. I purchased it from B&H in February, with an extended warranty, so I guess I could explore replacement options,

I don't use Lightroom (although I could download the new beta, if necessary).

I am puzzled.

Mel

Mel Snyder said:

blue_skies wrote:

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

Click to expand...

By oversharpening until noise appears, you make noise very visible. You may also get JPG pixelation problems if you zoom in, or try to retarget the resolution.

Mel Snyder said:

Anyone see noise issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, your images show 'color' noise, but lack 'sharpness' details (viewing at 100%). For ISO 100 shots, the 'shadow' areas appear rather noisy.

Start with the RAW file, or the 'neutral' OOC JPG file.

If you are using LR, try the 'clarity' slider - it kind of performs the same trick.

Otherwise, go to your sharpness and noise-control section, and increase the sharpness, but not the noise (keep it down, low detail). Do not add noise-control (it will wash out details).

Then go back to brightness and contrast, and add both to the image, then pull up the shadows afterwards (LR has three sliders for this).

Your images look as if they could receive added contrast, added sharpness, without the noise-pixelation effects that they have now.

It is hard to undo the effect, once in JPG. You'd have to post the OOC JPG to let us/others show you what the result would look like.

Mel Snyder said:

Thanks,

Mel

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

Come the morning I will shoot some jpegs. I never shoot them, ordinarily, except when forced by panoramas.

Click to expand...

Exactly what are "JPG OOC" images, though?

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

Can you just shoot JPG OOC images? Not neutral (that is for post-edit) - ie. set sharpening and contrast to +1,or even +2, and use vivid mode (or landscape).

How do these JPG images compare to the RAW?

If your flow is faulty, you'll notice that the JPGs will have more sharpness & contrast, but lower noise levels.

blue_skies said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Thanks, Henry...

Then I may have a problem with the camera. There is no sharpening whatsoever on these images - in fact. no processing whatsoever. I just opened them with Camera Raw and converted them to jpegs in PS Elements 11. There are no effects whatsoever. I moved no sliders in either Camera Raw or PSE 11.

I know they could use sharpening, but I thought that might explain the noise. If there is noise in the images here, I suspect it's in the camera. I purchased it from B&H in February, with an extended warranty, so I guess I could explore replacement options,

I don't use Lightroom (although I could download the new beta, if necessary).

I am puzzled.

Mel

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

blue_skies said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

Click to expand...

By oversharpening until noise appears, you make noise very visible. You may also get JPG pixelation problems if you zoom in, or try to retarget the resolution.

blue_skies said:

Anyone see noise issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, your images show 'color' noise, but lack 'sharpness' details (viewing at 100%). For ISO 100 shots, the 'shadow' areas appear rather noisy.

Start with the RAW file, or the 'neutral' OOC JPG file.

If you are using LR, try the 'clarity' slider - it kind of performs the same trick.

Otherwise, go to your sharpness and noise-control section, and increase the sharpness, but not the noise (keep it down, low detail). Do not add noise-control (it will wash out details).

Then go back to brightness and contrast, and add both to the image, then pull up the shadows afterwards (LR has three sliders for this).

Your images look as if they could receive added contrast, added sharpness, without the noise-pixelation effects that they have now.

It is hard to undo the effect, once in JPG. You'd have to post the OOC JPG to let us/others show you what the result would look like.

blue_skies said:

Thanks,

Mel

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

If you could set RAW+JPEG then we can compare them (on a same image). Also when shooting can you please use iAuto and then one of PASM modes like A for example. The reason is that in iAuto jpeg engine does all by default and in PASM modes you can set contast, saturation and sharpness manually to +1 or +2 (it's somewhere in the menu - under styles: standard, vivid e.t.c. - then you can select options and change parameters).

So eventually we can compare 3 images (of the same object, scene):

1. RAW saved as jpeg (but no PP please)

2. iAuto jpeg

3. Aperture priority mode jpeg (sharpness, contrast set to +1/+2)

Thanks.

P.S. if jpeg images come clean without noise - then something is wrong with RAW conversion flow, but not camera.

OOC = Out Of Camera

JPG OOC is the images as the camera produces in JPG mode.

Use 'fine' mode, turn on all lens corrections (should be the default), and boost sharpening, contrast and color (vivid mode).

How do these JPG's look like.

And yes, you can shoot JPG + RAW, and process the RAW images using your flow.

How do the OOC JPG and the post-edited RAW images compare?

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Mel Snyder said:

Come the morning I will shoot some jpegs. I never shoot them, ordinarily, except when forced by panoramas.

Click to expand...

Exactly what are "JPG OOC" images, though?

Mel Snyder said:

blue_skies wrote:

Can you just shoot JPG OOC images? Not neutral (that is for post-edit) - ie. set sharpening and contrast to +1,or even +2, and use vivid mode (or landscape).

How do these JPG images compare to the RAW?

If your flow is faulty, you'll notice that the JPGs will have more sharpness & contrast, but lower noise levels.

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Thanks, Henry...

Then I may have a problem with the camera. There is no sharpening whatsoever on these images - in fact. no processing whatsoever. I just opened them with Camera Raw and converted them to jpegs in PS Elements 11. There are no effects whatsoever. I moved no sliders in either Camera Raw or PSE 11.

I know they could use sharpening, but I thought that might explain the noise. If there is noise in the images here, I suspect it's in the camera. I purchased it from B&H in February, with an extended warranty, so I guess I could explore replacement options,

I don't use Lightroom (although I could download the new beta, if necessary).

I am puzzled.

Mel

Mel Snyder said:

blue_skies wrote:

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

Pete Peterson, whose opinions I respect, has commented on my NEX-6 that he thinks I have a noise issue. That bothers me. He may be right, because I tend to oversharpen till grain appears, a holdover from my film enlarging days.

Click to expand...

By oversharpening until noise appears, you make noise very visible. You may also get JPG pixelation problems if you zoom in, or try to retarget the resolution.

Mel Snyder said:

Anyone see noise issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, your images show 'color' noise, but lack 'sharpness' details (viewing at 100%). For ISO 100 shots, the 'shadow' areas appear rather noisy.

Start with the RAW file, or the 'neutral' OOC JPG file.

If you are using LR, try the 'clarity' slider - it kind of performs the same trick.

Otherwise, go to your sharpness and noise-control section, and increase the sharpness, but not the noise (keep it down, low detail). Do not add noise-control (it will wash out details).

Then go back to brightness and contrast, and add both to the image, then pull up the shadows afterwards (LR has three sliders for this).

Your images look as if they could receive added contrast, added sharpness, without the noise-pixelation effects that they have now.

It is hard to undo the effect, once in JPG. You'd have to post the OOC JPG to let us/others show you what the result would look like.

Mel Snyder said:

Thanks,

Mel

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

smallLebowski said:

smallLebowski wrote:

If you could set RAW+JPEG then we can compare them (on a same image). Also when shooting can you please use iAuto and then one of PASM modes like A for example. The reason is that in iAuto jpeg engine does all by default and in PASM modes you can set contast, saturation and sharpness manually to +1 or +2 (it's somewhere in the menu - under styles: standard, vivid e.t.c. - then you can select options and change parameters).

So eventually we can compare 3 images (of the same object, scene):

1. RAW saved as jpeg (but no PP please)

2. iAuto jpeg

3. Aperture priority mode jpeg (sharpness, contrast set to +1/+2)

Thanks.

P.S. if jpeg images come clean without noise - then something is wrong with RAW conversion flow, but not camera.

Click to expand...

Now I understand. Tomorrow AM.

Straight jpeg from camera


As processed from RAW, sharpened (I recall)


jpeg from RAW, no sharpening or other processing

What do you see, Henry or others? Is the noise being introduced by PP?

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:


Straight jpeg from camera


As processed from RAW, sharpened (I recall)


jpeg from RAW, no sharpening or other processing

What do you see, Henry or others? Is the noise being introduced by PP?

Click to expand...

Oh yes, look at the deer on the wall in the background - just behind the hairline of the fellow.

In the JPG OOC image, the deer is soft brown, with little noise.

In the RAW + sharpening, the deer is heavily pixelated with lots of noise.

The third image is slightly better, but still shows pixelation.

The JPG OOC appears both sharper and less noisy than the RAW images.

Hint:

to do this in the browser, right-click on 'Link to Original', then click on 'open in new window', and, with the cursor in this new window, click on the + sign when position on top of the deer.

Do the same in the other image.

By opening in the browser like this, you can have two images side-by-side.

(Note - it will also work if you click on the image itself, but you have to open the post-thread in two different windows, and go to 100% view in the image-browser then).

--
Cheers,
Henry

DAMN!

So the straight jpeg is best! Here I thought I was doing better with shooting RAW, but you are right, the PP of any kind is injecting noise.

As soon as I looked at the jpeg in preview on my Mac and Dell U2410 calibrated monitor, it hit me. The skin on his nose is less noisy, too.

Is it the noise suppression in the camera, or is it the noise injection in Elements 11?

I may have to go to Lightroom. For sure, I am shooting RAW/JPEG from here on, until I resolve this.

Thanks to all!!!

Mel

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

blue_skies said:

Mel Snyder wrote:


Straight jpeg from camera


As processed from RAW, sharpened (I recall)


jpeg from RAW, no sharpening or other processing

What do you see, Henry or others? Is the noise being introduced by PP?

Click to expand...

Oh yes, look at the deer on the wall in the background - just behind the hairline of the fellow.

In the JPG OOC image, the deer is soft brown, with little noise.

In the RAW + sharpening, the deer is heavily pixelated with lots of noise.

The third image is slightly better, but still shows pixelation.

The JPG OOC appears both sharper and less noisy than the RAW images.

Hint:

to do this in the browser, right-click on 'Link to Original', then click on 'open in new window', and, with the cursor in this new window, click on the + sign when position on top of the deer.

Do the same in the other image.

By opening in the browser like this, you can have two images side-by-side.

(Note - it will also work if you click on the image itself, but you have to open the post-thread in two different windows, and go to 100% view in the image-browser then).

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Glad you figured it out.

The JPG engine is underrated, mostly because it is setup to be so neutral, whereas competition tends to be more vivid.

Neutral, btw, is great for post-edit - just load the JPG in your editor (as opposed to the RAW) - all you have to do then is add sharpening, contrast and vividness.

For those that use the OOC JPG, it is best to boost sharpening and contrast, and vividness, in the camera, with the connotation that those JPG's should not be further processed (or they will start to show artifacts - you cannot re-sharpen a JPG succesfully).

The RAW data itself is very noisy and soft - as sensor image - and in post-processing you need to find that balance point between sharpening and noise reduction (they fight against each other), both in the B+W (contrast) and color (noise) planes.

I have always used the JPG as a baseline for RAW processing - it prevents me from doing something wrong. I noticed that it is easy to do worse than the JPG engine, and that it can be sometimes hard to match the JPG (e.g. low light shots).

But once you dial in the RAW workflow, you can match, and surpass the JPG quality.

I find it easiest to shoot neutral OOC JPG, and post process the JPG file, rather than the RAW file. This flow also pulls in the lens-corrections for free.

Mel Snyder said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

DAMN!

So the straight jpeg is best! Here I thought I was doing better with shooting RAW, but you are right, the PP of any kind is injecting noise.

As soon as I looked at the jpeg in preview on my Mac and Dell U2410 calibrated monitor, it hit me. The skin on his nose is less noisy, too.

Is it the noise suppression in the camera, or is it the noise injection in Elements 11?

I may have to go to Lightroom. For sure, I am shooting RAW/JPEG from here on, until I resolve this.

Thanks to all!!!

Mel

Click to expand...

blue_skies said:

blue_skies wrote:

Glad you figured it out.

The JPG engine is underrated, mostly because it is setup to be so neutral, whereas competition tends to be more vivid.

Neutral, btw, is great for post-edit - just load the JPG in your editor (as opposed to the RAW) - all you have to do then is add sharpening, contrast and vividness.

For those that use the OOC JPG, it is best to boost sharpening and contrast, and vividness, in the camera, with the connotation that those JPG's should not be further processed (or they will start to show artifacts - you cannot re-sharpen a JPG succesfully).

The RAW data itself is very noisy and soft - as sensor image - and in post-processing you need to find that balance point between sharpening and noise reduction (they fight against each other), both in the B+W (contrast) and color (noise) planes.

I have always used the JPG as a baseline for RAW processing - it prevents me from doing something wrong. I noticed that it is easy to do worse than the JPG engine, and that it can be sometimes hard to match the JPG (e.g. low light shots).

But once you dial in the RAW workflow, you can match, and surpass the JPG quality.

I find it easiest to shoot neutral OOC JPG, and post process the JPG file, rather than the RAW file. This flow also pulls in the lens-corrections for free.

blue_skies said:

Mel Snyder wrote:

DAMN!

So the straight jpeg is best! Here I thought I was doing better with shooting RAW, but you are right, the PP of any kind is injecting noise.

As soon as I looked at the jpeg in preview on my Mac and Dell U2410 calibrated monitor, it hit me. The skin on his nose is less noisy, too.

Is it the noise suppression in the camera, or is it the noise injection in Elements 11?

I may have to go to Lightroom. For sure, I am shooting RAW/JPEG from here on, until I resolve this.

Thanks to all!!!

Mel

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
Henry

Click to expand...

Henry, I learned a lot tonight. This has been a valuable working lesson. My question now is, how many tens of thousands of images with my D7000 have I similarly degraded?

Recently, I purchased an 8mm and the Hemi correction program, with the idea that I might lighten my daily load except when I needed the 11-16 and 18-200 zooms. I expected distortion even when I used the Hemi program with the 8mm.

However, as I was paging through some images from Petra, Jordan from last fall, I noticed that whether shooting horizontal or verticals with the 11-16 Tokina, I got pronounced lengthening of people near the edges of the frame. Most of my shots with the 11-16 have been interiors of cathedrals, not people. I realized my beloved Tokina was distorting at least as much as the 8mm held correctly.

I am getting ready for a September trip to Switzerland and Eastern Europe, traveling mostly by train for 3 weeks. So every purchase now is with that trip in mind. Last year, I traveled with two D7000s to Turkey, Jordan and Israel (9000+ images), and could only rarely carry 2 bodies any day (only in the desert, to avoid changing lenses in the dirt, or on a hot air balloon). Too heavy in the Middle East heat.

I'm counting on the NEX-6 to be my primary camera, and a D7000 stashed in the B&B safe as backup. So I am really intent on doing everything I can to optimize that package's production. Thanks for your help in that mission!