Cleaning up High ISO photo

[techgirl]

I am about to show my complete ignorance, so go easy on me. I have been shooting in JPEG, but I want to explore using RAW. Here is one reason. When I shoot at high ISO I see grain. And for me I am calling 3200 as high ISO. And I am not a skilled pixel peeper, but I see photos from other folks at high ISO and I am not seeing grain. I am thinking it may be due to post photo editing. Perhaps by working with RAW files folks are able to clean up the picture. Yes, I have no idea what i am talking about. But if that is what folks are doing, I want to understand the work flow and what software they use. A long time ago I liked to remove blemishes from my pictures or even distracting items in the background - so any software that can also accomplish this and perhaps clean up grain from high ISO photos is a plus. I keep looking at software and getting overwhelmed. Photoshop Elements, Capture One, Affinity, Lightroom, Luminar - i am struggling. Right now I have a Macbook, but I miss Windows and will likely return to Windows when this Mac needs replacing.

Thanks for any guidance you can provide me as I start to explore post photo editing. At this point I do not even know how to convert RAW to JPEG. Pathetic.

Thanks!

Caroline

 

[lewiedude2]

This video by PiXimperfect was very helpful to me - using Lightroom. Completely handles the processing of high ISO imagery.

I highly suggest you search their youtube channel as it is very, very informative for post processing.

Also, converting RAF to another format is either done directly by the post processing software you are using ACR - Adobe Camera Raw or even directly into LR which uses the ACR engine to present the image for 'development'. Don't be so afraid...it is quite easy.

Take a look at Iridient X Transformer as it is a completely standalone PC software to process RAF files into DNG files for importing into Lightroom or some other PP software. They make a Mac version that is full-blown post processing as opposed to just processing the RAF for import like IxT does.

 

[Doug MacMillan]

Caroline,

I have gotten excellent results from Topaz DeNoise AI. You can download a free evaluation.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, it requires a well equipped computer. I don't know the vintage of your MacBook Pro, but I'm sure it would choke my 2010 MacBook Pro. You need lots of memory, 16gb with 32gb even better and a graphics card with 8 gig ram. I used it on my old computer and while it would run, it would take 90 seconds or more to process one image. This was on an Intel i7 based machine 16 gb ram and no graphics card. Since it was time for a refresh, I built a new computer with the newest AMD processor and a dedicated graphics card. The same file took <5 seconds to process.

The other concern is that sometimes it generates weird artifacts, but the latest updates have behaved much better. Sometimes you have to balance the amount of noise reduction (it is adjustable) against introducing artifacts in your image.

Here are the DeNoise AI system requirements.

 

[Ed B]

Yes, if you shoot raw you can apply noise reduction with a raw processor and some processors do a good job but there are a couple of other things you might think about.

First, if you want to modify your image by removing items or doing anything other than cropping a raw processor either won't be able to do the job or won't be able to do it as well as a photo processor.

There's a big difference between a program designed to process a raw file (a negative) and one designed to improve/modify an image.

I'm going to take a lot of criticism for suggesting this but I honestly think you should forget about raw, for now, and learn how to process a JPEG image with a program like Photoshop Elements 2019.

Photoshop will let you do everything you want to do with a JPEG image and that includes noise reduction.

If you want a more refined noise reduction program there are several dedicated programs like Noiseware that have free stand-alone versions you can use.

Shooting raw and using a raw processor has advantages but raw isn't the end-all process that many amateur photographers think it is and it takes more time and practice to get proficient at a raw program than many people are willing to admit.

Anyway, my suggestion is, to start with, Photoshop Elements because it's a very powerful program and might be all you need.

Everyone doesn't need to shoot raw and even if they do shoot raw a good photographer will probably finish processing the raw image, as a JPEG, in a program like Photoshop.

Good luck

 

[baobob]

One of the best tool IMO for coping with noise is Neat Image The learning curve is quite long but really worth. I would suggest you pay a look to

Loading…

neat-image.fr.softonic.com

Bob

 

[notmyrealname]

Topaz Denoise. Just remember that both its default and 'auto' recommendations for NR and Sharpness can be very heavy handed. My suggestion would be to try out the Demo, but start with all sliders at 0, increase NR in increments before adding Sharpness or Detail Recovery.

If you use LR, you can incorporate it into your workflow. I currently have it setup for LR to generate a TIFF file and send it to Denoise. I make my final adjustments there before saving out in my final image format.

Here is one at ISO2500 after Denoise.

ISO2800 after Denoise.

ISO3200 after Denoise

I managed to find a comparison in my Flickr. This image was shot at ISO1100, and the results of Denoise were still positive.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

 

[ialarmedalien]

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60269294 has an excellent tutorial on using Capture One for processing RAW files.

 

[techgirl]

Ed B wrote

Anyway, my suggestion is, to start with, Photoshop Elements because it's a very powerful program and might be all you need.

Everyone doesn't need to shoot raw and even if they do shoot raw a good photographer will probably finish processing the raw image, as a JPEG, in a program like Photoshop.

Good luck

Thanks for your suggestion. I was talking to a friend about post process editing and when I mentioned not wanting to pay a monthly subscription he suggested Photoshop Elements. He is a Nikon shooter so I wasn’t sure if Fuji folks use it too. Yes I know very little of photo editing. Eons ago I used a basic program, Jasc paintshop pro. I don’t have much time for post processing so I like the idea of starting to dabble with PS Elements.

 

[Ed B]

Honestly speaking, Photoshop Elements 2019 will probably do everything you need to do and a whole lot more.

You can also download the free version of Capture One Express for Fuji that will handle all of your raw files if you decide to start shooting raw.

Naturally, as I said, there's really no reason you shouldn't continue to shoot JPEG.

Fuji cameras produce excellent JPEG images and most of them only need a minor touchup in a program like Photoshop to make them even better.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Even with just plain Lightroom you can clean things up pretty well. The key is to only apply sharpening to the detail so as not to accentuate the noise unnecessarily. Same thing with the NR, try to apply it only to the noise and not the detail. If you carefully applying Sharpening and NR, both can be kept to a minimum causing little degradation to the image maintaining a good amount of detail with minimal noise. The Detail and Masking sliders are your friends here and are critical for optimal results.

This was shot at ISO 8000 wide open at f/2.8 and 1/125" with the exposure pushed 1/2 stop in post - very dark, much darker than the final image suggests and processed with only Lightroom NR. You can do quite a bit better with Topaz A.I. Clear (the best I’ve tried for most images), but this isn’t so bad as-is.

 

[Pixel8888]

I am about to show my complete ignorance, so go easy on me. I have been shooting in JPEG, but I want to explore using RAW. Here is one reason. When I shoot at high ISO I see grain. And for me I am calling 3200 as high ISO. And I am not a skilled pixel peeper, but I see photos from other folks at high ISO and I am not seeing grain. I am thinking it may be due to post photo editing. Perhaps by working with RAW files folks are able to clean up the picture. Yes, I have no idea what i am talking about. But if that is what folks are doing, I want to understand the work flow and what software they use. A long time ago I liked to remove blemishes from my pictures or even distracting items in the background - so any software that can also accomplish this and perhaps clean up grain from high ISO photos is a plus. I keep looking at software and getting overwhelmed. Photoshop Elements, Capture One, Affinity, Lightroom, Luminar - i am struggling. Right now I have a Macbook, but I miss Windows and will likely return to Windows when this Mac needs replacing.

Thanks for any guidance you can provide me as I start to explore post photo editing. At this point I do not even know how to convert RAW to JPEG. Pathetic.

Thanks!

Caroline

Try capture one for Fuji for raw files. It is a free download from phase one. Fuji partnered up with phase one. It gives excellent results and it is FREE. And don't forget jpeg is not a lossless format. Every time to re-save a jpeg it looses quality. Save them as Tif as long as you as you don't have your final result.

https://www.captureone.com/en/download/express-fujifilm

In case you want to play with a Topaz Denoise AI trial for your EXISTNG jpeg files. Do use the AI clear model.

This is what Don, one of Topaz labs moderators mentioned in topaz forums

"I used the AI Clear model in DeNoise because it is far better suited for lossy images such as JPEG as part of the model was based on the DeJPEG application."

 

[Doug Pardee]

A few points, which may or may not confuse matters further.

I have been shooting in JPEG, but I want to explore using RAW. Here is one reason. When I shoot at high ISO I see grain.

Generally, out-of-camera JPEG has less noise than photos processed from Raw. In fact, one of the reasons that some people shoot Raw is because their cameras are applying too much noise reduction in JPEG for their taste. The 16-bit Fuj X-Trans models were notorious for "waxy skin" in JPEGs above ISO... um 1600 I think... due to the heavy in-camera noise reduction at those ISO settings.

Shooting Raw lets you apply as little noise reduction as you want. Or as much as you want.

With a JPEG, you can do more noise reduction if you want, but you can't undo what the camera has already done.

I see photos from other folks at high ISO and I am not seeing grain. I am thinking it may be due to post photo editing.

It very well could be.

Perhaps by working with RAW files folks are able to clean up the picture.

Possibly, although as I noted above, you can apply additional noise reduction to JPEGs. A bit earlier in this thread, baobob recommended NeatImage, and that program's standalone version is a noise reduction program for JPEGs. The Photoshop plugin version is more flexible, since Photoshop can handle the Raw files.

The thing with noise reduction is... it's a high-magic process. There are many different noise reduction programs, plus many editing programs with their own built-in noise reduction. They all work very differently and give different results.

DxO's PRIME noise reduction is widely regarded as being at the head of the class currently, but alas DxO steadfastly refuses to have anything to do with Fujifilm Raw files.

As for the rest, about all you can do is try them (most have a free trial) and see what you think. I would counsel, though, that attempting to achieve a completely noise-free image is not a good idea. Most images can tolerate quite a bit of noise, because the noise is washed out in printing or in resizing for the internet.

Right now I have a Macbook, but I miss Windows and will likely return to Windows when this Mac needs replacing.

Keep in mind that most software you buy for the Mac will need to be bought again when you move to Windows. Pay attention to that -- sometimes you'll find some software that lets you run it on either platform with the same license (the aforementioned NeatImage seems to be one of those).

 

[rla1022]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

 

[Ed B]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

Erik, I haven't seen many pictures that were taken with a Fuji, or any camera with an APS size sensor at such a high ISO setting, and have to say I'm surprised at how well this shot turned out.

Great job.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

JsErik, I haven't seen many pictures that were taken with a Fuji, or any camera with an APS size sensor at such a high ISO setting, and have to say I'm surprised at how well this shot turned out.

Great job.

Thanks. The fact of the matter is that the quality of light is every bit as important as the ISO used. While the light was turned down so low that all the whites were yellow to the naked eye, it was still high quality stage light and that really makes a difference when you are trying to extract something that looks halfway decent out of a RAW file. If this was standard indoor lighting this would look significantly worse.

 

[Ed B]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

JsErik, I haven't seen many pictures that were taken with a Fuji, or any camera with an APS size sensor at such a high ISO setting, and have to say I'm surprised at how well this shot turned out.

Great job.

Thanks. The fact of the matter is that the quality of light is every bit as important as the ISO used. While the light was turned down so low that all the whites were yellow to the naked eye, it was still high quality stage light and that really makes a difference when you are trying to extract something that looks halfway decent out of a RAW file. If this was standard indoor lighting this would look significantly worse.

I agree the lighting has a lot to do with it but still---------- an image this good at ISO 12800 is unusual for an APS size sensor.

 

[rla1022]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

JsErik, I haven't seen many pictures that were taken with a Fuji, or any camera with an APS size sensor at such a high ISO setting, and have to say I'm surprised at how well this shot turned out.

Great job.

Thanks. The fact of the matter is that the quality of light is every bit as important as the ISO used. While the light was turned down so low that all the whites were yellow to the naked eye, it was still high quality stage light and that really makes a difference when you are trying to extract something that looks halfway decent out of a RAW file. If this was standard indoor lighting this would look significantly worse.

Great Shot. Crazy Theatre lighting (which one of our directors really likes) can be at times a pain. We are currently doing Mamma Mia, and lots of Blue light. It plays havoc with White Balance. I’ve never had to go as high as you, I think my highest has always been around 6400.

Here is one of mine from this past weekend to show the crazy lighting. It’s a really soft and has tons of motion blur and was not a keeper, but you get the idea.

 

[ikaika777]

Caroline,

I have gotten excellent results from Topaz DeNoise AI. You can download a free evaluation.

However, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, it requires a well equipped computer. I don't know the vintage of your MacBook Pro, but I'm sure it would choke my 2010 MacBook Pro. You need lots of memory, 16gb with 32gb even better and a graphics card with 8 gig ram. I used it on my old computer and while it would run, it would take 90 seconds or more to process one image. This was on an Intel i7 based machine 16 gb ram and no graphics card. Since it was time for a refresh, I built a new computer with the newest AMD processor and a dedicated graphics card. The same file took <5 seconds to process.

The other concern is that sometimes it generates weird artifacts, but the latest updates have behaved much better. Sometimes you have to balance the amount of noise reduction (it is adjustable) against introducing artifacts in your image.

Here are the DeNoise AI system requirements.

I have the Topaz DeNoise AI and it’s great, probably the best on the market right now. The secret to not introducing artifacts is you have to run your photo through DeNoise AI BEFORE you do any post processing.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Not really anything to contribute myself, but I am interested in your choice of iso 8000. I routinely shoot youth theatre as well. I find the white balance and lighting the trickiest.

I assume this is in response to me. I didn't choose ISO 8000, I used it out of necessity - Lens wide open, SS at 1/125" - about as low as I want to go when there is subject movement. No choice but to use a very high ISO. it is from the most poorly lit high school stage I have ever encountered. I'm usually around ISO 2500 on a "normal" stage.

This is from the darkest corner of the same ridiculously dark stage, about as bad as it gets - ISO 12,800 and pushed over a full stop in post (ISO 25,600 equiv). Fortunately, the Fujis are up to the task.

JsErik, I haven't seen many pictures that were taken with a Fuji, or any camera with an APS size sensor at such a high ISO setting, and have to say I'm surprised at how well this shot turned out.

Great job.

Thanks. The fact of the matter is that the quality of light is every bit as important as the ISO used. While the light was turned down so low that all the whites were yellow to the naked eye, it was still high quality stage light and that really makes a difference when you are trying to extract something that looks halfway decent out of a RAW file. If this was standard indoor lighting this would look significantly worse.

I agree the lighting has a lot to do with it but still---------- an image this good at ISO 12800 is unusual for an APS size sensor.

Nah, with some crafty post processing you can get reasonably decent results pretty consistently at ISO 12,800 with a Fuji APS-C, just don't look too close