# Nikon Noise Reduction, On or Off?



## elementgs

So here's the thing... like most new photographers out there, I googled and stumbled onto Ken Rockwell's site.  All in all I still consider his website to have a ton of information on it, despite all the negative press, and for the most part his website has directly contributed to a number of beautiful photos....

With that said.  There is one setting he had me enable on my Nikon D3200 that I'm now starting to question.

The Noise Reduction setting.  He said enable it, so I did.

My question is, why?

Does the auto enhancer on the camera do better work than my Nik Software, Sharpener Pro 3.0?  Is it something entirely different?

I know next to nothing about this setting, or any other settings on my Nikon and I'm starting to question everything.  I suppose this is a good thing but for now, let's start with the noise reduction and go from there.

Should I use it or should I leave it off and simply use Sharpener Pro 3.0?

Thanks!


----------



## jaomul

If you shoot only jpegs the noise reduction is processed in your camera. You can tweak in software later. If you shoot raw you will do the noise reduction yourself.  Whether on or off is a question only you can answer. Some cameras do a great job of noise reduction in camera. Some not as good. It depends on whether you think you can do a better job yourself in post processing


----------



## SCraig

jaomul said:


> If you shoot only jpegs the noise reduction is processed in your camera. You can tweak in software later. If you shoot raw you will do the noise reduction yourself.  Whether on or off is a question only you can answer. Some cameras do a great job of noise reduction in camera. Some not as good. It depends on whether you think you can do a better job yourself in post processing



I agree.  The reason there is NR available in-camera is for those who do not post-process their images.  If you shoot in RAW is meaningless whether it's on or off anyway since it won't be applied.  

Since you post process your photographs you have the choice of doing NR in-camera or in post-processing so pick which works best for you.  Most people prefer post-processing since they have control over how much and where it is applied as opposed to letting the camera make the decision.


----------



## astroNikon

I used to use Ken Rockwell's site ALOT when I first started.  Provided exceptional information.

Until I learned more and more and more.  Then I started noticing things quite weren't right like how he loves putting colors too vivid, and he seems to love general lenses more than professional ones here and there.  And then alot more that I read about the site.  But anyways ...

Alot of good information.  Just the other day I used it to get the front cap size of my 85mm lens as I needed a replacement.


----------



## Overread

The important thing to remember about Ken Rockwells site is that its written for Ken Rockwell. His outlined methods and practice is great, if you want to shoot like he does - if you don't or you want to explore then his methods are not the best as they are written from a very singular view point.

He also likes to say extreme stuff - he's actually semi-famous for "not" ever using a tripod and it works; people talk about it and he gets loads of attention and marketing from that. 

His gear reviews are normally fairly reliable; but his site is not for beginners its for people who already are in the know and who then often find this articles too heavily opinionated to be that informational (he also openly states that some stuff on his site is made up or wrong ;P). 

Big grain of salt


----------



## table1349

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4788066047_e1d9fdb4f8_z.jpg

http://i.qkme.me/3tw7t5.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...-_iIP7Gif5Or1y3KcoUnYgjVmAa2Rk_6KEZu2Ly0oB_aj


Enough Said.


----------



## CaptainNapalm

The Nikon in-camera noise reduction is excellent, at least it was on my D7000.  If you shoot JPEG I would recommend turning it on.


----------



## Derrel

elementgs said:
			
		

> Does the auto enhancer on the camera do better work than my Nik Software, Sharpener Pro 3.0?  Is it something entirely different?



YOU would be the person best qualified to answer your own question. You have your own camera, your own files, your own way of metering and exposing, and you have your own personal software. A few simple comparisons of your results using the camera's software, and then using your Nik software to remove noise, ought to give you the answer.

The quality of results produced by third party software depends greatly upon the skill of the operator.

For example, in many cases, the IN-CAMERA noise reduction and IN-camera JPEG created by modern Nikon cameras is far better than what "many" people can make by shooting a raw image and converting that to a JPEG image file...this has been noted many times by many people. Until a person gets to *a certain level of skill *and familiarity with third-party software, the quality of their results is not guaranteed.


----------



## KmH

Even when set to OFF, when JPEG is a selected file type Noise Reduction is still done at high ISO sensitivity settings.

See page 131 - Noise Reduction in the D3200 users manual. Note: There is no hard copy of the complete D3200 user's manual. The user's manual is a PDF file on the software disc that comes with the camera.


----------



## elementgs

Thanks a lot for the responses.  I like Ken personally though as mentioned above, he can be a bit one sided at times.  He's been friendly enough to me though so I can't knock the guy. 

Here is my first shot with the noise reduction off.  I didn't have the foresight at the time to enable noise reduction and take the shot again but I can tell you, without a doubt, the shot is tremendously more sharp than with it enabled.

This is 100% no flash, natural lighting.  I'm sure it has flaws but I like it nonetheless.

Edit:  I have some focus issues on this shot.  Man I have so much to learn still.


----------



## fotofinish

I like it too - just for the record. Very rustic effect.




elementgs said:


> Thanks a lot for the responses.  I like Ken personally though as mentioned above, he can be a bit one sided at times.  He's been friendly enough to me though so I can't knock the guy.
> 
> Here is my first shot with the noise reduction off.  I didn't have the foresight at the time to enable noise reduction and take the shot again but I can tell you, without a doubt, the shot is tremendously more sharp than with it enabled.
> 
> This is 100% no flash, natural lighting.  I'm sure it has flaws but I like it nonetheless.
> 
> Edit:  I have some focus issues on this shot.  Man I have so much to learn still.


----------



## KmH

It looks like your camera's white balance was set to sunlight, but I wonder if there was light from a tungsten/incandescent light source which often causes a strong orange-ish color cast.

There is a second more subtle magenta color cast that can't be corrected post process making me wonder if there was also some fluorescent lighting in the shop too.






During the summer months, I interpret history at a preserved blacksmith shop here in central Iowa that was open from 1883 until 1940.
State Historical Society of Iowa
I used 3 off camera hot shoe flash units and umbrellas to make this image. Most hot shoe flash units have a color temperature pretty much the same as sunlight.


----------



## bc_steve

If you are taking long exposure shots, say 5 seconds or longer, you can also use the "Long Exposure Noise Reduction"  It takes twice as long to take a picture since it takes a second exposure with the shutter closed (so black + noise from any hot pixels, etc.) and subtracts it from your original image.

I have never done any comparisons with or without this on so I can't comment on how effective it is, but it's something buried deep in the menus that is probably worth being aware of if you are taking long exposures.


----------



## elementgs

I'm curious how you detected the magenta, what did you do to work on that?

As for the light source, I tend to go for that color for dramatic effect, I prefer the tones personally.

I can modify the tones in Lightroom fairly easily.  This is what it looks like "normal", with the "Auto" setting checked..  I think it's a fairly boring shot personally.  The colors just don't do anything for me.


----------



## PaulWog

astroNikon said:


> I used to use Ken Rockwell's site ALOT when I first started.  Provided exceptional information.
> 
> Until I learned more and more and more.  Then I started noticing things quite weren't right like how he loves putting colors too vivid, and he seems to love general lenses more than professional ones here and there.  And then alot more that I read about the site.  But anyways ...
> 
> Alot of good information.  Just the other day I used it to get the front cap size of my 85mm lens as I needed a replacement.



Ken Rockwell is all over the place. He provides some great information, and some terrible misinformation, which is why everyone should avoid him: misinformation mixed with good information = very bad!!!

He constantly praises the 18-200mm as one of the greatest DX zoom lenses, and says it's all he uses... then in a recent article about the 18-140 he mentions (without fixing any prior articles) that he no longer uses the 18-200 because it has trade-offs and is too heavy. I mean... I'm sure there's tons written on how much misinformation he ends up spewing out.

Good intentions (maybe, or maybe he's just really lazy)... but unfortunately he gets way too much recognition. He definitely screwed up my learning process slightly, and I had to relearn a few concepts due to his poor information.


----------



## bc_steve

PaulWog said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to use Ken Rockwell's site ALOT when I first started.  Provided exceptional information.
> 
> Until I learned more and more and more.  Then I started noticing things quite weren't right like how he loves putting colors too vivid, and he seems to love general lenses more than professional ones here and there.  And then alot more that I read about the site.  But anyways ...
> 
> Alot of good information.  Just the other day I used it to get the front cap size of my 85mm lens as I needed a replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Rockwell is all over the place. He provides some great information, and some terrible misinformation, which is why everyone should avoid him: misinformation mixed with good information = very bad!!!
> 
> He constantly praises the 18-200mm as one of the greatest DX zoom lenses, and says it's all he uses... then in a recent article about the 18-140 he mentions (without fixing any prior articles) that he no longer uses the 18-200 because it has trade-offs and is too heavy. I mean... I'm sure there's tons written on how much misinformation he ends up spewing out.
> 
> Good intentions (maybe, or maybe he's just really lazy)... but unfortunately he gets way too much recognition. He definitely screwed up my learning process slightly, and I had to relearn a few concepts due to his poor information.
Click to expand...


... and his insistence on trying to shoot everything handheld!!


----------



## tecboy

Leave Ken Rockwell ALONE!!!Ken Rockwell: Digital Photography Review: Digital Photography Review


----------



## JacaRanda

If what people are saying about Ken Rockwell is true, then get used to it.  It seems to be the nature of this beast called photography.

As best as you can, take the good with the bad and sort it out for yourself and your camera.

The opinions of many here on TPF and likely every other forum or blog will differ not unlike what I hear about Ken Rockwell.


----------



## fotofinish

Ken can be useful but you often need to take him with copious salt




tecboy said:


> Leave Ken Rockwell ALONE!!!Ken Rockwell: Digital Photography Review: Digital Photography Review


----------

