# Properly Removing Noise in Photoshop (CS6)?



## tevo (Dec 8, 2012)

What are the best methods of noise reduction in Photoshop (CS6) ? Often times I shoot high ISO for street photography, and I am now realizing that at full size some of my shots are too noisy for me. Can they be saved?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 8, 2012)

try a Noiseware dowload.
Far surpasses the capability of CS6.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2012)

I really like nik's dfine.


----------



## Mully (Dec 8, 2012)

Define works well ^^^


----------



## KmH (Dec 8, 2012)

Use Camera Raw for noise reduction using CS 6. 

I also use Noiseware Pro from Imagenomic.com

Doing noise reduction will cause some amount of detail loss.

Noise reduction and sharpening are 2 sides of the same coin. So, to do noise reduction well you also have to do some sharpening to maintain detail.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2012)

The key I find to noise reduction/sharpening is knowing what you want out of it.  If you just sort of blindly reduce noise and sharpen to regain detail, you end up not really doing much of anything, and will often get posterization.  Understand the parts of your image that need detail, and the parts of your image that should be relatively detail free, and then selectively remove noise from the detail free areas, while sharpening the detail needed areas.  It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist of it.  To get really good noise removal, even if you have a great program to do it, it has to be more artistic than simply clicking 'reduce noise'.  A good noise removal/sharpening system is as much an art as anything else in photography, it requires a clear vision of what you want to accomplish, an understanding of how your tools work to get the result you want and for your vision to make artistic sense.

Also, noise removal should always be amongst the first steps in your work flow, meaning you will have to have an idea for what you're going to do to the photo when processing BEFORE you even do it, so you know how to go about noise removal.  One image that I'm more or less going to leave alone after a few basic edits gets very different levels of noise removal from an image that I know I'm going to up the contrast, brightness and sharpness on.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 8, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> *The key I find to noise reduction/sharpening is knowing what you want out of it*.  If you just sort of blindly reduce noise and sharpen to regain detail, you end up not really doing much of anything, and will often get posterization.  Understand the parts of your image that need detail, and the parts of your image that should be relatively detail free, and then selectively remove noise from the detail free areas, while sharpening the detail needed areas.  It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basic gist of it.*  To get really good noise removal, even if you have a great program to do it, it has to be more artistic than simply clicking 'reduce noise'.
> * *A good noise removal/sharpening system is as much an art as anything else in photography, it requires a clear vision of what you want to accomplish, an understanding of how your tools work to get the result you want and for your vision to make artistic sense.
> *
> Also, *noise removal should always be amongst the first steps in your work flow, meaning you will have to have an idea for what you're going to do to the photo when processing BEFORE you even do it, *so you know how to go about noise removal.  One image that I'm more or less going to leave alone after a few basic edits gets very different levels of noise removal from an image that I know I'm going to up the contrast, brightness and sharpness on.



I sometimes feel that fjrabon is channeling my opinions.

Virtually nothing done by rote is as good as it could be.

First, always, is learning to develop an idea for what you want your final image to be.

*Workflow is just the route for how your image gets to your final image.

If you don't know the goal, you have no route.
*


----------



## unpopular (Dec 8, 2012)

IMO noise reduction is improper to start with.

but that's just me.

if you're on a Mac, download Row Photo Processor. It handles noise without better than some Raw processors.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> IMO noise reduction is improper to start with.



Except for the basic out-of-raw sharpening, I do all noise reduction I want before sharpening.

Why sharpen noise?


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> IMO noise reduction is improper to start with.
> 
> but that's just me.
> 
> if you're on a Mac, download Row Photo Processor. It handles noise without better than some Raw processors.



Everything I've ever read says to do noise removal first (well, not including crop and white balance), since almost everything else you do in post would multiply any noise that's already there (ie brightening, added contrast, sharpening added saturation, etc).  When the lightbulb finally clicked on noise removal first was one of the biggest reasons my edits started coming out cleaner.  Doing noise removal after also usually means you have to end up then doing another round of sharpening, because even a well executed noise removal stage will still dull some parts that need to be sharp.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 8, 2012)

I don't really mind noise so long as it's not blotchy and smeary. With proper exposure techniques, it's not too terribly much an issue. Of course, with street photography that can't always be possible.

I think it's kind of ironic that people today are talking about film because they like the grain. When we were shooting film, the big advantage of large format was a lack of grain. But now, people are going to film to get the grain, but at the same time complaining about noise like the plague. I realize that they aren't the same thing, but how much of our noise phobia a result of luditism and appeal to tradition: it doen't look like film grain, so therefor it's inferior.







As far as sharpening noise goes, idk. I see what you're saying, but at the same time I can't help but feel like "but you're sharpening detail, too", whereas if you sharpen after noise reduction you're only sharpening obliterated detail; you can't get the detail back.

In practice, probably the best routine is to selectively remove noise, and selectively sharpen. Obviously in some places where there is a lot of detail you'll want less noise reduction, and fortunately in those regions noise will be easily masked by the detail that is already there, but in smooth areas where noise is more visible you might want more noise reduction. The same goes for sharpening, in areas with more detail you'd want to sharpen more, but in areas with less detail you'd want to sharpen less as this would only bring back noise.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 8, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I don't really mind noise so long as it's not blotchy and smeary. With proper exposure techniques, it's not too terribly much an issue. Of course, with street photography that can't always be possible.
> 
> I think it's kind of ironic that people today are talking about film because they like the grain. When we were shooting film, the big advantage of large format was a lack of grain. But now, people are going to film to get the grain, but at the same time complaining about noise like the plague. I realize that they aren't the same thing, but how much of our noise phobia a result of luditism and appeal to tradition: it doen't look like film grain, so therefor it's inferior.
> 
> ...



Right, I think that's the whole point.  If you just do global sharpening and noise reduction, without even using a smart sharpener or smart noise reduction, then you're literally just degrading your image for no appreciable benefit.  If you do it selectively, most people have found they get the best results removing noise first, because not only does sharpening increase noise, but increased brightness, saturation and contrast do as well.  If you don't increase your brightness, saturation and contrast in an image, it probably doesn't matter if you sharpen first or remove noise first.  

As to your second point, I think color noise is just ugly.  They're random non-sensical colors in an image and they almost always distract.  Digital contrast noise can be appealing, I think, especially in black and white.  It doesn't have the even 'structure' that grain has in film, but I find it appealing in its own way none the less.  I find the two (film grain and contrast noise) just slightly different versions of the same sort of effect.  A lot of it also depends for the feel I'm going for in an image.  Does the mood of the image call for grit, or does it call for smoothness?  It's ultimately an artistic decision.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 8, 2012)

definitely color noise is more problematic and harder to deal with. As far as "structure" goes, I don't know. It's different, but I am not sure it can be quantified in any specific way.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 10, 2012)

I didn't see nearly the expected noise issue as was purported to exist, especially nothing that you can't easily correct in the RAW editor. Just a wee bit of correction to the shapening and luminance selectors, some despeckling in CS6 and it is a reasonable and livable amount of noise. I often shoot at ISO 3200 and have delved into the ISO 6400 range on my D7000 with reasonable results.



This shot is at ISO 1600 inside a church shot with a 70-200 2.8 at about 100 feet +/- 10 feet using only the church lighting - which sucked immensely. Noise?



This is strictly from the RAW editor. No CS6 involved.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 10, 2012)

LR4


----------



## unpopular (Dec 10, 2012)

ceeboy14 said:


> I didn't see nearly the expected noise issue as was purported to exist, especially nothing that you can't easily correct in the RAW editor. Just a wee bit of correction to the shapening and luminance selectors, some despeckling in CS6 and it is a reasonable and livable amount of noise. I often shoot at ISO 3200 and have delved into the ISO 6400 range on my D7000 with reasonable results.



That image is mine, not the OP's. It's meant as an example of how proper noise control through exposure and processing can provide useable images without destructive NR.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 10, 2012)

Ahso but go back to that image and see the one I just inserted.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 10, 2012)

it's there. managed well. The scene though has a lot of light areas, so it shouldn't be any surprise there isn't much noise. But it is present.

Also, just curious, was this shot under uncorrected florescent or some other source with a green-blue white point?


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 10, 2012)

It is a mixture of stained glass window light, flourescent and tungsten...a lot of fun to white balance. I shot these next two in the same setting, one at 2500 ISO an the second at 3200. The first image is only natural light, in a loft area and I was still shooting the 70-200. Silly me. I trial used NIK's noise reduction program but didn't feel I got any better results than with RAW.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Dec 10, 2012)

The point I am trying tomake is that noise doesn't have to be so intense and unless it is hideously garish, shouldn't be a deal breaker if jacking up the ISO is the only light option. Neither of the last two posted images were worked in Photoshop or LR$. I have both.


----------



## Tony S (Dec 10, 2012)

Sometimes a simple one click "despeckle" works wonders on high ISO noise.


----------

