Grain/Noise reduction in post?

Grain/Noise reduction in post?

  • Always

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • Sometimes (only if needed)

    Votes: 19 51.4%

  • Never

    Votes: 12 32.4%
  • Total voters
    37
I only shoot digital. I don't remove the noise just because it shows up. If for some reason it is distracting in the image (which is rare), then I remove some, but I err on the side of less. I try to only remove enough to remove the original "distraction" to leave as much sharpness as possible, even if some noise is still visible.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've tried all the noise-reduction software out there and none of them give good results, they destroy image sharpness. Grain is part of film, I see no reason to remove it at the expense of quality.
Click to expand...

I agree, nothing has ever worked for me. I am not a grain person, if it is there I just leave it, rather than mess up the image.
 
I almost always reduce noise although in well lit scenes und using a reasonable ISO setting its admittedly pretty unnoticeable in most cases when viewed at less than full size. But it is still noticeable if you enlarge the image to 100% and look closely (and know what you are looking for) so I prefer to get rid of any that is there.

Noise is very often made more noticeable by subsequent PP steps!!!!!

For example sharpening can make noise more apparent. And even worse, if you use local contrast / micro contrast filters (however named in different software) those processes REALLY bring out noise quite badly. So it makes sense to get rid of it up front.

I have a more or less standard workflow - NR, tonal and brightness adjustment, color and saturation adjustment and lastly sharpness adjustment. All photos get more or less this sequence although the amount of each filter changes from shot to shot. (Some photos get more especially if I want to apply special effects.)

My mantra is that good results in photography is mostly about taking pains. Making sure verticals are properly vertical (or horizontals are horizontal) making sure that there are no blown highlights, that color is correctly balnaced, that sharpness is good etc. And of course this means getting rid of unnecessary noise.

I have good software that seems able to make its own intelligent decisions about how much noise reduction to apply in most cases - especially where noise is limited. This means that image resolution / sharpness seldom suffers when the software is left to its own devices. It is also able to apply NR selectively to areas where its needed (eg to darker areas) leaving other areas untouched, so that helps. Of course there are times when say an image is badly exposed, that NR will reduce image res. as there is too much noise requiring too much NR to get rid of it. Then its hard - choices need to be made between how much noise is acceptable compared with how much resolution loss.

I believe that if you want to become a better photogrpaher, often it means becoming a bit "anal" about such issues. (Assuming of course that your artistic skills are up to it and that your basic image is interesting.)
 
With scans I always use a bit of color noise reduction to get rid of the noise introduced by the scanner. I don't do anything to reduce the grain, though.
 
Last edited:
As the question specifically is asking about scans I would say in that case I never try to remove grain, grain is one of the elements that adds sharpness and structure to the image.

If it is too big use another type of film or processing, but to try and use noise reduction will destroy the acutance of the grain structure and make a sharp image very wolly. Remember that grain disappears or is much reduced in a print at usual viewing distances from a photograph. Do not judge its effect with your nose pressed against the monitor.

Steve
 
As Jamie123 says, scanners introduce a certain amount of noise. And often they not only record grain but also accentuate it. Sometimes they seem to record something of the surface of the film, too. In any of these cases I use a little noise reduction. If your noise reduction is removing a significant amount of detail, you are overdoing it.
 
I got some pretty ropey scans back from the lab, the noise in the dark areas was really awful. I find Neat Image almost miraculous in how much noise it can remove, with only a little "smudging". I would not try to remove grain though, it's probably a wasted effort, and besides, it usually looks pretty nice.
 
I love the look of grain I get from a properly exposed negative and not only accept but embrace it. Film grain is one of the primary reasons I love and use film. I do find in certain circumstances that is is nesc. to "smooth out" the grain a bit if it adds to image quality (also objective) I have been using silverfast/V700 and have realized the phenomenon called grain aliasing as well as the need to minimize it when it comes to high res scans.
 
The OP asks about post after scanning film.

I always do some noise reduction on scans from film, rarely on digital captures. With film, I feel this makes my sharpening (applied later) work better.

(My ref. for this is Bruce Fraser, Real World Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2.
 
Grain doesn't bother me either way. But even with film, I prefer a more grainless image. To me it's a "seam" and is noise. In digital, I think noise is an overrated quality that gearheads go out of their way to look for. If you print your digitals - or even post them at a normal viewing size, photos can be surprisingly good. It's when they're zoomed in to a ridiculous amount (as they always are on websites, which is not how anybody looks at photos) and the grain is pointed out where worries about grain levels appear. I can tolerate a bit of digital noise. I do, however, de-noise in post sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom