Clearing the noise

[martin nelson]

<p>Right this is going to be a long one so bear with me.</p>

<p>I have recently directed a play and the producer pulled in someone who usually shoots theatre promo photos. The downside is that instead of using my beast (Panasonic FZ-8, an older but still fantastic camera) he used his own equipment.</p>

<p>The crux of the problem for me is that his cameras are Fujis (a brand I hate with a passion due to the untolerable noise levels and pathetic sensor size).<br>

The exact models are: S9600, S5600, S700.</p>

<p>On my insistance he used the camera's RAW format so I seem to have something to work with in the processing.<br>

My problem is I'm not familiar with either the bundled software (it's actually a download) or the camera's eccentricities. Is there anyone who has any experience with software that would be suitable to process the images and possibly reduce the noise slightly. The best I can get is around 40% reduction of noise without trading off on the quality.</p>

<p>I know I may well be fighting a losing battle as my Panasonic (judging from the few shots I was able to take) produced photos with no noise at all compared with shots in the same circumstances taken by the Fuji!</p>

<p>PS: This is going to sound aggressive but I HATE photoshop so please, please, please do not recommend an Adobe product...thank you!</p>

[Larry_G1664882113]

<p>Try a dedicated noise reduction software product. I am happy with Imagenomic's Noiseware Standard at around $40. Check it out at www.imagenomic.com You can try the software out before making a purchase.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Neat Image also has a nice stand-alone NR product that can do batch processing.<br>

http://www.neatimage.com/</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>There are also good products from Nik Software and Topaz.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>Try PhotoDenoising.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There are people out there who are competent in this type of photography. If you do this again, see if you can hire someone with experience and a Nikon D300/D700/D3 or a comparable Canon. These cameras are built to handle low light work with minimum noise. Or do you have a problem with these corporations too?</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I use Noise ninja and have been very pleased. In addition to profiling images you submit, the vendor has created camera-specific noise profiles. I don't know if they have them for any of those cameras.</p>

[martin nelson]

<p>Thanks for the suggestions. Just to clarify the problem the first photo here was taken with my usual camera (Panasonic FZ8) and can be printed out to a 7x5 inch size with no noticable noice. Even at A4 size the noise level was acceptable for promotion purposes.<br>

<img src="http://www.theplaybillproject.co.uk/CastPromo.JPG" alt="" width="587" height="564" /><br>

The second was taken with the Fuji and as you can see the noise level is intolerable at 3.5x5 inches let alone 5x7.<br>

<img src="http://www.theplaybillproject.co.uk/CastFuji.JPG" alt="" width="608" height="642" /></p>

[martin nelson]

<p>Also to clarify Edward, I don't have a problem with corporations. I have used Adobe Photoshop and found it to be an awful piece of software. When you factor in price and functionality it is not a product I think is worth anything.<br>

In addition I wouldn't NEED a Nikon or Canon. The 5 year old Panasonic....(one of the forerunners of the G1) which I paid less than £100 for clearly outperforms the Fuji which cost three times more. The Panasonic not only captured the stage lighting with a better degree, but is also clear of noise when printed at larger scales.<br>

My problem really isn't with the photographer as the work he did for a play I recently acted in was great. His instincts about angles and which shots are good for publicity and promotion are fantastic. He is just let down by his ignorance of what makes a good camera. If fact until I spoke to him he had never even considered using RAW format as he didn't know what it was/did.<br>

On a side note I've never really felt that one needs to go for "professional level" cameras like the Nikons and/or Canons. I have always worked on the theory that you use the right tool for the job. Given that the company is working on a low budget and could fill a performance space without promotional materials hiring a Pro, or buying and using equipment as expensive as Nikons is just not the right thing to do despite the quality they can achieve.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Lightroom is much easier to use than Photoshop and I highly recommend it for general post processing. Its noise reduction tools are good enough for me most of the time.</p>

[philaret]

<p>Martin, I am not a frequent visitor to this forum, so I hope you will excuse me if I repeat what somebody already said elsewhere. With all due respect, you are deluding yourself by thinking that cameras of the kind you mention are useful for presentation quality results. But you have made your point with the examples, in that the upper one can be cleared with a noise reduction software to a decent look, while the other is totally hopeless. Unless this meeting was unique, you would do yourself a better service by re-shooting this group with a DSLR, better light, correct exposure and correct white balance. As all those are off-mark in this image AT THE SAME TIME, trying to to make those right in software will reveal even more noise than is currently apparent. BTW, the program that you hate is nearly the only one capable of handling images in the LAB color space, and Dan Margulis in his books many years ago suggested a simple but useful trick to reduce noise which is "blur the chroma channels, sharpen the luminosity channel" (in LAB, that is). Here is what can be done in a couple of minutes to your upper image.</p>

<div></div>