Noise or Shake?

[Dave410]

<p>Name your poison -- image noise or camera shake? Which is the lesser evil?</p>

<p>If you're shooting without a tripod in a low-light situation with a camera with modest low-light capabilities (for example, a Canon 7D with an image-stabilized f/2.8 lens), do you bump the ISO up into the "really noisy" range, knowing that noise reduction in post processing will blur the image, or do you keep the ISO at a reasonable level and accept a slower shutter speed (say, 1/20 or 1/15) and try to hold steady, knowing that any camera shake you introduce will be there forever with no chance of correction later. Personally, I've been holding steady at a slow shutter speed and I'm usually fairly happy with the results, but what do you do? Just curious.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>If you are looking for a formula to the method, assuming the scene is STATIC:<br /> 1. I will determine the APERTURE that I require in respect of DoF and sometimes in regard to the effect of Aperture on Image Quality; for example I might choose to stop down to alleviate possible Veiling Flare if I am shooting into the light.<br /> 2. I will sacrifice shutter speed to hold the ISO up to the point of the shutter speed becoming outside the limit of "safe". <br /> 3. If the shutter speed becomes "un-safe", then I will sacrifice ISO.</p>

<p><strong>The key is to know what a ‘safe’ shutter speed constitutes and also be aware of what influences the noticing any resultant blur due to camera sake</strong>:<br /> 1. Focal Length used<br /> 2. Subject Distance<br /> 3. Final Image size and/or Cropping</p>

<p>I term this as part of ‘knowing the limits’ and I think it is important to know all the limits associated with the Craft as those limits might apply to what one is interested in shooting.</p>

<p>As a practical example I collect photographs of Church Architecture, especially interiors. I don’t generally use a tripod and I don’t use HDRI. I know that when using a wide lens and the Subject at a reasonable distance I am safe to regularly hand hold at 1/13^th and still ensure good quality, no blur, using the 24 to 105 F/4 IS USM. So when I get to 1/13^th second, I will bump the ISO for that shot.<br>

<br /> The same method applies when using a non-IS lens also. I will occasionally push the limits of Shutter Speed if I think that it is necessary – but in these cases I would use another safety-net, such as shooting a few individual shots or shooting a burst of three and most often the second shot is near perfect. Also one can use “mirror-up” that often helps. Breathing, Stance, Camera Grip and Mental Focus are important also. So is practice. I have pulled several shots Hand Held with a 24~28mm lens at around ¼ second (no Image Stabilization): but also I am aware that I cannot sustain a success rate of 90% or better using that Shutter Speed - in fact it would be closer to about 30% perhaps less if I were unable to focus (my brain into the zone).</p>

<p>Of course if the Subject is NOT STATIC then there are another set of limits to consider and those are the limits of SHUTTER SPEED to arrest SUBJECT MOVEMENT: but I assume that the question is not about that.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>...do you bump the ISO up into the "really noisy" range, knowing that noise reduction in post processing will blur the image, or do you keep the ISO at a reasonable level and accept a slower shutter speed (say, 1/20 or 1/15) and try to hold steady, knowing that any camera shake you introduce will be there forever with no chance of correction later.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't get blurred images shooting 1/6's, f/4.5-5.6, ISO 800 handheld nor do I get noise levels that would blur the image using noise reduction/sharpening depending on which Raw converter I use. ACR 4.6's PV2003 Luminance noise slider mainly affects the shadow regions while PV2012 now shifts that to Mask slider in sharpening section in LR/ACR.</p>

<p>However, I don't get perfectly smooth, noiseless results zooming in at 100% but then I don't view a print that close to see the noise anyway, but I do want a sharp print so that pretty much tells you where I stand.</p>

<p>Shooting sports without a flash? Forget all of the above unless you can shoot ISO 32,000 as is possible on more modern cameras, but I don't shoot sports or fast moving objects in low light.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>My approach is similar to William's. I figure the aperture I need for the DoF I want. I figure the shutter speed to freeze motion sufficiently. I have some notion of the maximum ISO I will use for the noise I will tolerate (which depends mostly on how the image is to be postprocessed and used). If I don't have enough light to make the three align, then I will figure what to sacrifice. (Or sometimes I figure out how to add light!) I generally tend to sacrifice each in equal measure, although I will give priority to one factor or the other, depending on the situation.</p>

<p>Very few people understand that fourth factor you can trade off here, which is the number of shots you will take in order to get a good one. I use the burst method William describes, but I will take more frames the more I sacrifice shutter speed. There have been rare situations in which I've picked off maybe a couple dozen shots to get one "lucky" shot that's frozen. In my experience, if you shoot enough frames, you'll eventually nail it, just from dumb luck, even with a subject that moves somewhat (but is occasionally still).</p>

<p>Part of selecting your ISO and shutter speed is knowing not to sacrifice too much to depth of field. You often need to select your aperture on more sophisticated criteria than "from x to y." This is where it's good to understand object field relationships. Merklinger describes a very useful object field approach here:</p>

<p>http://jimdoty.com/learn/dof/dof_merk/dof_merk.html</p>

<p> </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>It depends on the size of the print or final image. If your end result is a 1200x800 image for the web, the scaling down will take care of almost any noise, while it does little to hide camera shake.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Much what William W and Sarah wrote; the requirements of the image drive the settings. This can include wanting a bit more noise, or wanting shake or subject movement. The bursts tend to work for me as well, with paying proper attention to your posture, breathing, gentle operation of the shutter.<br>

I think the question is not meant that way, but it seems to imply a bit that photos ought to be pinsharp and smooth. And that's simply not the case. Neither noise nor shake are evils, but limits that can be used creatively. One of the first things I try to think about when hitting a ceiling is how I can make use of the limits imposed on me, rather than thinking in terms of sacrifice. Can I use it to make my image work in a different way?</p>

<p>Personally, I do not care a whole lot about noise. My camera (admittedly not a Canon EOS) does well up to ISO6400 thereabouts, my raw conversion software does fine noise reduction in case of need. So noise in the real world is a pixel-peeping problem most of the time, to me. If I am really pushing the limits, then usually the light is too low to generate adequate contrast and highlights anyway and will leave a rather bland photo. Time to let it go, really - the image will have worse problems than shake or noise. In short, if I'm really pushed to choose between the evils, the ISO goes up. But to me, that's not choosing for a lesser evil, that's about still being able to get a shot. Show me film that performed at ISO3200 the way your 7D can perform at that ISO - the current state of technology is pretty awesome, it enables more than it limits.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Personally, I do not care a whole lot about noise. . . I'm really pushed to choose . . . the ISO goes up . . . that's about still <strong><em>being able to get a shot</em></strong>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br /> Having pushed Tri-X to ASA 3200, I still think that a 20D is pretty marvellous.<br /> Even a Canon D60 was actually quite super fantastic.</p>

<p>Also - noise is not as noticeable in the print as it is on the screen, especially if the screen is viewed at 100%</p>

<p>That's not to say I don’t care about getting the best from the gear that I use: I do care and I care a hellava lot. But I am not going to get in a twist about it if I have to make the shot and there just has to be some noise in it: as a <strong><em>general</em></strong> motto - "noise is better than blur"</p>

<p>The other very important thing to remember is: don’t underexpose.<br /> And also – DO NOT underexpose</p>

<p>WW</p>

[ruben leal]

Currently I do mostly landscape photography, so I got used to always use a tripod (there is no other way I can get with

good sharpness and framing when I enlarge my photographs), but in the past I used to do a lot of photography for a

theater company, so I many times used a 20D in the H ISO setting (I believe it was equivalent to ISO 6,400), with an EF

50mm f/1.4 wide open (which most people would say is rather soft), and used speeds as low as 1/15s to get the shot

(fortunately in some plays I could use up to ISO 800 with f/2.8 at 1/60s, but for some reason they still liked darker scenes)

 

At this point, timing was as important as everything else you had to consider: proper metering to avoid underexposure,

proper camera holding and breath control, to finally wait for that split second when the actor pauses with the right

expression under the right lighting. At the end these photos usually ended as enlargements used for the play's tour

posters, or printed in national newspapers with a critic to the play, and no one ever cared to say that an image was noisy.

On the other hand, it was some ten years ago, and we still had in fresh memory the grain of fast film.

[JDMvW]

<p>When the fastest slide film was GAF 500 I used it, despite it having grain the size of golf balls.</p>

<p>Why anyone would choose motion blur (except where it denotes motion, as in sports) over grain/noise is simply weird to me.</p>

<p>Different strokes for different folks, I guess.</p>

 

[Dave410]

<p>Outstanding! Thanks, everybody. That's exactly the information I was looking for. Cheers.</p>

[Dave410]

<p>BTW, this question was precipitated by a bunch of photos I took in very low light the day before yesterday. I just reviewed the exposure settings I used and I did exactly what you suggest -- the ISO went up when the shutter speed got too low. The only concession I made that maybe I shouldn't have, was to open the aperture and sacrifice DoF more than I should have. </p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[fravin]

<p>I love the Willian answer. I do not care about noise. It's part of the composition. You only need to learn how to deal with it. I should prefer High ISO settings, with no thinking.<br>

Talking about post-processing, I was amazed about the DxoPro work. The Reduce Noise Prime function is so marvelous that I'm really impressed. Take a look in this 100% crop of this shot I take while testing the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 focus in my 70D. It's pretty amazing how the image kept sharpness and eliminate the color noise.<br>

Wonderful, isn't it?</p><div></div>

[fravin]

<p>Look at the same image with no Noise treatment. <br>

Canon 70D = Sigma 18-35 f1.8 = 1/50 = f4 = ISO 2000 </p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>I also love DxO's PRIME NR module. It works wonders on a shot like in Flavio's excellent examples, but if you're trying to preserve feather or fur detail on a 7D above ISO 1600, then you're going to see smearing of details, just not as bad as with other software. I'll reduce NR levels in PRIME and increase Microcontrast to maintain more detail.</p>