Nikon D500 ISO 20000 Noise Reduction DxO Pro 11.

[John G]

Hi
    Recently I viewed a couple of impressive images from a New Member Jens " Snetiger " on his introduction to NG.
    I had a thought that it would be interesting for me to have a attempt to manage noise artifacts in a D500 image
    using software that I have, as this body is very appealing to me.
    There has been a variety of software proposed by others in their replies to Jens, this tempted me to ask if a   
    image of the ISO 20000 capture could be made available so that I could attempt a noise reduction exercise.
    Jens kindly made this image available through a Dropbox link and I thank him for this.
    I have put this image on to Critique, so that I can receive a feed back on my very first attempt at Noise
    Reduction. 
    I request that any comments are solely directed at my attempts to reduce the artifacts and the software I used. 
 
 
 
   

[Jakov Minić]

John, that is one mighty impressive 20k ISO image!
I would never have guessed the ISO value

[John G]

Hi Jakov
             Thank you for sharing your view on the Noise Reduction.
              I am not experienced enough with this area of post processing high ISO, low light images
              to know the final IQ compared to another persons work, so your  overview is very welcome.
              For me It gives me the confidence to take the ISO much higher than my usual 800 to max 1600,
              when trying to achieve a 1000+ shutter speed in fading light.
              It looks like I might squeeze another 30 minutes with the coming in to roost birds.     

[Jakov Minić]

John, why do you go so fast with 1000+ shutter speeds. Rule of thumb should do it. Manual mode, auto ISO, open aperture and shutter speeds in accordance with chosen focal length is what I usually do. I limit the auto ISO to 12,800 and that does the trick in most circumstances. Noise Ninja does wonders... if at all necessary

[elsa hoffmann]

John - I suspect one needs to work the software on different images - (all with same ISO) - some more predominant lighter tones and some more mid tone balanced as well as some with more dark tones, to get a better feel for what the software can do and where the limitations will be.
This was a good start - and in my limited experience - I feel that what you have rendered to be a very useful end product. A comparison between your before and after efforts will also be useful I think (to us I mean)

[John G]

Hello Jakov and Elsa
                               Again thank you for your comments. In response to Elsa, the original RAW image is available to be downloaded via drop box on the posts in Jens "Snetiger" Introduce yourself. It is a nice image from a very modern set up to work with. With your beautiful view from your home, I am sure you could burn the midnight oil
capturing low light action on the lake, and using Noise Reduction to clean up a few low light, High ISO images
As for software there are many free trials available, so a I have firstly used these as a curiosity after reading up on the merits of each. I have found that there are strengths in each, they do not all support each others tool settings, but if used at times with each other as a supporting workflow as a group applications they can surpass the work of one application.
All the NR on the ISO 20000 image was done in Dx0 pro 11. A family member has just returned from the far east
with many macro images captured on a Canon 7D ii, he had concerns about the noise in his images and has put the
DxO Pro 11 free trial on his computer yesterday, I have received a email today saying he is very impressed. 
In response to Jakov, I have had some strange experiences with a Capped Auto ISO in my early experience with the D800E, and got quite a bit confused. I today use manual ISO. 
I would like to elaborate, as I am using mainly Prime Telephoto ais lenses with a TC regularly attached.
I do a lot of late afternoon into the evening sessions, as well as infrequent first light sessions with subjects that can be quite fast in their actions, coming in to roost birds for example, or Diurnal Birds of Prey.
As you can see I have not got VR available so I like to shoot at a High Shutter Speed to compensate for any technique failings. To achieve this in low light, there can be a tendency to shoot near to or wide open, with a TC attached there is a risk of IQ suffering at these apertures, so the method of shooting two stops from wide is a method I have adopted.
I have not had consistent sharpness in a image when shooting lower than 800s on a subject that will not stay perched for long or when tracking a BIF where a immediate change of flight path can occur. So 1000+ has got me to a comfort zone. I know I need to improve on my tripod set up and this may allow for a lower shutter speed.
With a TC attached I will shoot at f5.6 rarely but mainly use f8 - f11 on a 500mm f4.
Using manual ISO I will set the best setting to give me a chosen shutter speed in a certain light, winding up the ISO setting as required, when ISO 1600 is required I usually start packing up the kit.
I felt that the response to my first attempt at Noise Reduction, should encourage me to take my ISO cap higher and give me a little more time in the field to work with my chosen shutter speed range.
I am pondering your directions and will do a trial, I understand the D800E better now than when I first worked the Auto ISO method. 

[Peter Connan]

John, I think it's amazing how much detail you have been able to bring back. I am extremely impressed.

With regard to shutter speeds and apertures: I would agree that 1/1000 is probably the minimum usable shutter speed for BIF with 700mm focal length.

I am slightly surprised by how much you need to step down with the TC attached. I realize my lens is newer than yours, but I cannot see any improvement in image quality by stepping down smaller than f6.3 or possibly f7.1 with my TC1.4EII attached. However, obviously accurate focus is fairly critical.

I tend to shoot without the TC (and at f4) in times of low light though.

[John G]

Hello Peter
                Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Noise Reduction. This opportunity to work with a High ISO
                image has made me re-think my ISO cap on my set up.
                In the previous post I explained I shoot two stops above wide when using a TC, I have adopted this
                method through reading up on general TC usage, I do not take loads of images, so like to have what is 
                perceived for the best recipe for success when out with my kit. NG is encouraging me to think outside of
                my safe zone and re- invent myself, so I am very flexible to new ideas. 
                I intend on doing a few exercises soon to see how much my tripod effects IQ on my long telephoto work.
                I will start using the set up on a rigid surface with sand bag supports, them on the same support with
                lens dampening.
                I will then do parallel test shots with the tripod and then tripod with lens dampening.
                The lens dampening aid will be a DIY device, made from a bicycle inner tube three quarters filled with     
                oven dried sand, the inner tube ends will be thoroughly sealed.
                I intend on swapping out my present tripod for a more rigid built model. This series of exercises will be
                carried out to satisfy my curiosity as to get as sharp a image as I can from my set up when mounted on
                a support. I will shoot at wide and up to f11.
                I did a similar thing when using the the AF fine tune on the 70 - 200mm f4.   
                 

[Erik Lund]

I like the rendering of the animal itself, looks really great! The bright tree trunks in the background are distracting, I think and a bit rough looking due to PP and the shadow areas are competently black, blocked.

Regarding tripod, adding weight will not make the tripod more stable, you need to get stability and rigidity in your whole set up,,, more cleaver design is needed! there are some tripod threads on this site if you try search
 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Agree with Erik. in particular blocked shadows create all sorts of problems if the image is later to be printed say in a magazine. One has always to ensure the RGB-values don't drop too far towards 0 or else the printer service will be furious because so much ink is required plus the surplus ink can smudge or run.

An amazing stability and rigidity can be achieved by tripods weighing 2 kg or less, far surpassing much heavier units.

A final comment regarding noise: as long as the noise appearance verges towards graininess more than the kind of chrominance blotching or banding so common in the early days of digital photography, the image should print acceptable as long as some details exist and contrast is sufficient. People these days stare at images at 100% on their monitors and forget what small part of the overall picture (sic) they are seeing. Plus they have to experience the inevitable degradation of acutance brought about by the printing process itself. A proper pre-press processing is more important for the final outcome then low levels of noise.

[golunvolo]

Agree with Erik. in particular blocked shadows create all sorts of problems if the image is later to be printed say in a magazine. One has always to ensure the RGB-values don't drop too far towards 0 or else the printer service will be furious because so much ink is required plus the surplus ink can smudge or run.

An amazing stability and rigidity can be achieved by tripods weighing 2 kg or less, far surpassing much heavier units.

A final comment regarding noise: as long as the noise appearance verges towards graininess more than the kind of chrominance blotching or banding so common in the early days of digital photography, the image should print acceptable as long as some details exist and contrast is sufficient. People these days stare at images at 100% on their monitors and forget what small part of the overall picture (sic) they are seeing. Plus they have to experience the inevitable degradation of acutance brought about by the printing process itself. A proper pre-press processing is more important for the final outcome then low levels of noise.

  Interesting point about noise and printing. I will be in a workshop with dancers again soon. Have never get too technical but printed images look way better in this regard than the same one on screen. Now I have a better idea why, thanks Bjørn