Noise Reduction Software for the Mac

December 15, 2007 11:53 AM

What do you think is the best noise reduction software out there for the Mac? Right now I'm using Photoshop CS2, which sometimes has positive affects, sometimes very little. I know the best solution is to know what I'm doing with my camera, but I just 'upgraded" to a Nikon D200 and am still learning the ropes. I've been using a 18-200 f3.4 VR lens, which is great, but which produces extraordinary noise when zoomed far in on subjects. I know I know, another case of a newbie with a camera out of his league, but I'm learning!

Right now it seems like my options are:

Photoshop
Nikon's proprietary software
Something else I haven't considered (3rd party)

I'm using a Macbook Pro, and I organize/store/touch-up my photos using Aperture.

Thanks for your help.

posted by bronxteacher to Technology (13 answers total)

You should probably start by examining why you are getting so much noise at 200mm. That lens is very slow/dim at that focal length, so perhaps the camera is changing ISO settings to compensate? You shouldn't necessarily have more noise at that extension. If you could change that setting on the camera (sorry, I don't know much about Nikons) it would force you to use even slower shutter speeds but you wouldn't get noise. On a bright sunny day you could still get clear pictures.
posted by selfnoise at 12:14 PM on December 15, 2007

Indeed, the amount of zoom won't have an impact on noise levels directly. It would have to be a secondary effect from the camera bumping up the ISO to compensate for the slower f stop. You can turn that off in the CSM menu.

That said, I've had stellar results with Noise Ninja.
posted by wierdo at 12:17 PM on December 15, 2007

First, the camera: check that the camera's default settings aren't adding "digital zoom" to the optical zoom (on mine, default settings meant that zooming in will operate the optical zoom, until it hits its max then continue zooming in via digital zoom, which is worse than useless if you already use photoshop and obviously makes noise a huge problem.
Next, learn to force your ISO as low as possible (this will lower shutter speed, so you may want a steady hand if using the zoom in poor light, or a bit of string to use as a string tripod), as ISO is where the worst of the noise comes from. Unlikely to be a problem, but if you have the camera set to save images as JPEG, check that the camera hasn't decided to use the highest compression setting. You could also mess around with RAW, but it sounds like that would probably be a bit like using the finetune dial before you've set the tuning dial to a station, so I wouldn't really suggest that yet.

Software-wise, the reduce-noise filter in Photoshop CS is the best that I know of (which isn't saying too much, but still). If you don't have a good grasp of what each of the sliders do and how to use it in Advanced Mode, that's the obvious place to start (probably too obvious, sorry).

The next step from there is combining the noise tools with the retouching tools. Again, it's no great revelation, but I mention it in case you haven't tried it. A simple example, I had a photo with a detailed landscape, and a sky that was a gently graded hue. Because of all the detail of the landscape (tiny rocks and blades of grass), the noise was not apparent - it just looked like extra detail, the way a matte artist fools the eye, but in the sky, it was very apparent, because it was clear deviation from the flat tones. So the solution is different levels of noise filtering for different parts of the image. (add a layer with higher noise filtering, and use a cut-out of the sky as the layer mask).
In most photos, this would be a much more involved and specific process (eg manually removing noise by retouching areas of faces and specific areas where it's a problem, so that you get most of the benefits of noise removed by human skill, without the hours involved in doing the entire photo. Just the 20% of the area that is going to make 80% of the difference.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:17 PM on December 15, 2007

Oh, and I should have added this:

Unless it's awful, you won't notice the noise when you print the photo, unless you print it very large. Stop pixel peeping and you'll be better off. ;)
posted by wierdo at 12:18 PM on December 15, 2007

Adjust your ISO to the lowest setting you can use and still correctly expose the scene. A higher ISO lets you use smaller apertures and shorter shutter speeds, but you pay for it in noise. (In film photography, higher ISOs result in more apparent grain.) Since f3.4 is a slowish lens, you will need a longer exposure and will benefit a great deal by using a tripod for these shots. For those times without a tripod, though, grain/noise is more welcome than motion blur from your hand or the subject!
posted by bonobo at 12:22 PM on December 15, 2007

The D200 won't have digital zoom. The issue is more likely high ISO setting to compensate for smaller aperture, as mentioned already.

Noise Ninja is supposed to be really good. Other than that, I'd have to second the idea that you shouldn't worry about noise so much. The alternative is usually motion blur, which is much worse.
posted by knave at 12:22 PM on December 15, 2007

So the solution is different levels of noise filtering for different parts of the image

Forgot to note that this allows the sky to have noise reduced so aggressively that it would completely destroy the landscape if applied to the entire photo, but it doesn't matter in the sky because there was nothing there to destroy - just a gently graded flat tone.

Also, in cases like that sky, filters like gaussian blur, which you'd normally be crazy to use for noise reduction, are suddenly potentially useful. Basically, have the full suite of photoshop's tools at your disposal - don't approach it from the angle of looking for things specifically designed to remove noise, or you're overlooking half the tools available to you.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:27 PM on December 15, 2007

2nding everyone else. Noise blends into prints unless you're doing extreme cropping.

Take a gander at the film speed wiki. The trade-off for light sensitivity is noise. bright light > low ISO number > no noise. Low light > high ISO number > lots of noise.
posted by cowbellemoo at 12:33 PM on December 15, 2007

I've had pretty good results with Neat Image, but to be honest I don't bother using it that often, only when there's a very noisy 'field' in a picture
posted by Flashman at 12:35 PM on December 15, 2007

Dfine, absolutely, you'd be surprised to see how many pros use it. Dfine, dfine, dfine. It's like 99 dollars but worth it, it cleans up noise like it's not even there
posted by matteo at 2:18 PM on December 15, 2007

(on a sidenote, try not to work in P, on general principle, especially since you're trying to learn -- manual is golden)
posted by matteo at 2:21 PM on December 15, 2007

It's ISO. On auto at that range it may be setting it to 400, which can be a bit noisy on Nikons. As an experiment, switch to P mode and fix ISO in settings to the lowest value (50 or 100) then check the picture. I have a 70-300VR Nikon lens and there is no noise at ISO 100 on my d50, and the d200 is considerably better.

Also before you try NEat Image, in photoshop cs2, change the picture mode to lab, and blend the a and b channels only using a mild setting on surface blur. This should deal quite well with noise in images you've already taken. And like matteo said, the best way to learn is to shoot manual.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:15 PM on December 15, 2007

You can often compensate for noise at high ISO by overexposing slightly. Noise is often prevalent in shadow areas, and when you bring these up (usually with exposure adjustment, increasing brightness, or curves), you amplify the noise. Go in the other direction - overexpose a little, and you'll bring the noise level down when you correct it in post.

It is MUCH better to have this kind of shot overexposed than underexposed, unless you're losing too much detail in the blown highlights, in which case there may not be much else you can do anyway.
posted by Caviar at 7:43 AM on December 17, 2007