Noisy images with D300 & D300s?

[Craig Thompson]

I posted this question in another Nature forum site, and thought I'd post it here as well to cast a "wider net", ...to fish in a "larger" pool of knowledge so to speak!! So,.. here is my problem;

I have a question about the CMOS sensors in these cameras and the supposed "Exceptionally Low Noise" results for the D300 & D300s.

Early this spring I rented a D300, and I just purchased a D300s. Both cameras at ISO 400 are FAR noisier than the images taken with my D70. This is while initially viewing them in Lightroom 2.1 & 2.5 and at any level of magnification, (not just while pixel peeping @ 100%)

Even at ISO 200 these cameras seem to result in much noisier images than my other digital camera.

I shot both cameras with the in camera menus set to Adobe RGB, 14bit, no compression. No noise reduction.

The images of the fox kits I took this spring with the D300, required a Lot, and I do mean A Lot, of work to remove excessive noise in the OOF, colors in the background. Some shots of a weasel I took with this same D300, at ISO 800, are pretty much unusable due to the excessive noise. I assumed at the time, that being a "rented" camera, the trouble may have been with it!! But,...

...Yesterday I took several hundred macro shots of a flower with the new D300s, and these are extremely noisy as well!!

I thought, and have read in all the various reviews that these cameras and their "New" sensors and processing engine give "superb" low noise response. So I'm wondering,.. what Gives?????

Am I missing something?? Does obtaining those "claimed" low noise results require always leaving the camera on one of its "low noise", or some other setting that I'm unaware of?

TIA for any help you can give!

Craig

[Nancy A Elwood]

Craig I leave my D300 on low noise and PP in NX2. NX2 first of all reads that in camera setting, I shoot RAW, so I do not need to do anything else, plus I try my best to get the the subject exposed to the right on the histogram. Sky and shadows if they apply that show a bit of noise I use selective noise reduction. I have used my D300 at 200 through 1600 iso and find it when exposed right a terrific camera. Exposed right just means, subject area on the histogram to the right of center. But, you might try PP in NX2. I do that then save as 16-bit TIFF for any stuff I want to do in CS3.

[Harold Davis]

i agree with nancy. i have a D300 also and find ISO 1000 and 1250 and sometimes even 1600 easily managable by exposing as far right in the histogram as possible without blowing it out. i dont know the D300s so i cant comment on that.

[allanrube]

I like the noise level of D300 up to 1200. After that it is too noisy for me. I can't compare it to a D70 but either you are doing something wrong or else the D70 processes jpgs more aggressively than the D300. I shoot raw and try to keep the camera from doing any sharpening, nr, and other whatevers.

[James Shadle]

IMO the noise levels on my D300 are outstanding!
Much cleaner than the D100, D200, D2h and D2x all of which I have owned and used.

For the best results, make sure your exposure is correct and use Nikon Capture to convert the RAW files.

If shooting .jpg make sure noise reduction is turned on in camera. The in camera noise reduction is not applied until ISO 800.

[Craig Thompson]

Thanks for the replies.

Sorry I didn't make it clear when I first posted, All these images I'm referring to were shot in RAW format. I don't really do any shooting in JPG.

I am shooting at the largest RAW file setting, 14 bit, uncompressed, or equivalent on the D70, No in camera sharpening or any other in camera image adjustments. I do a simple drag & drop transfer from the card to the hard drive and then import folder into Lightroom. I had to DL lightroom 2.5 in order to get Camera RAW 5.5 so I could import the D300s images as 2.1 wouldn't handle them. The camera RAW settings in LR are at whatever the default settings are when the program loads. (I haven't gone in and changed them, I believe that LR applies 25% sharpening to the previews only)

I have CS3, and RAW5.5 isn't compatible with it, so I can't open the D300s's images in PS and evaluate them there.

I haven't used Nikon Transfer or Nikon View as I found them to be "painfully slow" even on an intel iMac with 2.5gigs of RAM, but it's been several years since I tried any of Nikons image software. (I don't want to pay for Nikon Capture!! Too expensive and in the past, way too slow!)

Hope this helps clear things up! :confused: ;)

Craig

[Desmond Chan]

the supposed "Exceptionally Low Noise" results for the D300 & D300s.

What does "exeptionally low noise" mean?

Both cameras at ISO 400 are FAR noisier than the images taken with my D70. This is while initially viewing them in Lightroom 2.1 & 2.5 and at any level of magnification, (not just while pixel peeping @ 100%)

Even at ISO 200 these cameras seem to result in much noisier images than my other digital camera.

Care to post one from D70 and another pic from your D300 to show what you mean?

The images of the fox kits I took this spring with the D300, required a Lot, and I do mean A Lot,

"A lot"...meaning...?

these are extremely noisy as well!!

"...extremely nosiy..." like what?

So I'm wondering,.. what Gives?????

I'd like to know, too.

Am I missing something??

How about some examples, photos to show what you mean by "exceptionally low noise", "a lot", and "extremely low noise"?

I read somewhere that there's always noise even with low ISO regardless of your camera. It just a matter of if they're visible/noticeable, I think.

Just so you know, I shoot all the way to ISO3200.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Thanks for the replies.

Sorry I didn't make it clear when I first posted, All these images I'm referring to were shot in RAW format. I don't really do any shooting in JPG.

I am shooting at the largest RAW file setting, 14 bit, uncompressed, or equivalent on the D70, No in camera sharpening or any other in camera image adjustments. I do a simple drag & drop transfer from the card to the hard drive and then import folder into Lightroom. I had to DL lightroom 2.5 in order to get Camera RAW 5.5 so I could import the D300s images as 2.1 wouldn't handle them. The camera RAW settings in LR are at whatever the default settings are when the program loads. (I haven't gone in and changed them, I believe that LR applies 25% sharpening to the previews only)

I have CS3, and RAW5.5 isn't compatible with it, so I can't open the D300s's images in PS and evaluate them there.

I haven't used Nikon Transfer or Nikon View as I found them to be "painfully slow" even on an intel iMac with 2.5gigs of RAM, but it's been several years since I tried any of Nikons image software. (I don't want to pay for Nikon Capture!! Too expensive and in the past, way too slow!)

Hope this helps clear things up! :confused: ;)

Craig

Craig, you have to set your own profiles up in LR, if that is what you are going to use. LR will only read, or see, your WB settings, nothing else. I have profiles setup in camera, but then I use NX2 which reads all the in camera settings. NX2 is less money than LR. Plus then you would not have to worry about the right adobe Raw version. The default settings are just that default, and normally not very good, at least IMHO. Plus the new NX2 is much improved and it also has a trial download.

[arash_hazeghi]

Craig,

It is very unusual for D300 to produce more noise than the vintage D70, can you post an example? Something is wrong with exposure or processing of the NEF files. D300 and D300(s) have the same sensor so noise performance is identical.

[Desmond Chan]

Ok, Craig, I guess I do spend too much time on the the net and this time I stumbled upon this:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/v...?f=57&t=163275

There you said some of your shots were under-exposed by could be up to a stop. It's kind of interesting that you did not choose to use a higher ISO to maintain the correct exposure with the same shutter speed and f-stop but rather, stayed with whatever settings you were using and let the image under-exposed.


Hope you also post some of those shots here so that folks here could help you better.



BTW, like here, you don't have to be a paid member to post your pics there.

[Thonnaksar NOP]

I posted this question in another Nature forum site, and thought I'd post it here as well to cast a "wider net", ...to fish in a "larger" pool of knowledge so to speak!! So,.. here is my problem;

I have a question about the CMOS sensors in these cameras and the supposed "Exceptionally Low Noise" results for the D300 & D300s.

Early this spring I rented a D300, and I just purchased a D300s. Both cameras at ISO 400 are FAR noisier than the images taken with my D70. This is while initially viewing them in Lightroom 2.1 & 2.5 and at any level of magnification, (not just while pixel peeping @ 100%)

Even at ISO 200 these cameras seem to result in much noisier images than my other digital camera.

I shot both cameras with the in camera menus set to Adobe RGB, 14bit, no compression. No noise reduction.

The images of the fox kits I took this spring with the D300, required a Lot, and I do mean A Lot, of work to remove excessive noise in the OOF, colors in the background. Some shots of a weasel I took with this same D300, at ISO 800, are pretty much unusable due to the excessive noise. I assumed at the time, that being a "rented" camera, the trouble may have been with it!! But,...

...Yesterday I took several hundred macro shots of a flower with the new D300s, and these are extremely noisy as well!!

I thought, and have read in all the various reviews that these cameras and their "New" sensors and processing engine give "superb" low noise response. So I'm wondering,.. what Gives?????

Am I missing something?? Does obtaining those "claimed" low noise results require always leaving the camera on one of its "low noise", or some other setting that I'm unaware of?

TIA for any help you can give!

Craig

You are not the only person who finds the D300s noisy. A friend of mine has lent me his D300s and D700 for a quick comparative test side by side with my D2Hs. I have used the same settings as you discribed above and the results were quite "aweful" : the D300s image quality is far behind the D2Hs and the D700 (in DX mode) from 400 ISO.

[Craig Thompson]

First, Thank you to very one taking the time to post a reply!! I do appreciate your responses!!

There you said some of your shots were under-exposed by could be up to a stop. It's kind of interesting that you did not choose to use a higher ISO to maintain the correct exposure with the same shutter speed and f-stop but rather, stayed with whatever settings you were using and let the image under-exposed.

Desmond,

I did! I shot some @ ISO 800 & 1600. I deleted those as soon as I saw them!! Those images had little dots of odd colors scattered in the noise! (It looked a lot like someone oversprayed very fine, multi colored paint droplets on the image!!) I had been using that rented lens and camera combo for a few days by then and I knew already that any ISO above 400 was pretty much garbage!!

...Hope you also post some of those shots here so that folks here could help you better.

BTW, like here, you don't have to be a paid member to post your pics there.

True, but I don't have any links to another hosting site, nor do I know how to post an image that way! :confused: :( Sorry!! Also,.. I'm not sure how to convert, crop and post an image here that will be able to show exactly what it is I'm talking about. At the size limits imposed for posting images in the forums, I'm not sure the noise will be visible enough in the OOF area's of these images to provide an accurate representation of the issue!

I am looking at, and working on a couple of images to try giving it a shot though!! If I'm successful at working up and putting together a good, representative sample of the problem, samples that accurately show the problem even at the size limits mandated by the forum, I promise I will post them here!! (...and probably post a link to them in the other forum I posted this ? in!! :D ;) )

Thanks again to everyone!!
Craig

[Craig Thompson]

Ok,.. Here goes!! I don't know for sure if posting more than one sample image here violates the forums rules.

If it does, I humbly apologize and will not feel "violated" ;) if the moderator needs to remove them! :D ;)

I opened these ".nef" files in @ 8bits Photoshop CS3. NO, exposure, color, noise or any other image adjustments made. Turned camera RAW's sharpening to Zero before opening! (...default is set @ 25%)

I expanded the window and viewed the image enlarged to 100%, (the entire full frame of the image was not viewable in this window) I then took a crop @ 1024 "Pixels" along the long side from whatever was showing in the window and saved that as the .jpg I'm posting here! (...if there is a flaw in my method, someone will have to explain an alternative to me,.. use small words,.. I'm not that bright!!!) :D ;)

The first 2 images posted are as close to a side by side comparison of the D70 & D300s as I could manage. They are of the same type of flower taken in the same garden. the only difference in the way they were processed was, the D300s image had to be exported as a .tiff before I could open it in CS3. Other than that,.. the processing parameters I mentioned above apply to both.

The first was shot with the D70, second with the D300s. To my eye, the seconds noise is far more pronounced. It's bigger, clumpier, etc.

[Craig Thompson]

...ok, couldn't put them both in the last message, but here's the sample image from the D300s!

The OOF greens are where I find the worst of the noise!!

[Harold Davis]

perfect examples craig and an easy explanation from me is that the D300s image is very underexposed. i downloaded both and checked histograms. the D70 image is perfect exposure and the D300s image is a stop or a stop and a third under. you most definitely will have noise issues with images that dont have proper exposures. even if you are trying for a mood in an image, expose properly, with info in the right box, and then process it to a lower brightness. will have much better image quality!!

[Craig Thompson]

Thanks Harold,

Here's another shot from the D70. As near as I can tell, the histograms for this image and the one posted from the D300s are "roughly" the same. they appear to have similar amounts of information in the same areas of the histogram, and both appear to my eye to be initially under exposed,.. yet the D70's image does not appear to have quite the same noise problem!

Am I interpreting these histograms properly? Doesn't the D70's noise, (...and there plainly is "noise" in it, for sure!) doesn't it appear less,.. objectionable somehow??? Less grossly apparent???

...that's just "My" feeling about the two images! (..maybe my "Ex" was right!! ...maybe "I am "too" sensitive!!!!) :D;)

Craig

[Harold Davis]

you must be reading the histograms wrong, because from what i see, the difference between the last one you posted and the D300s image, the last one is still 2/3rds over the D300s. a better exposed image.

[Craig Thompson]

...we-e-e-ell, I did say "roughly"! ;)

...even so,... 2/3rds is a pretty fair amount of difference! So I guess I am misjudging the histograms more than I thought!

I will keep that in mind when doing further testing! Thanks!!

Craig

[Harold Davis]

when you go back out with the 300, expose til the data almost touches the right edge. i mean ragged edge. all the way. just not touching. but just barely not touching!!! you will see the difference. most times when i am shooting macro i will shoot 1000-1600 on my 300 with minimal problems.

[Glenn Forbes]

I use a D300 and have had very good results with noise up to ISO800. I'm not sure if your photos are heavily cropped, so that could be a factor. Also low light can be a problem with as far as noise. I use PS CS3 and the Adobe Raw converter. I believe the necessary file is "Camera_Raw_4_6" and is for ver. 4.1.1. Adobe doesn't seem to have the file available on its web site anymore, so maybe someone else might be able to direct you to the download file.

[James Shadle]

The D300 image was over a full stop under-exposed.
I used the CS4 noise reduction and average filter to reduce to noise before I brought the levels up and sharpened.

[Norm Dulak]

when you go back out with the 300, expose til the data almost touches the right edge. i mean ragged edge. all the way. just not touching. but just barely not touching!!! you will see the difference. most times when i am shooting macro i will shoot 1000-1600 on my 300 with minimal problems.

I agree that exposure to produce a proper right-biased histogram without blowing out the whites is all important. If one is careful of this, there should not be a noise problem with the D300 up to ISO 800.

Norm Dulak

[Craig Thompson]

I just wanted to thank everyone who took the time to post on this topic!!

I think I have a pretty good idea now of what to expect from this camera, why I've been seeing what I've been seeing, and hopefully, what to do to improve the next batch of images!!

Thanks again to everyone!!!

Craig

p.s. Here's a link to my first image, officially posted on this site for critique!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=46306

It was shot with this new camera! (I hope you'll all look in and maybe comment on it!)

Thanks again everybody!!!!
C.

[arash_hazeghi]

Craig,
The first issue is that you cannot compare any of these images and draw any conclusions, if you really want to compare the two you need to setup a tripod, set both cameras to manual shoot the same scene with exactly the same exposure. You have shot different scenes with different exposures, too many variables.
The oof area in D70 shots shows some posterization (separation of tones) so there must be some compression going on which can suppress fine grain noise, as I remember D70 NEF files were lossy.

[Jim Poor]

I'll chime in and say that the oft touted mantra of "expose to the right" is NOT the key to minimizing noise.

I shoot indoor dog sports where light is more precious than gold. My normal settings are ISO 6400 1/500 f2 for ring work with a 200mm. For candid shots and even worse than bad light, I break out the 85mm and go to f1.4.

I typically shoot around 10K photos per day and don't have time to mess with noise when posting proofs (I will do some NR for final orders of prints) so I've toyed with the best way to get low noise. The key is complete and blatant OVER EXPOSURE.

Raising the exposure in post introduces noise. Lowering the exposure does not.

Granted, you're not going to match a D3 with a D300, but you can get the most out of any DSLR by over exposing to the point of blinkies galore and then bringing back the exposure in post. The key is learning just how far you can over expose and still get detail where it counts. Even so, this goes well beyond "expose to the right."

[Norm Dulak]

Jim:

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't overexposure require serious setting of the histogram to the right? And while you may think that "exposing to the point of blinkies galore" works for your indoor dog sport photography, I would not recommend it for outdoor photographers photographing birds or other subjects with white areas. If you clip and blow out the whites, you cannot bring them back in post processing.

Norm Dulak

[Chad Griggs]

Check to see if your long exposure NR is on. I've found that if this is left on during regular shots it will make a more noisy image.

[James Shadle]

Jim said:
"I'll chime in and say that the oft touted mantra of "expose to the right" is NOT the key to minimizing noise."

Would you agree that exposing to the right (while not being complete and blatant OVER EXPOSURE) still delivers less noise than not doing so?

How do you completely and blatantly OVER EXPOSURE when dealing with whites?

Would an image using noise reduction software and proper(not under)exposure be faster to process than an image that was completely and blatantly OVER EXPOSED?

I guess the issue I have is Jim saying "mantra of "expose to the right" is NOT(bold font mine) the key to minimizing noise."

Exposing to the right is a key, not the only key.
Not everyone can photograph scenes that allow images to be completely and blatantly OVER EXPOSED.
But if you can, it does work :).

[Norm Dulak]

Check to see if your long exposure NR is on. I've found that if this is left on during regular shots it will make a more noisy image.

The default High ISO NR setting on the D300 is "Normal." Does anyone know how to set this for the best results? Would "low" or "high" be better?

Norm Dulak

[Chad Griggs]

Norm, I'm sorry I meant the Long Exp NR. The Long Exp NR is different than the High ISO NR

[Norm Dulak]

Norm, I'm sorry I meant the Long Exp NR. The Long Exp NR is different than the High ISO NR

Chad:

I understand that. But I don't understand why that setting is at all relevant during normal shooting. According to the D300 User's Manual, Long Exp. NR is only effective for shutter speeds slower than 8 seconds!

Much more relevant for normal shooting conditions is the High ISO setting, since noise problems generally worsen as ISO increases.

Again, what is the best setting for High ISO NR in the D300 camera? Is it the default Normal setting, or High, Low or Off?

Norm Dulak

[Scott Grant]

The default High ISO NR setting on the D300 is "Normal." Does anyone know how to set this for the best results? Would "low" or "high" be better?

Norm Dulak

you have to make that decision yourself Norm. no one can tell you what setting is better for your own needs.

i can tell you that 'High' is better, but if you don't like what you see than that does not make it better for you, correct?

i would presume that is why there are three settings...one can dial in the amount of NR that one is comfortable with. :)

[Scott Grant]

double post

[Jim Poor]

Perhaps expose EXTREME right would be a better way to phrase it. But people have been so brainwashed to the thought that even one 255 pixel in an image is bad that we end up with a lot of underexposed images whether shooting high ISO or not.

I hired a second shooter that was so afraid of clipping any whites that all her shots of the actual event (the subject) were underexposed because there was a white tent way back in the distance that 'couldn't" be clipped.

I've found that blinkies don't mean lost data (shooting raw, and assuming that you are just at the edge of blinkydom), which you can only figure out through trial and error. I regularly over expose by a stop to a stop and a half and get all the detail I need.

White is white whether it is a dog or a bird and the same thing works outdoors as in.

I should also clarify that the key (a key?) is over exposure of the subject rather than the whole frame.

Jim:

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't overexposure require serious setting of the histogram to the right? And while you may think that "exposing to the point of blinkies galore" works for your indoor dog sport photography, I would not recommend it for outdoor photographers photographing birds or other subjects with white areas. If you clip and blow out the whites, you cannot bring them back in post processing.

Norm Dulak

[Norm Dulak]

you have to make that decision yourself Norm. no one can tell you what setting is better for your own needs.

i can tell you that 'High' is better, but if you don't like what you see than that does not make it better for you, correct?

i would presume that is why there are three settings...one can dial in the amount of NR that one is comfortable with. :)

I think that in the near future I'll conduct a series of exposures with my D300, using a subject with a wide tonal range and considerable detail. I'll use ISO at least 800, and each of the possible High ISO NR settings, including Off.

If I get results that I think might be of interest to others, I'll post them in a new thread. The key for me will be the effectiveness of the in-camera noise reduction at the various settings, and the nature of the noise reduction. It will be important to know whether such noise reduction might also be accompanied by an undesirable loss of detail.

Norm Dulak

[Sandra Nykerk]

James, could you please outline your procedure for reducing the noise in this image. I am assuming that you use the average filter first, and then apply the NR filter? How do you determine the best settings for each image? I have never been happy with the PS NR filter and am currently mostly using Topaz deNoise but always wonder if I am just not approaching the PS filter correctly.

Thanks very much,
Sandra

[Richard Peters]

I have a love hate relationship with my D300. When I am away in Florida I use it all the time thanks to all that lovely sunshine. However in the UK I try not to use it too much and if I do I won't shoot over ISO800 (ideally 400). It is far superior to the likes of the D2x, D200 etx I used to own, but unfortunately I got my D300 as a backup to my D3...and that has spoiled me rotten over the last 18 months or so.

I usually apply a small amount of Noise Ninja to my D300 files but only to the backgrounds, I keep the main subject free of noise reduction to maintain the finer details.

[Chad Griggs]

Chad:

I understand that. But I don't understand why that setting is at all relevant during normal shooting. According to the D300 User's Manual, Long Exp. NR is only effective for shutter speeds slower than 8 seconds!

Much more relevant for normal shooting conditions is the High ISO setting, since noise problems generally worsen as ISO increases.

Again, what is the best setting for High ISO NR in the D300 camera? Is it the default Normal setting, or High, Low or Off?

Norm Dulak

I was just giving a tip to make sure that feature wasn't on by accident. I wasn't commenting about the rest of your question. The other seemed to have covered it.