Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
nikon d60 noise reduction? leave on?
- Thread starter 88888888
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I leave it off all the time, but from what I recall it only kicks in on anything of ISO400 and over anyway.
I shoot RAW so in-camera noise reduction has no effect anyway, and your mileage may vary, but I would leave noise reduction off.
The latest crop of digital SLRs all have excellent noise characteristics. We are at a point where digital noise is generally cleaner than film noise but for some reason we want even more. Worse, many people are looking at images 100% on screen and fretting over noise that would not be seen in a printed image.
Further, these higher megapixel cameras, while not necessary on most fronts for most people, do produce smaller perceived pixels in a print such that the "grain" of digital noise is finer and more film-like (at least from my Nikons).
Nose reduction ALWAYS takes some detail away, though is less noticeable if you are only adjusting chromaticism rather than luminance. However, I think we have gone too far in noise reduction these days where I feel it is no longer really necessary. People rave about solutions like Noise Ninja, which I find to be no different than any other noise solution at removing detail to imply a smoother tone. In fact, this is one of the things I really like about Aperture. Compared to other packages Aperture has little for noise reduction unless you use a plug-in. However, as I say I don't think it's as necessary these days and the little Aperture does is enough...it actually retains detail I had forgotten was in my images due to even mild noise reduction in other packages. My photos from Aperture "appear" to maintain a greater level of detail and ever so subtle grittiness than other packages which contribute to Aperture's better "film look" in my opinion.
All the best,
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
The latest crop of digital SLRs all have excellent noise characteristics. We are at a point where digital noise is generally cleaner than film noise but for some reason we want even more. Worse, many people are looking at images 100% on screen and fretting over noise that would not be seen in a printed image.
Further, these higher megapixel cameras, while not necessary on most fronts for most people, do produce smaller perceived pixels in a print such that the "grain" of digital noise is finer and more film-like (at least from my Nikons).
Nose reduction ALWAYS takes some detail away, though is less noticeable if you are only adjusting chromaticism rather than luminance. However, I think we have gone too far in noise reduction these days where I feel it is no longer really necessary. People rave about solutions like Noise Ninja, which I find to be no different than any other noise solution at removing detail to imply a smoother tone. In fact, this is one of the things I really like about Aperture. Compared to other packages Aperture has little for noise reduction unless you use a plug-in. However, as I say I don't think it's as necessary these days and the little Aperture does is enough...it actually retains detail I had forgotten was in my images due to even mild noise reduction in other packages. My photos from Aperture "appear" to maintain a greater level of detail and ever so subtle grittiness than other packages which contribute to Aperture's better "film look" in my opinion.
All the best,
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure
Hmm so the noise reduction is at the expense of losing detail?
Yes, but sometimes it is very worth the trade off. Long exposure noise reduction is often worth it depending on the subject. Though I'm not sure about the D60, I assume it has a long exposure noise reduction, in which it takes a dark frame after the light and averages it to remove noise/hot pixels. I generally only find this useful with shots at iso 1600 or 3200 with exposure times of 30 seconds or so, especially when I'm stacking them, but I take the dark frames separately and let the computer reduce the noise, rather than the camera. I would personally turn off noise reduction, and do it in post on a case by case basis that you decide if you need it.
This is only true if you're not shooting long exposures-- long exposure NR subtracts an equal-length dark frame from the image in raw mode.
The nice thing about in-camera LE NR is that the dark frame's exposure time is exactly the same as the image, and with the sensor a little warmer (from taking the image, especially if it's the first "cold bore" shot,) but essentially at near the same temperature. That means that thermal noise reduction should be more optimal than from a shorter exposure dark frame taken manually inside. The trade-off is in battery life and shutter actuations.
I'm curious though- if you're doing long exposures anyway, why wouldn't you do them at the sensor's base ISO, or nearer to it?
But, you have to wait until that dark frame finishes in order to take another shot. when I do astrophotography, I want to take the lights as close together rather than do a light, then wait the same time for a dark for be taken. I take my darks at the end of my session, at the same temperature, iso, etc... as well as my flats/biases.
I use such high ISO for the reason after a certain time, star trailing comes in, so I can capture more light without star trailing.
Ah, I've not looked into this. Perhaps I assume too much.
Thank you for the heads up. I will have a look.
All the best,
Jesse Widener
Art and Structure