That explains a lot! I watched this at 1080P on an 11" tablet and I had a hard time seeing the differences you were pointing out. With the TH-cam compression, even the ISO 16000 shots looked perfectly fine to me! 😆 (I was thinking, man Steve really is a picky pixel peeper!)
Thanks! I think your work here in this video episode is really important, very revealing and convincing, and I hope you consider sharing it with even a wider audience. I totally agree with the points you are making here. I find making LARGE prints (for that 'WOW!! factor') to be the most rewarding outlet for my photos, and in those large prints is where I really notice the artifacts, which increase with ISO, that get added to my photos by denoise software, as the denoise AI tries to fill in the grain with appropriate detail. In contrast, low resolution images (2048 pixels on the long edge) posted on social media are fine at higher ISOs, which people tend to look at these days on their tiny phone screens so they don't notice the detail artifacts and lower quality. Making large prints (at least 12x18 inches or at least 18x18 at 300 pixels per inch), I limited my Canon R5 M1 photos usually to ISO
Thanks so much! And I'm with you on printing. Nothing like seeing a photo printed large IMO. I think that's why I'm always railing against high ISOs :)
In the UK at this time of year, higher ISO is often needed and I'm in a Camera Club (Killamarsh Amateur Photographic Society - check our website) We project the images to 8ftx 6ft approx, at 1920x1200px jpg image size, so any poor sharpening shows up really clearly. I took an owl in poor light, used Topaz, Canon R5 and it looked awful when projected.
The thing it seems many people misunderstand is the effect of cropping. The more you crop the more noise will be visible. Full frame is not better than crop cameras unless you fill the frame! The video you have on this topic is excellent!
The real decision "do I take the photo knowing I have to denoise later, or I give up and do not even bother". modern software makes more likely to keep the shooting.
I don't understand the dichotomy you present. I get more passable images if I shoot high ISO and fast shutter speed, but my chances of an actually good image are better with low ISO and low shutter speed.
@@grahamfloyd3451 fair. I guess what I was trying to say is that the max ISO most people would even consider shooting at (versus not even pressing the shutter) has increased significantly as denoise software gets better.
@@grahamfloyd3451 it depends on what you think a “good image” is. The dichotomy only exists with sports and wildlife. Owls, Elk and many others, have most of the action right before the sun is up. I regularly shoot at 6400… I’d say most of my images are 3200 to 6400 shooting with an F4 lens. When my iso is around 100 to 400… with 500SS and F4.5…. I’m generally shooting in the light at the very END of the action, if I’m lucky.
If you are able to make that choice, chances are that what you are photographing isn't very compelling to begin with! If I am having unbelievable wildlife action happening in front of me, action that is going to be a blurry mess if I try to shoot it at less than 6400 ISO, I don't have a choice! The photographer in me is not going to let me walk away! Of course ISO matters! The point that photographers make is that it matter LESS than aperture and shutter speed. It is the only setting that does not affect the artistic aspects of the image. I have pictures hanging on my wall right now. Some that I denoised the sh!+ out of, and others taken at 100 ISO. I guarantee you that the average viewer is not going to tell the difference. Another photographer, scrutinizing them up close? Maybe. But the average viewer? No. I shoot for the average viewer.
A couple of minutes in. I really don’t need to watch this. I use deniose when I need. It’s easier for a professional with prime lenses not to need it. I got a Parott Anafi drone. Beautiful pictures. But low light isn’t great. So…
Finally someone on TH-cam being prepared to call out all the issues with AI noise reduction software. All those " stringy" feather details (artifacts) when I zoom in. And its the same with pixel peeping. I really enjoy zooming in and admiring admiring the detail that I paid for. Its just so obvious that on the channels that give all these rose coloured reviews that they NEVER zoom right in on the details. And I agree that the version in lightroom is not as heavy handed as the others and hence is my preference. 😊 Well done Steve.
it is easy to say "just shoot in lower ISO" when you have large aperture telephoto primes. But most people barely afford a 6.3 zoom lens and they are used for the same kind of subjects as the 600mm f4 which costs about €20K
Lower ISO is not the solution for less noise. ETTR (expose to the right) is. It's all about ENOUGH LIGHT!!! This gives the best signal to noise ratio, so the lowest noise possible, whatever ISO you use. Adjust your exposure later in LR and the noiselevel also decreases. You can shoot almost noisefree pictures at ISOs around 10.000 It is more work, but your photo quality improves al lot!
@peterschelwald7466 yes, you can also reduce noise by overexposing 0.3 stops. A7IV has horrible shadow noise on 0ev 100 iso, but going 0.3ev does wonders. Truth is, every new gen camera is like this since 2018. Sensors have changed a lot.
@@kingghidorah8106 not to point out the obvious, but you could get a vintage manual lens with good-ish characteristics, and if for example it's a 400m, if you use aps-c you get 600m. *borat voice* great success!
@@yuriythebest this is wrong in many levels First of: old lenses do not provide phase detection autofocus with adapters on mirrorless cameras, rendering the purpose of a wildlife lens that does not autofocus fast moving action secondly: old prime large aperture lenses are actually pretty expensive, the Minolta 500mm f/4 is €5000 on eBay Europe, that's NOT cheap. Third: APS-C does not gather the same amount of dilation so there's going to be more noise, so you could instead crop full frame photos or set the camera to aps-c mode but yes as an alternative if one can cope with no af tracking and are eager to spend 8000 bucks on a full frame camera and a large vintage prime they're good with a vintage lens
This is exactly what I needed! I’ve been really disappointed with high ISO denoise, and now I understand more about the limitations of the software. Thank you so much for creating this video.
@@backcountrygallery I did some tests with my camera, and arrived at the conclusion that I should only increase the ISO from 'base' if the light level or movement of the subject demands it. Then I watched half a dozen videos on YT and became completely confused with, what seemed to me, conflicting advice. At last, a video that confirms what a thought - from someone who knows what he's talking about. A nice, simple, sensible rule to use. Hurrah!
I have never heard anyone say that a high ISO, high noise image processed with noise reduction software is as good as a low ISO, low noise image that does not require noise reduction. However, they commonly say that the ability to shoot at high ISO and using noise reduction allows them to capture usable images that otherwise would not have been possible.
With so many photography analyses already published, it's gotten tougher and tougher to make a truly informative photography analysis. Yet this, here, is one of them. Thank you.
Great video! I use Dxo photolab and Topaz. You're right that depending of the camera, and the image, the better software isn't always the same. When the only thing to correct is the noise, i sometimes prefer Tooaze Denoise AI over Topaz photo AI. In all cases, i never let Topaz decide the level of denoising correction to apply. It always goes to far making images look fake. Denoising softwares recover very well these days, but it is still recover.
I think the main takeaway here is the "what are you personally ok with" point you made a few times. Sometimes I sit in the yard and take shots of very common birds just to be doing something and at most I'll share something on IG. I'd be fine using any of these tools for that at a pretty high ISO. If I go in search of something specific and I'm looking for a certain shot, I'm going to try to make sure I get it right in camera, but I wouldn't be too scared of using these tools if the ISO is at a low to moderately low range. Some people may not even be ok with that, and that's cool too. Great video Steve. For those who may want the best, I think this does a great job of showing people what they better aim for in the field.
Great video! It’s all about compromise. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Topaz adds too much sharpness and creates weird artifacts. I like their older versions better. Lightroom’s noise reduction is getting better and better. I find I’m using Topaz less and less.
I think the statement of 'I don't have to worry about high ISO because I use noise reduction software' is a very accurate statement. The software will get rid of almost all noise.... but at a cost to the overall quality of the end result in the form of over-sharpening, creating pixels that aren't there, making things look plasticy.
The good thing about different noise reduction models is that they almost never create problems in the same part of image. Combining several of them or even different software usually solves this problem.
If the software is doing that, just reduce it a little. Sometimes the default settings can be a little heavy handed. Accept a small amount of noise as a tradeoff. There's no magic wand. If you want a blur free image in less than ideal conditions you are going to have to raise the ISO and put up with some noise. If I have great action unfolding in front of me, I'm going to shoot it! ISO is the least of my concerns.
I was a Topaz user but after watching your video on how to DeNoise in Lightroom and have converted to LR and been using it almost exclusively. Thanks for another A+ video.
I started shooting film around 1970. So I have seen a lot of Tri-X pan negatives. Folks today should do some asking and take a look at the grain in a negative shot with this film. Once they have seen that they will be a lot less inclined to complain about noise. Personally one of the things that really impresses me with the Z7 II that I purchased last July is the amount of noise produced, at ISO 1600 and higher it is much lower than what I saw with my D750 at high ISO settings. So much better that instead of limiting my ISO settings to 1600 and lower I now consider ISO 6400 as the upper limit with my Z7 II. As long as I don't push past that point I don't even bother with fussing with the noise because with prints of 16x24 and smaller it's just not distracting in any way at all.
well, no shid, it's a 6 year gap difference. I've used an A200 for 6 years, and could shoot iso 1600 without an issue, then switched to A77II and ISO 1600 was slightly noisier but had less color noise. Then on A7IV I can shoot at ISO 8000 and get clean results if I overexpose 0.3ev but will get a lot of noise if I shoot on ISO 400 and 0.3 ev.
I got a Z7 recently after shooting Fuji for years. I'm not noise sensitive so basically my ISO upper limit is the cameras but wow the at 25,600 it's crazy how well the Z7 handles noise
I love to get up and shoot in the morning before sunrise, but often struggle with my 100-500 7.1 in low light. I think my biggest takeaway here is “ break out the monopod or tripod”. I hike and wander a lot, so I don’t like carrying extra gear, but I really need to start doing this more! Next tip for me is fill the frame. As a nature lover and photographer, I have a REALLY hard time not trying to get a photo vs. just being present watching. I know sometimes I’m looking for a happy accident when there isn’t enough light….but still, I will be running that shutter!
Another well organized tutorial. I have been using DxO to preview my photos for approximately 2 years now - and is my preferred starting place (as you do). Top ISO for me depends on the dynamic range or the shot and how much the composition fills the frame (and where the image is being shown). In general though, above ISO 5000-6000 is where I start feeling a bit uncomfortable with what I am seeing. Completely agree with the "Stringiness" of the denoise software and the oversharpening of Topaz at default settings (which I rarely use).
great information as always, Steve! The more I learn and the more I shoot, the more I understand the golden rule of life: "it depends". Also, good to note that IG and FB will compress your image when uploading so the more edited it is, the worse it will turn out anyways.
👍👍Thank you, Steve, for all the detailed information you have shared with us. I have been struggling with finding a solution for improving detail using the same software as you reviewed here. I have found the same results and came to the same conclusions as you. Your TH-cam video is 10 out of 10, on the mark, very informative, honest, accurate and the best of them all, on this subject.
Thanks for the in-depth comparison Steve. I watched your Lightroom de-noise tutorial a while back and really liked it, but on my computer the process just takes way too long to be a viable first choice. By comparison Topaz works a lot faster on my computer so that's the one I use every day. Of course, when I do bite the bullet and update my computer the situation will be different.
This was a great comparison. I have Topaz and I almost gave up on it until I started backing off some of the default sharpening. If you aren't careful it can create some very fake looking images. In general, I have been very pleased with the Lightroom Denoise, other than how long it takes on my underpowered computer. However, as you say, it is good to have options, and sometimes I get good results running it through LRC Denoise followed by a pass through Topaz with backed off settings that I used to create a preset.
Technology has made it possible to display my thousands of crap photos as acceptable, and for that, I'm thankful. Excellent as always Steve thank you. 💪
On my trip to Arizona in 2023 I had a red-naped sapsucker climbing a tree in front of me. It was a dark valley, but I knew that I will probably not get that chance so quickly again (I live in Germany), so I gave it a try. The result is decent, still a pretty clear shot, but with the knowledge I have today, I would rather try and get a sharp shot with longer exposure time than trying what I did back then and do it with 1/800s. Also, I do have Lightroom and Topaz, and I agree that Topaz, especially with high noise, tends to make up details or just get blurry.
It depends on what you are going for. If you just want the portrait of the sapsucker, sure. I would have shot a few like that. Low ISO and longer shutter speed. Hope it didn't move. Get the nice portrait! Woodpecker on the side of a tree. Nice shot! But then I would have set a shutter speed of 1/1600-1/2000, ISO be damned, and waited for it to fly. Beautiful shot, wings spread in all their glory, as it lifted off the tree! That would have been the shot! If it's noisy, it's noisy! I'll deal with it! Low ISO and you would have inadequate shutter speed, and a blurry mess!
@@alansach8437 If you are already working on high ISO with low shutterspeeds, nothing you shoot with 1/1600 or 1/2000 will look acceptable, at least not to me.
Thank you Steve for this in-depth session! The way you debunked the "high ISO noise doesn’t matter" myth was so insightful. Your side-by-side comparisons of low and high ISO images really showed the strengths and limits of denoise software like Topaz, Lightroom, and DxO. This video is a must-watch for anyone looking to maximize image quality straight from the field. Great work!
It's not that high ISO doesn't matter. It's that it matters less than a blurry image! You can mitigate high ISO and resulting noise. You can't do anything with a blurry picture. So, yes, ISO is the least of my worries when shooting action. I can only open the lens so far. I can only reduce shutter speed so much before my images are a blurry mess! Sometimes you have to decide, do I want the picture or not? Guess what? I never had anyone look at a print and say, "Too bad you didn't use a lower ISO!"
I use, Topaz, Luminar, and ON1 and sometimes RAW from Photoshop. Everything depends on what program I use. You brought up some good points about really slowing the shutter speed. Going to try that out next time. Always enjoy your videos so keep them coming.
This was a fantastic video! I really appreciate all the time and effort that went into it, getting to see real world comparisons of ISO and then the different denoise software results. I personally use LR and find it works well enough for me, and don't shoot above ISO 1600 on my Fuji X-S10, but will push it to 6400 in an emergency. I've tried C1 and DxO, but eventually went back to LR and find it handles x-trans files just fine now.
I have watched a lot of photography videos learning this wonderful (in my case) hobby. This was one of the most interesting informative videos I've ever seen. Thanks for digging deep into the details!
Thanks for this comparison, Steve. I shoot a Z9, with DXO for almost all preprocessing. I use a maximum of 6400 for flight, preferring to keep it 2000 or less. And, for non-flight, I never go above 1600, as I can compensate with shutter speed in nearly all cases. Everything manual, so I consciously know what I'm shooting at any given time.
Thanks for making this video, Steve. Interestingly, read noise is the same in all the photos. That's the primary benefit of cameras with dual-gain sensors. Read noise is constant from the dual-gain point through the highest ISO in the invariant range of the camera. The noise we see in the photos is shot noise, which is strictly determined by the total light energy used to make the photo. As exposure went down, noise became more prominent. ISO isn't a noise source and didn't contribute noise in any of the photos. I'm a longtime Lightroom Classic user and have come to love the Enhance tool. As you pointed out it removes noise and preserves detail that was captured in the raw file without adding unnatural-looking detail. I've been shooting with a Z9 for 6 months and, in that time, I've found I can make images worthy of sharing on social if the frame is filled at an exposure compatible with ISO 12800. If filling the frame, an exposure compatible with ISO 3200 delivers excellent results after run through Enhance. At ISO 1600 and lower (good, strong exposures), I've even got room to crop a bit and the resulting image will be of high enough quality for publication. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Thanks again, for making the video and inviting discussion of this topic.
@@jonasweiss5817 ISO communicates an exposure value to the camera. The camera uses this information to process a photo with a target lightness. ISO is not electrical gain/amplification. It doesn't add noise to an image. Nor does ISO clip highlights. In fact, the read noise many associate with ISO has historically gotten lower as exposure decreases and ISO increases. The introduction of dual-gain sensor architecture enabled cameras to generate the same low read noise at ISO 500 - in the case of the Z9 - as the camera generates at ISO 6400...or higher.
No one cares about the science. Doesn't make a lick of difference. All people care about is that their high ISO images are noisy! Doesn't matter whether the high ISO is causing the noise, or it's caused by a space boogeyman! For all practical purposes, they shoot at high ISO and their picture is noisy, therefore high ISO=noise.
This information is so accurate to what I have been starting to find out for myself. As I progress as a photographer I'm making better decisions of when to push my ISO. - If it's a rare bird that you get a fleeting opportunity of, keep that shutter speed high - If a waterbird is actively feeding and doesn't stop moving, check the shots as you take them to see if they are sharp and your shutter speed is fast enough - If it's a stationary bird, start with a high shutter speed for safety shots then lower your shutter speed gradually. - For common perched birds I have been shooting at ISO 1000, I don't mind the risk of motion blur in order to have maximum IQ.
I have so many old pictures, taken over the last 2 decades with various cameras even point and shoot cameras that noise reduction software is improving and the software is just getting better every year. I bought Topaz last year, it does a pretty good job even on jpeg pictures taken with the fairly primitive digital cameras that I could afford at that time.
Great video, Steve! I never tried Dxo, and so I am not familiar with it. Lightroom Denoise did not help my photos at all even after watching your tutorial video. I switched to Topaz, and I have been happier ever since. However, your comment about Topaz oversharpening the photo is spot on. I enjoy taking photos of wild horses, and when I run the photo through Topaz, the mane looks stringy and the neck shows spots where there were none. I just reduce the sharpening, and now the photo look great.
All very good sense, Steve, and backs up my own (admittedly less scientific) experience. Boy, I hate the way Topaz deals with feathers when sharpening, and denoise also sharpens in the separate programme I still have. So, nice video and good to have observations confirmed by yourself. Always clear, to the point and engaging! 👌
Steve, I don’t have Lightroom so I can’t make that comparison. I use Capture One and Affinity Photo most of the time. For noisier images I also use DxO PhotoLab 8 which has the latest version of DeepPrime noise reduction, currently DeepPRIME XD2s. I get amazing results with that and prior versions were almost as good. I usually dial it down just a bit from the default value of 40, say 35, and have made shots taken at ISO 10,000 look as though they were taken at ISO 100. Detail retention is almost unbelievable. There’s some variance of course but I’m always amazed at how good it works especially if you don’t apply much if any additional sharpening elsewhere since DeepPrime XD2s seems to apply enough on its own. Oh, and no made-up, weird generated detail. As far as I know it doesn’t use AI to generate what it can’t extract properly after reducing the noise.
Great video Steve! As a previous topaz user, couldn’t agree more that it over sharpens. I dialed back by nearly half. I’m starting to use LR denoise almost exclusively now because it does a great job and it comes with the software.
Lightroom Denoise has worked great for, but that was an excellent point/tip you made around the 21 minute mark about distant subjects. I'll definitely keep that in mind 👍
Your question about "how much of a hit will you actually take?" is obviously a good one. Photographers that desire to progress beyond the average will ask, "How much of a hit can I afford to take?" You did a LOT of work getting shots similar enough to make this kind of comparison. I do have a couple of comments. First, you may be ther first YT person I've seen mention that higher ISO loses color fidelity. That is VERY important if you aspire to be better than average. The other thing is that if you understand what denoise software is doing, you now that there is always a trade-off, no matter what software you use. It may be a different trade-off with different software, but there is ALWAYS a trade-off. The other thing, and you (unlike most people) actually talked about it. De-noise software can't create detail. That's generative AI, and at this point it also always has trade-offs. The main thing is whether you, as a photographer, consider yourself and artist or a technician. Sometimes in low light a shot comes along that is absolutely stunning, but requires higher ISO. Run that through a generative AI program and you can create detail that you didn't actually capture - but you also destroy a lot of what made the original setup so stunning. This is just a GREAT video for those who really want to understand how to step up their game.
I use both Lightroom and Topaz. I don't shoot anywhere near 16000 ISO of course but I find either of the ones I use to be sufficient. They both have adjustments to solve the problem of losing detail. My other things is, if I can' t get all the noise without losing detail, it's simple. I leave a little of the noise! I don't obsess about getting all of it. This works for me.
I use DxO PureRaw4 to process all my Panasonic m43 photos. You are totally correct that ISO does still matter. I find 3200 to be max before DxO starts making too much up. I also agree that a sharp photo is to be prioritized, but what I do is set my shutter speed to what's needed and will under expose rather than increase ISO. After processing in DxO, it is amazing how much I can increase the exposure to get it "right". An image shot at ISO3200 and bumped 3-4 stops in post definitely looks better than an image shot at 6400 bumped 2-3 stops.
Your "video essay" reminds me of the answer we, as photographers, so often give to the question of what is the best...?: "well, it depends". In fact, I think you even said the same during the video. Though I have used Topaz a lot in the past, I nearly always defer now to Lightroom Denoise, generally liking its treatment of a given image. However, implicit throughout your talk is to get your fieldcraft right. Bang on, Steve, and I know I always have work to do. Thanks so much.
Great presentation, Steve. You have a keen eye and an impressive ability to analyze an image. I use On1 Photo Raw for most of my work, and overall I like it a lot. Their denoising package has gotten better over time. I feel that it tends to over sharpen, and I usually pixel peep and readjust to get the best results. But I do think it's a contender that is steadily improving with each version. This video really helps me to be more critical and to see the difference between a natural and a made-up outcome. I agree with you that overconfidence in AI noise reduction software can really hurt the outcome, and I try to use a tripod and low ISOs whenever I can. By the way, I used to use Topaz and liked it pretty well, but it's easier to stay inside of On1 now that their noise reduction package has pretty much reached parity with Topaz, at least in my opinion. I always assume that I still have a lot to learn, and I really appreciate the clarity you bring to your discussions. Thanks for all you do.
Another great, informative and practical video that helps us shoot better photos. I shoot in Manual with Auto-ISO with upper limit set to 6400. If it's a very special photo (once in a lifetime opportunity, etc.) I will go full manual and pump it up, but never above 12800. I use Topaz Photo AI 3.
Great info! I note only that, not pointed out too well in the video, is that it depends pretty heavily on the rig too. Sensors and lenses make huge differences, but anyone watching this, pretty much knows that. My experience with Sony and LR and Topaz matches what Steve presented, and validates my thinking. Good job Steve! Thanks.
Wow, Steve! Great demo! One worry I have for high-ISO images is the reduction in dynamic range that occurs as ISO increases. I will use the highest ISO settings on my camera when that's the only way to get the shot, but I'm already thinking that it may take some future technology to make a usable result (if ever).
What surprised me is how much improvement you got in the ISO 500 photo. Denoising the background really helps with the fine details at the edge of the bird.
I really like Lightroom/CR noise reduction, it does a great job and what I appreciate about it is that it doesn't look like it was noise reduced by AI, but simply looks like a cleaner image without getting rid of all the grain that would otherwise make it look artificial
Excellent comparisons between DN software. Keeping them "individualized" based on each photographer's perspectives on pixel peeping is key also. Am a pixel peeper as well, and this well done DN software comparison at commonly used ISO values is key. Great job also on the sharpness points made- a very key aspect of the DN process & final IQ. Have used Topaz for several years and noticed that the low light/extreme noise modules tend to "smooth over" the details, which makes the image look artificial. Have experimented w/LR DN, but will be paying more attention to all my shots, not just wildlife for comparisons. Thanks Steve, very helpful!
Steve, GREAT video! For my uses (on a Z7II) I cap the auto ISO at 6400. I've started to shoot on M with Auto ISO, this has become my favorite way of shooting in tricky light situations as it allows me to make some least worst SOPHIE'S CHOICES when shooting in poor light.
Great video and thoughts Steve. I shoot a micro 4/3 mirrorless camera and find that 6400 is usually my upper max ISO, although I have gone higher. I use LrC 99% of the time for denoise, but will use Topaz at times. Yes it does oversharpen !! I am not as picky as you as I do not print and images tend to be used on Social Media or websites
Interesting, thanks. It’s good to know that denoise software sometimes makes up details, I primarily concentrate on macro of invertebrates where the presence or absence of hairs, the width and density of puncture marks might be crucial for ID.
I enjoyed this well done video. As a compliment to this, it would be interesting to compare the detail lost by using stand alone/bigger aperture and larger crop, compared to teleconverter with smaller aperture, smaller crop and higher ISO
Suppose you're a natural badass above the rest of us. Man I'm so glad you said this cause Holy crap, I was hoping there was someone who would go off subject and just prove how much better they are than people who have to actually care about if their image is sellable or not. I must worship you, what's you're god name?
Great video! I have all three programs as well. I start with DxO for both noise and lens correction. Easy to use. Topaz is what I use for jpg images. Agree they all have their place. I will go up to 16,000, but generally prefer 6400 or lower. Thanks for all the great education you provide for your audience!
I'm a sports photographer and I try to keep everything under 6400 although I will compromise noise rather than sufficient shutter speed. I used Topaz for a long time but when they came out with Photo rather than just NR, I didn't like it. But since LrC has vastly improved, and I shoot sports in RAW most of the time, that's my primary NR tool.
Thanks for sharing this, Steve. I use LR denoise mostly, but do end up using Topaz Denoise (separately not Photo AI). Topaz denoise preserves some details when we chooise Low light as an option, but i agree with you - the end output is not as good as LR.
Great as always Steve, agrees with everything for once. With Z9 6400 is my baseline max, daylight 16k (!!) + dx0, low light max 3200 + dx0 (prime, to many artifacts with the fancy settings). My best advice which I received over 10 years ago: don't try to save a bad photo - get a better one next time.
1:30 That is an *amazing* photo at an ISO level that I have never even experimented with. No visible noise at the size on a youtube video (1920x1080). The highest I regularly used, at night sports, was 3200. Even then I used Nikon's half-size NEF (using Nikon D850), it is actually resampled twice rather than simply taking every other pixel. The result is dramatic noise reduction in the camera and almost noise-free images at 4k.
Good video Steve. I am like you and pixel peep to the extent that I can upset some friends who carry their ISO's to extreme in my opinion with so much loss of detail & color that to me, the photos are useless. My duress comfortable limit is 8000 but I always still try to stay lower than that and find with the Z8 in particular that I can hand hold down to 1/125th or lower quite often if required, as long as my bird isn't jumping all over the place. I normally use a monopod if I am on a photo trip away from home because one might just get one chance at some "lifer" birds and I need every tool in my arsenal. As far as denoise & sharpening, I still prefer Topaz Denoise & then Sharpen if required after that if I can't get what I want in LrC. I find in most cases that Photo AI does more than what I want & trying to combine noise reduction & sharpening into one package just doesn't do it for me. I keep trying it after each update, but still usually go back to the older software that gives me the controls I want. I have never tried DXO but might now after watching this clip. Thanks.
Very interesting video from someone who hasn't gotten around to using noise reduction software yet. I shoot the original G9 for wildlife photography as a hobby and have settled on ISO 800 as my top-end limit if I float my ISO. This will give me good results even in flat light, something that is problematic for a contrast AF camera. However, I have managed to get good results up to ISO 4,000 in good artificial lighting such a college sports or concerts.
I've recently taken a photo of a Kingfisher at 500mm 1/1000 f8 and iso 25600, it was a dark and miserable day and the bird was under treecover, I used DxO Pure Raw 3, I cropped slightly and was amazed by the result.
great video, thank you. I don't have time to watch every video and keep up with your community, but I did see an earlier video of yours on this topic and (at that time) wondered how your experience compared and contrasted with Simon D'Entremont. In the first five minutes of this video they seem fairly complementary, which gives me some assurance that I'm understanding enough to apply this information to my own practice. I'm sure you and Simon have some differences too, and that's totally fine and gives me a reason to watch both of your videos!
Another great video, thanks! Ages ago I moved from Lr to Capture one because I had a shot of a house with a slate roof and Lr literally merged some tiles! So I find it ironic that you choose Lr quite often because “it doesn’t make up details”😂 I guess they have improved matters. By the way I tried ON 1 noise reduction and found it really good, just unacceptably slow.
Hi Steve, Great job and thanks for doing it. As I learned from your previous video, I now use LRC denoise most of the time, with the camera raw processing a .NEF smart object copy in PSD to avoid DNG multiples. I may have missed it but i think you did not mention which of the "models" or algorithms in Topaz PhotoAI you used, and whether all images were processed with the same model. One step in my workflow with difficult (i.e., not as sharp as I would hope) subjects at higher ISO is to use brushes as multiple sharpen windows within PhotoAI to treat different parts of the image with different models. It works better than a single model could, and as I said, only needed when trying to "save" an image. Topaz support reminded me this all can be done as a plugin within LRC which is now my go to. Hope this helps solve the neck vs the cap problem and maybe lifts some images off the trash pile. Thanks again!
My 2c as a pre-digital (80-90s, Canon AE-1 program, couldn't afford the A1 or anything more professional as the young guy I was) hobby photographer, later graphic designer, and now full-time digital & composite artist: Back in the pre-digital era I always opted for 100 ISO film with the occasional 200. Even between the two, the quality was night and day. Same story with digital cams - I always use the lowest possible ISO setting, whenever possible 100 to 200. No matter what denoise and other techniques you use, extremely noisy photos taken at high ISO are always inferior to cleaner low-ISO shots. Denoise ("traditional" as well as AI) is OK for smaller pics; if you need large image sizes for large prints, you definitely want to use low-ISO shots whenever possible to get the neatest results with the most details.
Thought provoking as ever, Steve, thanks for that. But you are ignoring that if the bird is in flight or indeed moving at all, 1/80th is not going to cut it, even if it is low ISO! Beautiful detail in the smudge of a bird there… I have to stalk the birds because I can only afford a 400/4.5 (though I recently got a 1.4 TC). Keep up the good work!
First of all, Steve, you have some really wonderful images in your galleries. That said, it seems to me that sll this discussion is the result of obsessive pixel peeping. You use the minimum ISO that gives you the shutter speed you need. If you're photographing a Hummingbird in flight, it's going to be very high, if you're photographing a standing Elk, it's going to be pretty low. Noise happens, and any decent denoise software will help. However, 99% of image viewers couldn't care less about noise in an image -- if the image has an interesting, sharp subject and a compelling composition. That is what I try to focus on, rather than obsessing over how to get the absolute minimum noise in an image. I use Topaz DeNoise AI when I feel it is needed, and am totally happy with the results. I tried Topaz Photo AI, but don't like the result as much as the older software. I have yet to have anyone ask me about noise or denoise software when I do a print exhibit or sale.
This video was very helpful. Thank you for putting it together Steve! This reveals two things for me; 1 - shooting maximum aperture is really the game changer in wildlife photography. I would argue Max Aperture lens = greater than Full Frame vs ASPC sensor/pixel size debate when working w/ modern cameras. Wonder if you have any thoughts on this matter. 2 - despite what users say on the internet I also find the need to cap my ISO around 4-5k on all systems I shoot Fuji X/GFX/Nikon Z8 to achieve results that I personally find acceptable. Thanks again Steve!
So if you cap at 4-5k you are going to miss a lot of opportunities. I shoot sports and wildlife and if I capped at 4-5k I would only get the first quarter of a football game.
@@larrykwhittaker6095 I only shoot wildlife/landscapes, and I don't find the ISO noise acceptable much higher on any of the cameras models. I know a lot of people DO though, just personally the result isn't worth it for me. This is assuming shooting low light near end or just after golden hour. During golden hour I find it easy to keep ISO between 100-500. I tried the approach many advise on of leaving auto ISO all the way up to 12,500 and while you're correct... you do get a shot, it's never been a shot I was happy w/ or wanted to print and its always due to the high noise.
Very relevant video Steve. I own both DxO and Topaz AI and my preference between the two is also clearly for DxO. I feel that in most cases the default settings of Topaz are creating images that are too crunchy while DxO results are much more pleasing right out of the box. However, now that I have seen this video as well as the other one you created about how to use Lightroom Denoise, I will probably change my approach. Go for lightroom denoise first before I use any of the two plug-in. I tested your Lightroom Denoise approach and it works very well and is sufficient in so many cases. As you said each image is different and it is good to have more than one option for the most challenging images but for most images Lightroom Denoise does a pretty good job. Thanks for sharing your experience and approach it was very revealing to me!
As someone who is a complete beginner, who uses a Nikon D40x, a Nikon D5100 and NX Studio and who does not have access to software like Lightroom or Topaz, and who cannot be arsed to start using something like GIMP because I know it would lead me down a rabbit hole where I would be unable to get anything done due to having far too many functions and tools, I have never heard this myth that high ISO wouldnt matter >_
For DXO, the key is to choose the advanced settings and the lens softness per camera and per ISO/lighting scenario - if you don't fine tune it, it can be awful, and to make matters worse, sometimes if lens distortion is on it all goes wrong; weird colors, or textures/matting, etc. - so I leave distortion off and deal with that manually. Plus, it is very camera dependent - it prefers a Sony type sensor and tends to work less well on my older non-Sony sensored cameras; so if you have a D3 or 1DX it will be a lot less useful to you.
To me, all three denoise software are excellent. Like food, one’s man meat may be another man’s poison. How much to denoise or sharpen is how you like that image final result. Great comparison regardless. I started with Topaz. And don’t own the highest end camera, don’t use the highest resolution monitor, I edit from my laptop screen, I am born color blind (partial). Topaz work just fine for my taste. You do you. Thank you for your efforts and tips.
@backcountrygallery I've been following about 4 wildlife photographers over the past couple of years, and I just recently discovered your channel. I also have been publishing my own variety of content on youtube since 2010. It takes dedication to just one specific topic to hold interest to subscribers. I like to switch up my content with variety, it makes things more interesting, but at the cost of subscriber count and viewership. Some content creators will copy others who see they're doing well, in hopes to gain more subscribers, more often than not, it doesn't work out so well, because more people rather see something different than what everyone else is bringing to the table. It's unfortunate that some people gain more followers due to their stage presence being more captivating, even though they have been doing something far less and they may not have as much experience. Entertainment seems to do better than education, that especially goes for teachers in schools over the past couple decades. I appreciate education, although Entertainment is nice too.
@backcountrygallery I noticed he's only been on youtube for 2 years, but he's got double the amount of subscribers you have. Unfortunately, these days longevity and experience doesn't hold as much value to viewers, as much as stage presence and being entertained. I value education more than entertainment. I've been providing variety of content since 2006. Inconsistent, but changing it up making it interesting, but at the cost of viewership. Some people just have that presence and way of delivery that keeps viewers attention, where others don't.
@@3DEditor YT is tough for sure. Although, one thing I hear over and over that I just can't quite do is to have frequent regular content. I think it makes a difference, especially on a learning channel. When people see the same person week after week I think it's more likely that they'll subscribe. And that's a big difference between Simon and myself - he does like 52 or more videos a year, I average about 16 :) I wouldn't mind doing more, but then other things would suffer. So, I just plug along and have a good time :)
Excellent video with great tips and refreshing to listen to someone talking sensibly about noise reduction software. I use DX0 Photolab which suits my m43 om1 files. It also allows you to adjust other settings especially the sharpening to decrease that AI look with the detail. Once again a very useful and informative video. Thanks
FYI... your comparison supports the reason why I choose a max limit of 3200 for ISO. I also have LR, Topaz and ON1. But as ON1 keeps improving... I am moving away from LR. Topaz I find I do not like the controls. The other two work better for me. Great video. Thanks
Thanks Steve, great video and very timely as I'm going on a week's birding photoshoot on the 22nd in Norfolk, England (on the East coast). I have Topaz and LR so will see how I go on with your recommendations.
This was uploaded in 4K BUT TH-cam may display it at a different resolution. For best results, click the little cog and set to 4K.
That explains a lot! I watched this at 1080P on an 11" tablet and I had a hard time seeing the differences you were pointing out. With the TH-cam compression, even the ISO 16000 shots looked perfectly fine to me! 😆 (I was thinking, man Steve really is a picky pixel peeper!)
Thanks! I think your work here in this video episode is really important, very revealing and convincing, and I hope you consider sharing it with even a wider audience. I totally agree with the points you are making here. I find making LARGE prints (for that 'WOW!! factor') to be the most rewarding outlet for my photos, and in those large prints is where I really notice the artifacts, which increase with ISO, that get added to my photos by denoise software, as the denoise AI tries to fill in the grain with appropriate detail. In contrast, low resolution images (2048 pixels on the long edge) posted on social media are fine at higher ISOs, which people tend to look at these days on their tiny phone screens so they don't notice the detail artifacts and lower quality. Making large prints (at least 12x18 inches or at least 18x18 at 300 pixels per inch), I limited my Canon R5 M1 photos usually to ISO
Thanks so much! And I'm with you on printing. Nothing like seeing a photo printed large IMO. I think that's why I'm always railing against high ISOs :)
In the UK at this time of year, higher ISO is often needed and I'm in a Camera Club (Killamarsh Amateur Photographic Society - check our website) We project the images to 8ftx 6ft approx, at 1920x1200px jpg image size, so any poor sharpening shows up really clearly. I took an owl in poor light, used Topaz, Canon R5 and it looked awful when projected.
The thing it seems many people misunderstand is the effect of cropping. The more you crop the more noise will be visible.
Full frame is not better than crop cameras unless you fill the frame!
The video you have on this topic is excellent!
The real decision "do I take the photo knowing I have to denoise later, or I give up and do not even bother". modern software makes more likely to keep the shooting.
I don't understand the dichotomy you present. I get more passable images if I shoot high ISO and fast shutter speed, but my chances of an actually good image are better with low ISO and low shutter speed.
@@grahamfloyd3451 fair. I guess what I was trying to say is that the max ISO most people would even consider shooting at (versus not even pressing the shutter) has increased significantly as denoise software gets better.
@@grahamfloyd3451 it depends on what you think a “good image” is. The dichotomy only exists with sports and wildlife. Owls, Elk and many others, have most of the action right before the sun is up. I regularly shoot at 6400… I’d say most of my images are 3200 to 6400 shooting with an F4 lens.
When my iso is around 100 to 400… with 500SS and F4.5…. I’m generally shooting in the light at the very END of the action, if I’m lucky.
If you are able to make that choice, chances are that what you are photographing isn't very compelling to begin with! If I am having unbelievable wildlife action happening in front of me, action that is going to be a blurry mess if I try to shoot it at less than 6400 ISO, I don't have a choice! The photographer in me is not going to let me walk away! Of course ISO matters! The point that photographers make is that it matter LESS than aperture and shutter speed. It is the only setting that does not affect the artistic aspects of the image. I have pictures hanging on my wall right now. Some that I denoised the sh!+ out of, and others taken at 100 ISO. I guarantee you that the average viewer is not going to tell the difference. Another photographer, scrutinizing them up close? Maybe. But the average viewer? No. I shoot for the average viewer.
A couple of minutes in. I really don’t need to watch this. I use deniose when I need. It’s easier for a professional with prime lenses not to need it. I got a Parott Anafi drone. Beautiful pictures. But low light isn’t great. So…
Finally someone on TH-cam being prepared to call out all the issues with AI noise reduction software. All those " stringy" feather details (artifacts) when I zoom in. And its the same with pixel peeping. I really enjoy zooming in and admiring admiring the detail that I paid for. Its just so obvious that on the channels that give all these rose coloured reviews that they NEVER zoom right in on the details. And I agree that the version in lightroom is not as heavy handed as the others and hence is my preference. 😊 Well done Steve.
it is easy to say "just shoot in lower ISO" when you have large aperture telephoto primes. But most people barely afford a 6.3 zoom lens and they are used for the same kind of subjects as the 600mm f4 which costs about €20K
Lower ISO is not the solution for less noise. ETTR (expose to the right) is. It's all about ENOUGH LIGHT!!! This gives the best signal to noise ratio, so the lowest noise possible, whatever ISO you use. Adjust your exposure later in LR and the noiselevel also decreases. You can shoot almost noisefree pictures at ISOs around 10.000
It is more work, but your photo quality improves al lot!
@peterschelwald7466 yes, you can also reduce noise by overexposing 0.3 stops. A7IV has horrible shadow noise on 0ev 100 iso, but going 0.3ev does wonders. Truth is, every new gen camera is like this since 2018. Sensors have changed a lot.
@@peterschelwald7466 Too many people refer to ETTR as over-exposing; it should be correctly exposing as it maximises the information in the image.
@@kingghidorah8106 not to point out the obvious, but you could get a vintage manual lens with good-ish characteristics, and if for example it's a 400m, if you use aps-c you get 600m. *borat voice* great success!
@@yuriythebest this is wrong in many levels
First of: old lenses do not provide phase detection autofocus with adapters on mirrorless cameras, rendering the purpose of a wildlife lens that does not autofocus fast moving action
secondly: old prime large aperture lenses are actually pretty expensive, the Minolta 500mm f/4 is €5000 on eBay Europe, that's NOT cheap.
Third: APS-C does not gather the same amount of dilation so there's going to be more noise, so you could instead crop full frame photos or set the camera to aps-c mode
but yes as an alternative if one can cope with no af tracking and are eager to spend 8000 bucks on a full frame camera and a large vintage prime they're good with a vintage lens
This is exactly what I needed! I’ve been really disappointed with high ISO denoise, and now I understand more about the limitations of the software. Thank you so much for creating this video.
If your subject isn´t moving low ISO is always the way to go. If it moves, an over all sharp picture is better than a blurry one with low ISO
110% - it's why I made sure I mentioned my "golden rule for ISO" at 1:57
@@backcountrygallery
I did some tests with my camera, and arrived at the conclusion that I should only increase the ISO from 'base' if the light level or movement of the subject demands it.
Then I watched half a dozen videos on YT and became completely confused with, what seemed to me, conflicting advice.
At last, a video that confirms what a thought - from someone who knows what he's talking about.
A nice, simple, sensible rule to use. Hurrah!
@@stevenlagoe7808 Thanks so much!
“Degradation of subject at higher ISO” most excellent observation/tip
True
I have never heard anyone say that a high ISO, high noise image processed with noise reduction software is as good as a low ISO, low noise image that does not require noise reduction. However, they commonly say that the ability to shoot at high ISO and using noise reduction allows them to capture usable images that otherwise would not have been possible.
Agree
SO glad to see such sense being spoken! AI reduction isn't an panacea. It works best on an already sharp subject...
With so many photography analyses already published, it's gotten tougher and tougher to make a truly informative photography analysis. Yet this, here, is one of them. Thank you.
Great video! I use Dxo photolab and Topaz. You're right that depending of the camera, and the image, the better software isn't always the same. When the only thing to correct is the noise, i sometimes prefer Tooaze Denoise AI over Topaz photo AI. In all cases, i never let Topaz decide the level of denoising correction to apply. It always goes to far making images look fake. Denoising softwares recover very well these days, but it is still recover.
I think the main takeaway here is the "what are you personally ok with" point you made a few times. Sometimes I sit in the yard and take shots of very common birds just to be doing something and at most I'll share something on IG. I'd be fine using any of these tools for that at a pretty high ISO. If I go in search of something specific and I'm looking for a certain shot, I'm going to try to make sure I get it right in camera, but I wouldn't be too scared of using these tools if the ISO is at a low to moderately low range. Some people may not even be ok with that, and that's cool too. Great video Steve. For those who may want the best, I think this does a great job of showing people what they better aim for in the field.
Another excellent video demonstrating why this is consistently one of the best photography channels on TH-cam.
Great video! It’s all about compromise. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Topaz adds too much sharpness and creates weird artifacts. I like their older versions better. Lightroom’s noise reduction is getting better and better. I find I’m using Topaz less and less.
I think the statement of 'I don't have to worry about high ISO because I use noise reduction software' is a very accurate statement. The software will get rid of almost all noise.... but at a cost to the overall quality of the end result in the form of over-sharpening, creating pixels that aren't there, making things look plasticy.
The good thing about different noise reduction models is that they almost never create problems in the same part of image. Combining several of them or even different software usually solves this problem.
If the software is doing that, just reduce it a little. Sometimes the default settings can be a little heavy handed. Accept a small amount of noise as a tradeoff. There's no magic wand. If you want a blur free image in less than ideal conditions you are going to have to raise the ISO and put up with some noise. If I have great action unfolding in front of me, I'm going to shoot it! ISO is the least of my concerns.
I was a Topaz user but after watching your video on how to DeNoise in Lightroom and have converted to LR and been using it almost exclusively. Thanks for another A+ video.
Thanks so much!
I started shooting film around 1970. So I have seen a lot of Tri-X pan negatives. Folks today should do some asking and take a look at the grain in a negative shot with this film. Once they have seen that they will be a lot less inclined to complain about noise. Personally one of the things that really impresses me with the Z7 II that I purchased last July is the amount of noise produced, at ISO 1600 and higher it is much lower than what I saw with my D750 at high ISO settings. So much better that instead of limiting my ISO settings to 1600 and lower I now consider ISO 6400 as the upper limit with my Z7 II. As long as I don't push past that point I don't even bother with fussing with the noise because with prints of 16x24 and smaller it's just not distracting in any way at all.
well, no shid, it's a 6 year gap difference. I've used an A200 for 6 years, and could shoot iso 1600 without an issue, then switched to A77II and ISO 1600 was slightly noisier but had less color noise. Then on A7IV I can shoot at ISO 8000 and get clean results if I overexpose 0.3ev but will get a lot of noise if I shoot on ISO 400 and 0.3 ev.
I got a Z7 recently after shooting Fuji for years. I'm not noise sensitive so basically my ISO upper limit is the cameras but wow the at 25,600 it's crazy how well the Z7 handles noise
I love to get up and shoot in the morning before sunrise, but often struggle with my 100-500 7.1 in low light. I think my biggest takeaway here is “ break out the monopod or tripod”. I hike and wander a lot, so I don’t like carrying extra gear, but I really need to start doing this more! Next tip for me is fill the frame. As a nature lover and photographer, I have a REALLY hard time not trying to get a photo vs. just being present watching. I know sometimes I’m looking for a happy accident when there isn’t enough light….but still, I will be running that shutter!
Another well organized tutorial. I have been using DxO to preview my photos for approximately 2 years now - and is my preferred starting place (as you do). Top ISO for me depends on the dynamic range or the shot and how much the composition fills the frame (and where the image is being shown). In general though, above ISO 5000-6000 is where I start feeling a bit uncomfortable with what I am seeing. Completely agree with the "Stringiness" of the denoise software and the oversharpening of Topaz at default settings (which I rarely use).
great information as always, Steve! The more I learn and the more I shoot, the more I understand the golden rule of life: "it depends". Also, good to note that IG and FB will compress your image when uploading so the more edited it is, the worse it will turn out anyways.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always, I love your photography and I want you to know that you are one of my mentors 🤗
Thanks so much!
👍👍Thank you, Steve, for all the detailed information you have shared with us. I have been struggling with finding a solution for improving detail using the same software as you reviewed here. I have found the same results and came to the same conclusions as you. Your TH-cam video is 10 out of 10, on the mark, very informative, honest, accurate and the best of them all, on this subject.
Thanks for the in-depth comparison Steve. I watched your Lightroom de-noise tutorial a while back and really liked it, but on my computer the process just takes way too long to be a viable first choice. By comparison Topaz works a lot faster on my computer so that's the one I use every day. Of course, when I do bite the bullet and update my computer the situation will be different.
Give DxO a try as well - it's very fast and does a good job.
This was a great comparison. I have Topaz and I almost gave up on it until I started backing off some of the default sharpening. If you aren't careful it can create some very fake looking images. In general, I have been very pleased with the Lightroom Denoise, other than how long it takes on my underpowered computer. However, as you say, it is good to have options, and sometimes I get good results running it through LRC Denoise followed by a pass through Topaz with backed off settings that I used to create a preset.
Technology has made it possible to display my thousands of crap photos as acceptable, and for that, I'm thankful. Excellent as always Steve thank you. 💪
On my trip to Arizona in 2023 I had a red-naped sapsucker climbing a tree in front of me. It was a dark valley, but I knew that I will probably not get that chance so quickly again (I live in Germany), so I gave it a try.
The result is decent, still a pretty clear shot, but with the knowledge I have today, I would rather try and get a sharp shot with longer exposure time than trying what I did back then and do it with 1/800s.
Also, I do have Lightroom and Topaz, and I agree that Topaz, especially with high noise, tends to make up details or just get blurry.
i am thrilled that there is a bird called sapsucker out there
@@DanielSymphoniesYou need to get out more!
It depends on what you are going for. If you just want the portrait of the sapsucker, sure. I would have shot a few like that. Low ISO and longer shutter speed. Hope it didn't move. Get the nice portrait! Woodpecker on the side of a tree. Nice shot! But then I would have set a shutter speed of 1/1600-1/2000, ISO be damned, and waited for it to fly. Beautiful shot, wings spread in all their glory, as it lifted off the tree! That would have been the shot! If it's noisy, it's noisy! I'll deal with it! Low ISO and you would have inadequate shutter speed, and a blurry mess!
@@alansach8437 If you are already working on high ISO with low shutterspeeds, nothing you shoot with 1/1600 or 1/2000 will look acceptable, at least not to me.
Thank you Steve for this in-depth session! The way you debunked the "high ISO noise doesn’t matter" myth was so insightful. Your side-by-side comparisons of low and high ISO images really showed the strengths and limits of denoise software like Topaz, Lightroom, and DxO. This video is a must-watch for anyone looking to maximize image quality straight from the field.
Great work!
It's not that high ISO doesn't matter. It's that it matters less than a blurry image! You can mitigate high ISO and resulting noise. You can't do anything with a blurry picture. So, yes, ISO is the least of my worries when shooting action. I can only open the lens so far. I can only reduce shutter speed so much before my images are a blurry mess! Sometimes you have to decide, do I want the picture or not? Guess what? I never had anyone look at a print and say, "Too bad you didn't use a lower ISO!"
I use, Topaz, Luminar, and ON1 and sometimes RAW from Photoshop. Everything depends on what program I use. You brought up some good points about really slowing the shutter speed. Going to try that out next time. Always enjoy your videos so keep them coming.
This was a fantastic video! I really appreciate all the time and effort that went into it, getting to see real world comparisons of ISO and then the different denoise software results. I personally use LR and find it works well enough for me, and don't shoot above ISO 1600 on my Fuji X-S10, but will push it to 6400 in an emergency. I've tried C1 and DxO, but eventually went back to LR and find it handles x-trans files just fine now.
I have watched a lot of photography videos learning this wonderful (in my case) hobby. This was one of the most interesting informative videos I've ever seen. Thanks for digging deep into the details!
Thanks for this comparison, Steve. I shoot a Z9, with DXO for almost all preprocessing. I use a maximum of 6400 for flight, preferring to keep it 2000 or less. And, for non-flight, I never go above 1600, as I can compensate with shutter speed in nearly all cases. Everything manual, so I consciously know what I'm shooting at any given time.
Thanks for making this video, Steve.
Interestingly, read noise is the same in all the photos. That's the primary benefit of cameras with dual-gain sensors. Read noise is constant from the dual-gain point through the highest ISO in the invariant range of the camera.
The noise we see in the photos is shot noise, which is strictly determined by the total light energy used to make the photo. As exposure went down, noise became more prominent.
ISO isn't a noise source and didn't contribute noise in any of the photos.
I'm a longtime Lightroom Classic user and have come to love the Enhance tool. As you pointed out it removes noise and preserves detail that was captured in the raw file without adding unnatural-looking detail.
I've been shooting with a Z9 for 6 months and, in that time, I've found I can make images worthy of sharing on social if the frame is filled at an exposure compatible with ISO 12800. If filling the frame, an exposure compatible with ISO 3200 delivers excellent results after run through Enhance. At ISO 1600 and lower (good, strong exposures), I've even got room to crop a bit and the resulting image will be of high enough quality for publication.
Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Thanks again, for making the video and inviting discussion of this topic.
Wrong. ISO is electrical gain/amplification. Clipping on top and noise on bottom.
@@jonasweiss5817 ISO communicates an exposure value to the camera. The camera uses this information to process a photo with a target lightness.
ISO is not electrical gain/amplification. It doesn't add noise to an image. Nor does ISO clip highlights. In fact, the read noise many associate with ISO has historically gotten lower as exposure decreases and ISO increases. The introduction of dual-gain sensor architecture enabled cameras to generate the same low read noise at ISO 500 - in the case of the Z9 - as the camera generates at ISO 6400...or higher.
No one cares about the science. Doesn't make a lick of difference. All people care about is that their high ISO images are noisy! Doesn't matter whether the high ISO is causing the noise, or it's caused by a space boogeyman! For all practical purposes, they shoot at high ISO and their picture is noisy, therefore high ISO=noise.
This information is so accurate to what I have been starting to find out for myself. As I progress as a photographer I'm making better decisions of when to push my ISO.
- If it's a rare bird that you get a fleeting opportunity of, keep that shutter speed high
- If a waterbird is actively feeding and doesn't stop moving, check the shots as you take them to see if they are sharp and your shutter speed is fast enough
- If it's a stationary bird, start with a high shutter speed for safety shots then lower your shutter speed gradually.
- For common perched birds I have been shooting at ISO 1000, I don't mind the risk of motion blur in order to have maximum IQ.
I have so many old pictures, taken over the last 2 decades with various cameras even point and shoot cameras that noise reduction software is improving and the software is just getting better every year. I bought Topaz last year, it does a pretty good job even on jpeg pictures taken with the fairly primitive digital cameras that I could afford at that time.
Great video, Steve! I never tried Dxo, and so I am not familiar with it. Lightroom Denoise did not help my photos at all even after watching your tutorial video. I switched to Topaz, and I have been happier ever since. However, your comment about Topaz oversharpening the photo is spot on. I enjoy taking photos of wild horses, and when I run the photo through Topaz, the mane looks stringy and the neck shows spots where there were none. I just reduce the sharpening, and now the photo look great.
All very good sense, Steve, and backs up my own (admittedly less scientific) experience. Boy, I hate the way Topaz deals with feathers when sharpening, and denoise also sharpens in the separate programme I still have. So, nice video and good to have observations confirmed by yourself. Always clear, to the point and engaging! 👌
@@philipwilson1620 Same here.!👍
Steve, I don’t have Lightroom so I can’t make that comparison. I use Capture One and Affinity Photo most of the time. For noisier images I also use DxO PhotoLab 8 which has the latest version of DeepPrime noise reduction, currently DeepPRIME XD2s. I get amazing results with that and prior versions were almost as good. I usually dial it down just a bit from the default value of 40, say 35, and have made shots taken at ISO 10,000 look as though they were taken at ISO 100. Detail retention is almost unbelievable. There’s some variance of course but I’m always amazed at how good it works especially if you don’t apply much if any additional sharpening elsewhere since DeepPrime XD2s seems to apply enough on its own. Oh, and no made-up, weird generated detail. As far as I know it doesn’t use AI to generate what it can’t extract properly after reducing the noise.
Great video Steve! As a previous topaz user, couldn’t agree more that it over sharpens. I dialed back by nearly half. I’m starting to use LR denoise almost exclusively now because it does a great job and it comes with the software.
Lightroom Denoise has worked great for, but that was an excellent point/tip you made around the 21 minute mark about distant subjects. I'll definitely keep that in mind 👍
Thanks, Steve.... you saved me a lot of time doing research on Denoiser software.
Your question about "how much of a hit will you actually take?" is obviously a good one. Photographers that desire to progress beyond the average will ask, "How much of a hit can I afford to take?"
You did a LOT of work getting shots similar enough to make this kind of comparison. I do have a couple of comments. First, you may be ther first YT person I've seen mention that higher ISO loses color fidelity. That is VERY important if you aspire to be better than average.
The other thing is that if you understand what denoise software is doing, you now that there is always a trade-off, no matter what software you use. It may be a different trade-off with different software, but there is ALWAYS a trade-off.
The other thing, and you (unlike most people) actually talked about it. De-noise software can't create detail. That's generative AI, and at this point it also always has trade-offs. The main thing is whether you, as a photographer, consider yourself and artist or a technician. Sometimes in low light a shot comes along that is absolutely stunning, but requires higher ISO. Run that through a generative AI program and you can create detail that you didn't actually capture - but you also destroy a lot of what made the original setup so stunning.
This is just a GREAT video for those who really want to understand how to step up their game.
I use both Lightroom and Topaz. I don't shoot anywhere near 16000 ISO of course but I find either of the ones I use to be sufficient. They both have adjustments to solve the problem of losing detail. My other things is, if I can'
t get all the noise without losing detail, it's simple. I leave a little of the noise! I don't obsess about getting all of it. This works for me.
I use DxO PureRaw4 to process all my Panasonic m43 photos. You are totally correct that ISO does still matter. I find 3200 to be max before DxO starts making too much up. I also agree that a sharp photo is to be prioritized, but what I do is set my shutter speed to what's needed and will under expose rather than increase ISO. After processing in DxO, it is amazing how much I can increase the exposure to get it "right". An image shot at ISO3200 and bumped 3-4 stops in post definitely looks better than an image shot at 6400 bumped 2-3 stops.
Your "video essay" reminds me of the answer we, as photographers, so often give to the question of what is the best...?: "well, it depends". In fact, I think you even said the same during the video. Though I have used Topaz a lot in the past, I nearly always defer now to Lightroom Denoise, generally liking its treatment of a given image. However, implicit throughout your talk is to get your fieldcraft right. Bang on, Steve, and I know I always have work to do. Thanks so much.
What’s a tripod?..I shoot OM-System
Such a good video. I just got back into photography this past year, and great blue herons are one of my biggest targets. Perfect video for me!
Great presentation, Steve. You have a keen eye and an impressive ability to analyze an image. I use On1 Photo Raw for most of my work, and overall I like it a lot. Their denoising package has gotten better over time. I feel that it tends to over sharpen, and I usually pixel peep and readjust to get the best results. But I do think it's a contender that is steadily improving with each version. This video really helps me to be more critical and to see the difference between a natural and a made-up outcome. I agree with you that overconfidence in AI noise reduction software can really hurt the outcome, and I try to use a tripod and low ISOs whenever I can. By the way, I used to use Topaz and liked it pretty well, but it's easier to stay inside of On1 now that their noise reduction package has pretty much reached parity with Topaz, at least in my opinion. I always assume that I still have a lot to learn, and I really appreciate the clarity you bring to your discussions. Thanks for all you do.
Another great, informative and practical video that helps us shoot better photos.
I shoot in Manual with Auto-ISO with upper limit set to 6400. If it's a very special photo (once in a lifetime opportunity, etc.) I will go full manual and pump it up, but never above 12800. I use Topaz Photo AI 3.
Great info! I note only that, not pointed out too well in the video, is that it depends pretty heavily on the rig too. Sensors and lenses make huge differences, but anyone watching this, pretty much knows that. My experience with Sony and LR and Topaz matches what Steve presented, and validates my thinking. Good job Steve! Thanks.
Wow, Steve! Great demo! One worry I have for high-ISO images is the reduction in dynamic range that occurs as ISO increases. I will use the highest ISO settings on my camera when that's the only way to get the shot, but I'm already thinking that it may take some future technology to make a usable result (if ever).
I'm amazed you were able to get this shot in these different ISO values.
It took a few tries and a few birds!
As always a great overview!!! Thanks.
Steve, I very much enjoy these videos I find them very helpful.
Jason
What surprised me is how much improvement you got in the ISO 500 photo. Denoising the background really helps with the fine details at the edge of the bird.
With shots in lower light, it helps for sure.
Thanks Steve, this is certainly a different way to look at how the final article will be displayed.
I really like Lightroom/CR noise reduction, it does a great job and what I appreciate about it is that it doesn't look like it was noise reduced by AI, but simply looks like a cleaner image without getting rid of all the grain that would otherwise make it look artificial
This was super informative. Thanks so much for all the work that you put into it.
Excellent comparisons between DN software. Keeping them "individualized" based on each photographer's perspectives on pixel peeping is key also. Am a pixel peeper as well, and this well done DN software comparison at commonly used ISO values is key. Great job also on the sharpness points made- a very key aspect of the DN process & final IQ. Have used Topaz for several years and noticed that the low light/extreme noise modules tend to "smooth over" the details, which makes the image look artificial. Have experimented w/LR DN, but will be paying more attention to all my shots, not just wildlife for comparisons. Thanks Steve, very helpful!
An excellent and easy to understand description Steve, interesting to see the different software strengths. Thank you.
Steve, GREAT video! For my uses (on a Z7II) I cap the auto ISO at 6400. I've started to shoot on M with Auto ISO, this has become my favorite way of shooting in tricky light situations as it allows me to make some least worst SOPHIE'S CHOICES when shooting in poor light.
thank you! these are great workshops you are providing!
Great video and thoughts Steve. I shoot a micro 4/3 mirrorless camera and find that 6400 is usually my upper max ISO, although I have gone higher. I use LrC 99% of the time for denoise, but will use Topaz at times. Yes it does oversharpen !! I am not as picky as you as I do not print and images tend to be used on Social Media or websites
Interesting, thanks. It’s good to know that denoise software sometimes makes up details, I primarily concentrate on macro of invertebrates where the presence or absence of hairs, the width and density of puncture marks might be crucial for ID.
This is a fantastic video! I really learned a lot! I max my ISO at 12,800 for live music. For wildlife I stop at 4,000. Thanks for this info!
I enjoyed this well done video. As a compliment to this, it would be interesting to compare the detail lost by using stand alone/bigger aperture and larger crop, compared to teleconverter with smaller aperture, smaller crop and higher ISO
I don't have an ISO limit; I use whatever it takes to get the shot.
Same 👍 I also don't worry about it either.
Sometimes it’s all you can do
@@jimpack9622 yes!
Suppose you're a natural badass above the rest of us. Man I'm so glad you said this cause Holy crap, I was hoping there was someone who would go off subject and just prove how much better they are than people who have to actually care about if their image is sellable or not. I must worship you, what's you're god name?
@@anthonysmith9864 What kind of drugs are you taking??
Thank you Steve, as usual, very thorough and to to the point. and, thanks for the reminder about de-focusing and letting AF re-focus.
Great video! I have all three programs as well. I start with DxO for both noise and lens correction. Easy to use. Topaz is what I use for jpg images. Agree they all have their place. I will go up to 16,000, but generally prefer 6400 or lower.
Thanks for all the great education you provide for your audience!
Thanks, very valuable information.
Thank you very much! Now I have a better understanding of high ISOs. And I will keep in mind the last points you mentioned.
I'm a sports photographer and I try to keep everything under 6400 although I will compromise noise rather than sufficient shutter speed. I used Topaz for a long time but when they came out with Photo rather than just NR, I didn't like it. But since LrC has vastly improved, and I shoot sports in RAW most of the time, that's my primary NR tool.
Thanks for sharing this, Steve. I use LR denoise mostly, but do end up using Topaz Denoise (separately not Photo AI). Topaz denoise preserves some details when we chooise Low light as an option, but i agree with you - the end output is not as good as LR.
Thank you Steve, very useful and helpful as always, legend!
Great as always Steve, agrees with everything for once. With Z9 6400 is my baseline max, daylight 16k (!!) + dx0, low light max 3200 + dx0 (prime, to many artifacts with the fancy settings). My best advice which I received over 10 years ago: don't try to save a bad photo - get a better one next time.
1:30 That is an *amazing* photo at an ISO level that I have never even experimented with. No visible noise at the size on a youtube video (1920x1080).
The highest I regularly used, at night sports, was 3200. Even then I used Nikon's half-size NEF (using Nikon D850), it is actually resampled twice rather than simply taking every other pixel. The result is dramatic noise reduction in the camera and almost noise-free images at 4k.
Super interesting and helpfull. Great video, as always!
As I Nikon shooter I'm with you all the way Steve. Given Mark and Simon shoot Sony and Canon respectively, I watch all your vids.
Good video Steve. I am like you and pixel peep to the extent that I can upset some friends who carry their ISO's to extreme in my opinion with so much loss of detail & color that to me, the photos are useless. My duress comfortable limit is 8000 but I always still try to stay lower than that and find with the Z8 in particular that I can hand hold down to 1/125th or lower quite often if required, as long as my bird isn't jumping all over the place. I normally use a monopod if I am on a photo trip away from home because one might just get one chance at some "lifer" birds and I need every tool in my arsenal. As far as denoise & sharpening, I still prefer Topaz Denoise & then Sharpen if required after that if I can't get what I want in LrC. I find in most cases that Photo AI does more than what I want & trying to combine noise reduction & sharpening into one package just doesn't do it for me. I keep trying it after each update, but still usually go back to the older software that gives me the controls I want. I have never tried DXO but might now after watching this clip. Thanks.
Very interesting video from someone who hasn't gotten around to using noise reduction software yet. I shoot the original G9 for wildlife photography as a hobby and have settled on ISO 800 as my top-end limit if I float my ISO. This will give me good results even in flat light, something that is problematic for a contrast AF camera. However, I have managed to get good results up to ISO 4,000 in good artificial lighting such a college sports or concerts.
Great video Steve, I appreciate the effort.
I've recently taken a photo of a Kingfisher at 500mm 1/1000 f8 and iso 25600, it was a dark and miserable day and the bird was under treecover, I used DxO Pure Raw 3, I cropped slightly and was amazed by the result.
great video, thank you. I don't have time to watch every video and keep up with your community, but I did see an earlier video of yours on this topic and (at that time) wondered how your experience compared and contrasted with Simon D'Entremont. In the first five minutes of this video they seem fairly complementary, which gives me some assurance that I'm understanding enough to apply this information to my own practice. I'm sure you and Simon have some differences too, and that's totally fine and gives me a reason to watch both of your videos!
I'm not sure where he stands on ISO, but it sounds like we're on the same page.
Another great video, thanks! Ages ago I moved from Lr to Capture one because I had a shot of a house with a slate roof and Lr literally merged some tiles! So I find it ironic that you choose Lr quite often because “it doesn’t make up details”😂 I guess they have improved matters. By the way I tried ON 1 noise reduction and found it really good, just unacceptably slow.
Hi Steve, Great job and thanks for doing it. As I learned from your previous video, I now use LRC denoise most of the time, with the camera raw processing a .NEF smart object copy in PSD to avoid DNG multiples. I may have missed it but i think you did not mention which of the "models" or algorithms in Topaz PhotoAI you used, and whether all images were processed with the same model. One step in my workflow with difficult (i.e., not as sharp as I would hope) subjects at higher ISO is to use brushes as multiple sharpen windows within PhotoAI to treat different parts of the image with different models. It works better than a single model could, and as I said, only needed when trying to "save" an image. Topaz support reminded me this all can be done as a plugin within LRC which is now my go to. Hope this helps solve the neck vs the cap problem and maybe lifts some images off the trash pile. Thanks again!
Interesting comparisons. I’ll head over to your Lightroom video now.
Thanks!
My 2c as a pre-digital (80-90s, Canon AE-1 program, couldn't afford the A1 or anything more professional as the young guy I was) hobby photographer, later graphic designer, and now full-time digital & composite artist: Back in the pre-digital era I always opted for 100 ISO film with the occasional 200. Even between the two, the quality was night and day. Same story with digital cams - I always use the lowest possible ISO setting, whenever possible 100 to 200. No matter what denoise and other techniques you use, extremely noisy photos taken at high ISO are always inferior to cleaner low-ISO shots. Denoise ("traditional" as well as AI) is OK for smaller pics; if you need large image sizes for large prints, you definitely want to use low-ISO shots whenever possible to get the neatest results with the most details.
Thought provoking as ever, Steve, thanks for that. But you are ignoring that if the bird is in flight or indeed moving at all, 1/80th is not going to cut it, even if it is low ISO! Beautiful detail in the smudge of a bird there… I have to stalk the birds because I can only afford a 400/4.5 (though I recently got a 1.4 TC). Keep up the good work!
First of all, Steve, you have some really wonderful images in your galleries.
That said, it seems to me that sll this discussion is the result of obsessive pixel peeping. You use the minimum ISO that gives you the shutter speed you need. If you're photographing a Hummingbird in flight, it's going to be very high, if you're photographing a standing Elk, it's going to be pretty low. Noise happens, and any decent denoise software will help. However, 99% of image viewers couldn't care less about noise in an image -- if the image has an interesting, sharp subject and a compelling composition. That is what I try to focus on, rather than obsessing over how to get the absolute minimum noise in an image. I use Topaz DeNoise AI when I feel it is needed, and am totally happy with the results. I tried Topaz Photo AI, but don't like the result as much as the older software.
I have yet to have anyone ask me about noise or denoise software when I do a print exhibit or sale.
This video was very helpful. Thank you for putting it together Steve! This reveals two things for me; 1 - shooting maximum aperture is really the game changer in wildlife photography. I would argue Max Aperture lens = greater than Full Frame vs ASPC sensor/pixel size debate when working w/ modern cameras. Wonder if you have any thoughts on this matter. 2 - despite what users say on the internet I also find the need to cap my ISO around 4-5k on all systems I shoot Fuji X/GFX/Nikon Z8 to achieve results that I personally find acceptable. Thanks again Steve!
So if you cap at 4-5k you are going to miss a lot of opportunities. I shoot sports and wildlife and if I capped at 4-5k I would only get the first quarter of a football game.
@@larrykwhittaker6095 I only shoot wildlife/landscapes, and I don't find the ISO noise acceptable much higher on any of the cameras models. I know a lot of people DO though, just personally the result isn't worth it for me. This is assuming shooting low light near end or just after golden hour. During golden hour I find it easy to keep ISO between 100-500. I tried the approach many advise on of leaving auto ISO all the way up to 12,500 and while you're correct... you do get a shot, it's never been a shot I was happy w/ or wanted to print and its always due to the high noise.
Very relevant video Steve. I own both DxO and Topaz AI and my preference between the two is also clearly for DxO. I feel that in most cases the default settings of Topaz are creating images that are too crunchy while DxO results are much more pleasing right out of the box. However, now that I have seen this video as well as the other one you created about how to use Lightroom Denoise, I will probably change my approach. Go for lightroom denoise first before I use any of the two plug-in. I tested your Lightroom Denoise approach and it works very well and is sufficient in so many cases. As you said each image is different and it is good to have more than one option for the most challenging images but for most images Lightroom Denoise does a pretty good job. Thanks for sharing your experience and approach it was very revealing to me!
As someone who is a complete beginner, who uses a Nikon D40x, a Nikon D5100 and NX Studio and who does not have access to software like Lightroom or Topaz, and who cannot be arsed to start using something like GIMP because I know it would lead me down a rabbit hole where I would be unable to get anything done due to having far too many functions and tools, I have never heard this myth that high ISO wouldnt matter >_
For DXO, the key is to choose the advanced settings and the lens softness per camera and per ISO/lighting scenario - if you don't fine tune it, it can be awful, and to make matters worse, sometimes if lens distortion is on it all goes wrong; weird colors, or textures/matting, etc. - so I leave distortion off and deal with that manually.
Plus, it is very camera dependent - it prefers a Sony type sensor and tends to work less well on my older non-Sony sensored cameras; so if you have a D3 or 1DX it will be a lot less useful to you.
To me, all three denoise software are excellent. Like food, one’s man meat may be another man’s poison. How much to denoise or sharpen is how you like that image final result. Great comparison regardless. I started with Topaz. And don’t own the highest end camera, don’t use the highest resolution monitor, I edit from my laptop screen, I am born color blind (partial). Topaz work just fine for my taste. You do you. Thank you for your efforts and tips.
Your video intros give off a Simon D'entremont vibe, then you relax more and do your presentations in your own style.
Or, his videos give off a Steve Perry vibe :) I've been doing them a LOT longer than he has :)
@backcountrygallery I've been following about 4 wildlife photographers over the past couple of years, and I just recently discovered your channel. I also have been publishing my own variety of content on youtube since 2010. It takes dedication to just one specific topic to hold interest to subscribers.
I like to switch up my content with variety, it makes things more interesting, but at the cost of subscriber count and viewership.
Some content creators will copy others who see they're doing well, in hopes to gain more subscribers, more often than not, it doesn't work out so well, because more people rather see something different than what everyone else is bringing to the table.
It's unfortunate that some people gain more followers due to their stage presence being more captivating, even though they have been doing something far less and they may not have as much experience.
Entertainment seems to do better than education, that especially goes for teachers in schools over the past couple decades. I appreciate education, although Entertainment is nice too.
@backcountrygallery I noticed he's only been on youtube for 2 years, but he's got double the amount of subscribers you have.
Unfortunately, these days longevity and experience doesn't hold as much value to viewers, as much as stage presence and being entertained. I value education more than entertainment.
I've been providing variety of content since 2006. Inconsistent, but changing it up making it interesting, but at the cost of viewership. Some people just have that presence and way of delivery that keeps viewers attention, where others don't.
@@3DEditor YT is tough for sure. Although, one thing I hear over and over that I just can't quite do is to have frequent regular content. I think it makes a difference, especially on a learning channel. When people see the same person week after week I think it's more likely that they'll subscribe. And that's a big difference between Simon and myself - he does like 52 or more videos a year, I average about 16 :)
I wouldn't mind doing more, but then other things would suffer. So, I just plug along and have a good time :)
Excellent video with great tips and refreshing to listen to someone talking sensibly about noise reduction software. I use DX0 Photolab which suits my m43 om1 files. It also allows you to adjust other settings especially the sharpening to decrease that AI look with the detail. Once again a very useful and informative video. Thanks
FYI... your comparison supports the reason why I choose a max limit of 3200 for ISO. I also have LR, Topaz and ON1. But as ON1 keeps improving... I am moving away from LR. Topaz I find I do not like the controls. The other two work better for me. Great video. Thanks
Spot on, what a great video. I rarely use AI software and feel glad to have f2.8 and f4 prime lenses for my BIF work.
Thanks Steve, great video and very timely as I'm going on a week's birding photoshoot on the 22nd in Norfolk, England (on the East coast). I have Topaz and LR so will see how I go on with your recommendations.
Great video as usual! We have the exact same Serta Comfort chair, great design love the way it contours your body when you lean back.
Thanks! Yeah, I send a lot of time at my desk and it took awhile to really find a chair I liked.