Do you get more noise in Raw at a hight ISO than you do a JPEG?
I just shot some stuff with my 5D Raw that was shot at 1250 and it looks horrible. Seems like the noise is very bad. I dont remember having 1600 shot jpegs look that noisy.


Someone please 'splain.

My only guess would be that the camera applies some noise reduction when shooting jpeg, but that could be a complete fabrication on my part.

Something concrete here Phil, I need something concrete.

Not the most popular thread now is it? Come on super tech guys, help me out.

I have noticed the same thing with my nikon gear. I need anwsers too.

Interesting indeed....I just switched back to JPEG and the files seem so smooth. I was used to that noisy look in RAW I guess.

ANYWAYS....Yes, it's true. JPEG applies noise reduction in-camera to your pictures. RAW does not.

In a recent talk yervant mentioned that Jpeg images have rounder pixel edges once the camera converts the image from it's initial capture.
I guess it's just that RAW images have higher definition and thus make pixels (which are probably made up of several colors) more noticeable...
Still the flexibility of RAW and after capture noise reduction software can always make a better picture than what you get from a jpg image that is straight from the camera. Just think of the difference in computing power...

Take a look if you like at this gallery:
http://www.sendtoprint.net

password: newfor2007

most night and indoor shots were shot at iso's higher than 1000.

I dealt with this same problem when I switched to Raw. I though... Yuck this won't work.

There's two things however to remember. Raw is giving you all the data that is in the image (hence Raw) You can do the same thing you can with jpeg. Go into the raw settings and play with the details settings like noise and sharpness until you see what you like. Remember that you should be zoomed in close when going this to see how much is actually changing. Once you find what you like for the situation you were shooting you can copy it to the others.

I know it seems weird at first, but you'll get used to it. Once you learn tp process raw it rocks. By the way if you want to live it up get Lightroom. It rocks. Lastly I don't know if the theory that says jpegs have a less noisy look because of the pixel shape has anything o do with this or not. I think mainly it's just that jpeg adds the noise reduction automatically instead of giving you control of it. But either way when your done working the raw files you'll export to jpeg anyway.

Gav

Bump up the reduce noise Slider in Bridge or Lightroom and if you're still displeased run the Reduce (Color) Noise filter in CS2. Also when processing I find that if you bump up the exposure instead of the Brightness it doesn't make the nosie as prevalent.

Also as a great way to make noise less noticeable is to duplicate the layer apply a generous (8-15px) gaussian blur (or a surface blur) and then set the blend mode to "Color" This will make the noise more like "speckles" which are less noticeable and then after that merge the layers and do a reduce noise filter again, or even despeckle.

I usually have more noise when I shoot raw because I do alot of my processing in Linux with UFRaw and Gimp and have only recently found a decent noise reduction software (greycstoration).

thats because it's a nikon.


i've shot stuff at 1000 ISO on my 1D Mark IIN that looks fantastic. of course i never shoot in jpeg so i can't say what the difference is, but it's also a lot to do with the post processing. the better you get the image in camera, the less adjustments you'll have to make in post and thus you should have less problems with noise.

PS - use lightroom!

I have shot RAW and together with JPG and then do a side by side comparison of the 2 files, and to answer your question, yes RAW seem to have more noise than JPG, then again, its actually not noise ...
RAW captures down to every single pixel. If you zoom in 100% view or more, you can see that RAW has different color pixel and very detail [no compression], while JPG smooths out a group of similar pixels, and to the human eye, it seems less noise.

That has nothing to to with what it is being asked!

While Canon sensors in general have better noise at high ISO (they still have noise), it has nothing to with her problem. Only a true Canon addict would say that

Truth be told, you will experience the same on any camera. But because Canon noise is much lower than any camera in the market, you probably will not notice it as much, but it will be there.

As it has been said already, when you shoot jpgs, every camera in the market will process in camera the image according to whatever parameters you choose in the setup... contrast, saturation, noise reduction, etc. When you shoot RAW, does not matter which camera or brand, what you get is the unprocessed image from the sensor. That is why RAW images look flatter and less saturated than their jpg counterpart.

But in the long run, RAW files are way better than their jpg counterpart.

Thanks guys very much for your input. Its wierd though, I was looking at some images my friend shot with her 30D and compared to the ones at the same ISO with my 5D, they were alot less noisy.

I used to love my 5D, but now Im on the fence about the whole low light high ISO thing. I would rather not have to run all of my images through RAW converter and then a noiseware filter just to make them acceptable.


Is there a trick, a tip, a secret I should know about that would help, other than what has been graciously stated?

Basically everyone said SHOOT RAW... is that not good enough? I know it seems like a big transition but it really isn't and RAW doesn't take as much time as you think - in fact, it takes less time to batch process RAWs than it does to make your JPEGs look acceptable for final output.

So let's recap.... a couple of very good tips that were thrown out there were:

1. SHOOT RAW
2. USE LIGHTROOM

You shouldn't have to use a noise filter for images from your 5D. I get beautiful results from my 1D Mark IIN (8.2 megapixels, 1.3x sensor) at 800, 1000 and 1250 ISO, and VERY usable results at 1600 ISO, I hardly even use the noise reduction slider in Lightroom.

The following images were shot using the 1D Mark IIN and one or two 580EX flashes with pocketwizards. Settings are noted below the images. NOTE: although these are not SOOC images, they have been processed using basic controls in Adobe Lightroom and one or two Kevin Kubota actions have been applied for color effects.


ISO 1000 1/13sec at f/5.0 Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM


ISO 1000 1/25sec at f/5.0 Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM


ISO 1000 1/25sec at f/5.6 Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

She already said that she is shooting raw. That's what she's having trouble with - with RAW she is getting more noise than with JPG. And I'm not sure if you're intending it or not, but you seem to be a little demeaning. Maybe you need to get friendly with the smiley face icon.

And how do images from a different camera help her?

Karen, (and everyone else who took what I said the wrong way) sorry if I seemed a bit harsh. I understand that she is shooting RAW, but there is some debate here about the RAW VS. Jpeg thing that is pretty unnecessary. The images are simply posted as a comparison - from a camera that isn't even full frame (full frame is supposedly less noise, right?) but is still obviously a Canon camera - so naturally results should be somewhat close, right?

I too have found a lot more noise in my raw trials, and even tho every one says raw is faster, I have not yet found the magic raw workflow. Whether I shoot Canon or Fuji, and use Raw+jpeg, I find the sooc jpegs needing a lot less processing than the raws, thus less tifoc ( time in front of computer), so I usually just shoot jpeg.
bl

No actually, its probably NOT the same, and yes, you did come off extremely abrasive.
The crux of my issue isnt really RAW vs JPEG, but full frame vs not. (30Dvs5D).
I know everyones in love with Lightroom, but its a memory hog and If I have CS2 and Lightroom it will bog down my drive. Im just wondering if It (for my shooting style) would benifit me to get a different camera body (30D).

See? Now dont you feel bad for biting my head off.


Thank you. Just what I was thinking.(Oh and some other things that I will keep to myself).

Compared which way? Apple and Oranges do not compare... which means... Are you compare jps on the 30D with RAW in the 5D? That is Apples and Oranges.

Even if you have to noise process your RAW files, what you gain by shooting RAw clearly outweight using jpgs.

What glass are you using in the 5D? Quality of glass has bearing in the quality of the image, specially on full frame sensors.

Was the image in the 5D properly exposed? Undersexposed images will be noisier than the same image well expose.... low lighting shooting is not the same as underexposing. It could have been that the image in the 30D was well exposed while your was underexposed... the 5D is much better camera than the 30D.

Was the noise reduction feature in the 30D on or off? That, right there can be the difference...

Have you compared the quality of noise shooting jpgs mode in both cameras with equal settings? To be a true comparision both have to have the same settings and under same situation, otherwise what you get is not conclusive at all.

To do a real comparison among both camera... Shoot in manual mode, same lens in both, and exposed, not according to the camera meter but both cameras according what a hand held meter tells.

Like someone said, shoot RAW, regardless, but if you want to use a 30D instead of the 5D, I am sure you won't have any trouble selling your 5D here in OSP

But again, the 5D is a better camera than the 30D. In my opinion you will go backwards if you trade your 5D for a 30D (an excellent camera in its own right).

crap, sorry for trying to help. apparently we should all go back to shooting JPEG and forget about programs like lightroom and bridge/CR.

you MUST be on a PC, because you haven't experienced lightroom on the proper machine yet - if you tried apple's aperture you would see a true memory hog - but LR runs fine on a mac.

well, good luck with your noisy images. don't come crying back to me for help.

You know, it might just be me but your an asshole.

Why dont you get some help for that.

Yes, cameras do apply noise processing automatically to jpgs. One reason to shoot RAW is so that you can control what kind of noise processing and how much.

I just did a shot with a D200 at ISO1600. The jpg is not very good, but it is usable. The RAW image is completely unusable. Someone on another thread remarked that high-iso shots from the D200 look like "confetti" - and that's right. However, I use Bibble as a Photoshop plug-in for conversion, so all I did was check the Noise Ninja button (a simple free version comes with it) and the difference was astounding. The shot was much better than the jpg - and better than the iso 800 jpgs from my 20D.

Uniform noise is easy to handle - but noise processing has to be in the workflow somewhere.

Thanks John, that helped alot.

I have the 5D and 30D ... the 5D is noticeably better at high ISO's. I shoot a lot at ISO 1600 and get nice, clean files. The 30D is pretty good, but it just can't touch the 5D.

Like other people have said, JPEGs out of the camera do have noise reduction applied. A jpeg out of the cam, is basically a RAW that the camera has converted.

It's worth shooting RAW, because of the greater color depth, better exposure control, better quality, better dynamic range, etc.

One thing to keep in mind: I heard this secondhand, so I can't guarantee it's truth, but in my observations it's true... The "in between" (1/3 stop) ISO settings (125, 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 1000, 1250) are NOT true, native sensitivities for the sensor. They are basically pushed or pulled exposures, i.e. ISO 320 is really ISO 200 pushed a bit, and ISO 640 is really ISO 800 pulled a bit (all in-camera).

So, following that (and following my experience), I see less noise at the steps that are pulled, rather than pushed. Meaning, I see less noise at ISO 640 than at 500, and less at 1250 than at 1000. It's just like how ISO 50 has less dynamic range than ISO 100, because it's an artificial sensitivity.

Try shooting at the camera's native sensitivities, if possible, or at the pulled settings if not. Of course, if you're underexposing and pushing in post, you WILL see excess noise, every time. But assuming you're nailing, or slightly overexposing your images, you should see less noise at native or pulled ISO's.

The 5D is really very good, and is the current "low noise champ" (DISCLAIMER: this doesn't mean other cameras don't do a good job, but the FACT is that they don't do as well as the 5D). I think you'd be dissappointed going to the 30D.

FWIW, all my shots from WPPI/Vegas were at ISO 1600, on my blog.

That was the most awsome helpful response ever. Thanks very much. (although I will have to print this out and study it until it truly sticks ) Great information, I will try all what you have mentioned on my next shoot. Thanks for basicaly stopping me from panicking and ditching the 5D. This gives me a much clearer picture (HA! No pun inteneded)

I've been following this thread and this explanation makes perfect sense to me and I now consider the phenomanon(sp?) explained. It makes perfect sense because if you take an image that's under exposed and push it you get more noise and if you overexpose and pull it hides the noise. I know i completely just restated what you said but I didn't realize that the 5d didn't shoot at all of those sensetivites natively. Thanks so much for such a great explanation.

I think you restated it in a more readable way

AFAIK, the 5D's native sensitivities are 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600. Anything else is compensated in-camera. It kinda makes the 1D Mk. III even cooler, since it can shoot ISO 3200 natively!

Wow... 3200 natively??? Jeez... makes me wish i was a Canon shooter.... i've always been the oddball though... my father, brother, fiancee as well as the two great photographers I assist all shoot Canon... yet I happly snap away with my beloved nikon gear. Hmm... maybe i'll start small and see a well used 300d or 350d in my future with that fantastic 50mm f/1,8 lens.

I only shoot raw Jen, so sorry I can't be much help on this one.
Great reply earlier though

LOL,
-Frank