Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
So was this shot with available light with no strobes? Was it a low light situation to begin with.  If the photographer was pushing the ISO beyond 2000 you going to get grainy and soft results.  You can get rid of the noise but it may also lack sharpness.

What has the photographer done with HIS images, that is unless you paid the photographer. was it a trade shoot?

I only say this because in the 70's grain was good and often sought after in low light situations. So I suggest you work with the grain to see what may result. You may be pleasantly surprised.


I am very interested to hear what the pros think.

Trick question.  We shot indoors and the light was VERY low.  He did what he could.  No, we always work together and never pay each other.  I could send you the raws and you can see for yourself?
Email address please?

DespayreFX wrote:
Can you post one of the images, so we can see what kind of problem we're dealing with? (Also will allow us to the see the camera settings in the metadata). Is it blurred. or just grain? Grain can be removed, but often, as mentioned, especially if it's quite pronounced, it will create a lack of sharpness too, which can be dealt with, but it's a fine line.

HHonor wrote:
That looks very soft. Not terrible, but there is not a lot of detail...
Why not reshoot it in better lighting?

Working on it.

DespayreFX wrote:
I'm not sure the grain is that bad, but I'm only going by the size image you posted, and I don't think grain is a big problem for that image in general, gives it a "country feel", but I think more of a problem is the soft focus. Typically in a shot like this, you'd want those eyes tack-sharp, or darn close, If I was going through my shots after a shoot, this one would not make it to the editing stage,

Having said all that, yes, the grain can be removed from that without losing too much detail, as long as the grain isn't a lot more visible in the original image.

+1

The image posted is very small (< 2x3" at 300 dpi)  I don't see objectionable grain at this size at all.

It's a very low contrast image.  And it doesn't look like vibrance has been enhanced.

1600 is not all that high ISO for a Nikon Sensor.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
The image posted is very small (< 2x3" at 300 ppi)

Light and Lens Studio wrote:
1600 is not all that high ISO for a Nikon Sensor.

The camera used was a D300, ISO 1600 is high for that sensor. My D200 was, to my eyes, unusable for quality above ISO 400.

Reduce the ISO by using a wider aperture and use a tripod. Whilst the tripod will not counteract subject movement it will help limit camera movement.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
the model's post was reduced size from the full frame. here are the 100% samples from images:


1/125th sec @ 1600 iso


1/30th sec @1600


1/20th sec @ 1600

You need to reshoot this, focus like that isn't really worth salvaging.

Emma Charlotte wrote:
Photos from last lingerie/ Boudoir/ glamour shoot came out brilliant composition wise but grainy as I don't know what.  Looked at the RAWS- same story.
Anyone up for a challenge?  (Paid, of course, but you have to look at them first). 

Thank you!

~Emma Char.

Noise = lack of clean image data, in technical terms. It is a texture added by the camera over the main texture of the actual image. The only way to remove noise is filtering and as all filtering it is a destructive process as it always affects the underlying texture too.

If the images shown in a previous post are the ones you are trying to save, then you have no chance to recover anything. Better leave the noise as is to avoid plastic filtered look.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
High iso on a D300 and so-so lens. Image isn't sharp on eyes, though fabric is sharp in body suit in spots. Looks to be salvageable with some careful noise removal on the two window raws. the orange background jpegs are more problematic - they are actually pretty soft. flare and some obvious camera/subject movement (1/30th-1/20th sec at f4) with the high iso noise.

Filename - DSC_0204.NEF
Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D300
DateTimeOriginal - 2016:06:04 06:47:37
ExposureTime - 1/125 seconds
FNumber - 7.10
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 1600
DateTimeOriginal - 2016:06:04 06:47:37
DateTimeDigitized - 2016:06:04 06:47:37
MaxApertureValue - F 5.28
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
LightSource - Fine weather
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 55.00 mm
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Manual
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 82 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - High gain up
Sharpness - Hard
Data version - 0120 (808530480)
ISO Setting - 1600
Image Quality - RAW
White Balance - SUNNY
Focus Mode - AF-C
Flash Setting - NORMAL
ISO 2 - 1600
Colorspace - sRGB
ISO 3 - 1600
ISO Expansion - Off
Lens type - G VR
Lens - 16.00
Flash Used - Not fired
Shooting Mode - 65536
Contrast Curve - I0
Noise Reduction - OFF
Lens info - 0203

Agreed, with lens and ISO ratings for a older Nikon D300. 

- The lens appears to be a consumer grade zoom (18-55 f/3.5 to 5.6G) at what appears to have been its focal limit 55mm, gleaned from the fact that maximum aperture is 5.28), thus, its going to be soft.

- This 2007 era D300 camera should not go above ISO 800 if you want semi-clean images and 1,600 is crazy.  I had the Nikon D200 and its usable was about ISO 400. 

- I'll also point out that the Focus was set to AF-C, which is a nightmare for a static model shoot.  The camera/lens will continuously hunt for focus resulting in many "soft" shots.  To complicate matter, the shots are all back lit.

- Finally, with a crop sensor (1.5), handheld shutter speed should be 1/200 second at 55mm (equiv of 82mm).  Its a VR lens, but unsure whether handshake was within VR capability ... doesn't look like it.

Herman van Gestel wrote:
It's not grain, it's noise, an aesthetical  (and functional) difference ....

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

+1.

I might add, there's also a technical difference.  Noise is electronic.  Grain is film.  Grain is good.  Noise, not so much.