noise vs sharpness

Hopefully I’m posting in the correct forum. I know this is a common problem, but I've been lurking here for sometime and trying various things and still am not happy with the results.

I’ve been shooting high school sports for a few years using Canon 350D, more recently Canon 60D. I was using a 85mm 1.8 for softball and indoor volleyball, but wanted to get some full frame shots for these sports and to try some nighttime big field sports (football, soccer). I got a Sigma 70-200 2.8. But now I am having problems with excessive noise with this lens.

I’ve put some RAWs in my dropbox located here:
https://www.dropbox.co​m/sh/jfjiftg0p47kccb/d​X4dUD1EJd
one a nighttime shot at ISO3200, another daytime football at ISO250, and an indoor basketball at ISO1600, with the hopes that someone can show what I am missing in my processing to make an acceptably sharp photo with an acceptable level of noise, neither of which I have been having trouble achieving. We have PS, ACR, DPP, Noiseware, and I think somewhere we also have Neat Image.

Thanks in advance for your examples of what can be done with these shots and for your workflow.

I don't have a workflow for you, but one thing that comes immediately to mind looking at the ISO3200 shot is that I would definitely apply selective noise reduction and sharpening.

Usually I would apply some base level of NR and then selectively sharpen the in-focus areas and apply more noise reduction to the OOF areas.

This should be possible in ACR + PS, but I would use something else (AfterShotPro + noise ninja), so I'll leave it to someone to show you what they did. Is Noiseware a PS plugin? If so it should be easy enough to apply that workflow.

Of course you are never going to get a super-sharp image with no noise from that shot.

Noise has no direct connection to the lens used. It has many possible sources - spurious radiation from electronic elements, heat from the battery, random errors in converting the analog signal to digital data, inequalities in pixel functions and many other causes - but all of them are produced by the sensor and the way its output is processed and are the same no matter what lens is attached to the body. There can be an indirect connection in that sharpening done in post-processing can make noise that is already present more visible and a poor quality lens will induce you to use more sharpening in an attempt to compensate for its failings.

BTW, "full frame shots" are also unconnected to the lens, but rather dependent entirely on the size of the sensor in the body.

img_4081 is underexposed by 3 stops
The other 2 are under exposed by 2/3
underexposure is a no no when dealing with noise and high ISO

As Windpig says, the best way to keep noise at a tolerable level is to avoid underexposing. The temptation when shooting action in poor light is to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO down, the end product is underexposure. It is necessary to get as close as possible to a correct exposure, because noise loves the shadows. That is why sport shooters desire fast glass and Image Stabilisation.

I'd like to add that noise is not just confined to the shadows, but can be noticeable in areas of consistent tonality.

Here are some examples of the impact of exposure at high ISO. This is out of a 40D, no NR applied.
The 2nd image is an example of why overexposing, when given the chance, then correcting in post, is the way to go. Lower signal to noise.
It's also the reason people like to shoot intermediate ISOs that are 1/3 stops under the base ISOs of 100, 200 etc. the camera over exposes by 1/3, then corrects back. So 160 ISO is actually 200 ISO adjusted back to 160. Where as shooting at + 1/3 stop ISO's has the camera under exposing by 1/3, then bring back up.

image1 is correct exposure at 100 ISO
image2 is 2/3 stops over at 800 ISO then corrected in post
image3 is 2/3 stops under exposed at 800 ISO and corrected in post
image4 is correct exposure at 800 ISO

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

windpig wrote in post #16562687
I'd like to add that noise is not just confined to the shadows, but can be noticeable in areas of consistent tonality.

And the converse is true also; noise is less apparent in highly textured areas.

Thanks everyone for the comments and explanations! I will make sure I don't underexpose in the future!

I guess I phrased my post incorrectly. I was testing the 70-200 2.8 lens with a variety of aperture, speed, and ISO to see what would work best in the different settings. These were the worst examples from each, and I was hoping to see what's the best other people could process these to (short of throwing them out ).

Thanks again.

I think you're always best to test in a static environment.

The images are underexposed, as previously stated. There is also camera shake that leaves the image soft. I am not familiar with this lens, but AF is also critical when shooting at this zoom and aperture. Do you shoot with a monopod? It may help stabilize the camera/lens combo. PS CC camera shake reduction actually does a pretty nice job on the daytime football scene. I have not tested it on the other images.

You can hit the chroma noise super aggressively and leave most of the luma noise if the images are destined to be reduced in size and posted on the web.

kirk

would it be wise then when shooting at higher Iso or in low light to add +1/3 Stop EC to ensure all pictures are slightly over exposed ?

birderman wrote in post #16565185
would it be wise then when shooting at higher Iso or in low light to add +1/3 Stop EC to ensure all pictures are slightly over exposed ?

over exposing by 1/3 to 2/3 stops gives you a cleaner image, so I would, then fix in post. Just be sure your not clipping a channel, but generally you'd be hard pressed to be in that situation.

Add as much EC as necessary as long as you are not blowing out any important highlights. Use the blinkies to keep track of that. It may appear really bright on the VF or LCD but that's ok. You can pull it back in post.

Some processing examples from ACR/PS. I left most of the luma noise so you could see what a 1024 px rendering with no luma NR looks like. I usually do not use ACR/LR, so forgive my lousy conversions.

You should experiment with your camera and find out just how much raw headroom you have to overexpose and pull back in post. If you are not the type to simply take a sample of exposures and see what "looks right", Raw Digger is a valuable tool for exploration of this kind of subject:

http://www.rawdigger.c​om

kirk

Snowyman wrote in post #16562564
As Windpig says, the best way to keep noise at a tolerable level is to avoid underexposing. The temptation when shooting action in poor light is to keep the shutter speed up and the ISO down, the end product is underexposure. It is necessary to get as close as possible to a correct exposure, because noise loves the shadows. That is why sport shooters desire fast glass and Image Stabilisation.

First part is true. The bold part is not.

Look on the sidelines at the experienced shooters and you will find IS turned off on virtually everyone of their lenses. If you can stop the action with your shutter speed, you don't need IS to stop your action.