Timeline for What is a good amount of noise reduction to apply in post-processing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2012 at 19:15 | comment | added | user2719 | There's generally a level of noise below which you don't really want to fall as well. If you've ever done the "perfect" 3D render or done a background swap (to anything other than pure black or white), you've probably noticed that the eye won't accept it as real until you add just a hint of noise/grain in the luma channel (chroma noise is less desirable). It's not just about quantization artifacts, but that is a part of it. That tiny amount of dither might bother you at the pixel-peeping level, but not nearly as much as its absence will at the "big picture" level. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 18:32 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 104 characters in body
|
| Jul 3, 2012 at 15:56 | comment | added | Itai | Matt is right. There is no generally good level of noise. Some people like less noise and don't mind the softness added by noise-reduction and others prefer the reverse. Even more important is that noise shows up very differently depending on the print-size and medium used. Textured papers (canvas style) for example tend to hide noise quite well, smooth matte papers not so much. | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | David | Ok, this is a fair point. I was attempting to make the question less subjective, but this way of phrasing made it seem like I was expecting a "one-size-fits-all" solution. I do recognize that this is a subjective issue that may depend a lot on the photo, but I'm trying to figure out what is "generally accepted" as looking good. Or should the take-home message be that there is no generally accepted "good" amount of noise? | |
| Jul 3, 2012 at 14:47 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 3, 2012 at 13:46 | history | answered | mattdm | CC BY-SA 3.0 |