I am using the latest version of light room and i have been noticing noise in my images. I saw few posts related to lightroom showing grainy/noisy photos in develop mode but view in the library mode was ok. I am comparing 1:1 in both modes. the photos i export without editing is also grainy from light room than the ones produced through DPP export or out of the camera. I am intentionally trying to blow up ISO here to see camera capabilities. But how original photo looks and what I see in lightroom makes me a little concerned.
My normal pictures (low iso) also show a little grainier when it should be clean.
I am not sure if there were any fixes on adobe side for the same.
the settings on all these photos are aperture: 5.6, shutter: 1/160 and iso: 6400
Every camera will be noisy at that exposure! They can't bend the laws of physics. Noise in modern cameras is just caused by the statistics of photons hitting sensor pixels. Smaller pixels -> fewer photons hitting the pixel -> more noise. Less light hitting the sensor because of higher aperture and or shorter shutter speed? More noise. ISO has little to do with noise nowadays as amplifiers have gotten really good and it is just photon statistics (i.e. exposure) nowadays. An image that is optimally exposed at the settings above will have considerable noise in the raw data even with the very best sensors out there. You can to some degree control the visibility of noise in the developed image using noise reduction algorithms but you can't get around that the raw data will contain it and so has to be dealt with. Lightroom has reasonably good noise reduction built in but it takes a bit of work to understand how they work well. Per gives a good primer in this thread. There are amazingly good AI based noise reduction algorithms such as Topaz software but you have to create a new tiff file and it is relatively slow although on the latest M1 machines it is quite fast but still an extra step and you generate very large files. Optimal is to learn how to use the built-in tools well for the bulk of your images and those that don't have crazy amounts of noise and for those exceptional prize shots (e.g. the bear catching the salmon at dusk) perhaps use external tools such as Topaz's stuff.
A few observations, not help at this point
@GoldingD below is the screen shot of my settings for raw defaults and no presets are being applied. I was getting noise even when i was at 100% but for the screenshot i zoomed in a bit more so that it is more visible.
I see that you have selected to use the in camera settings. May or may not foul things up, depends upon what your in camera settings are, and which ones LrC brings along from a specific camera. Could be nothing more than selecting the camera matching profile, one would have to test, with and without.
I had tried several raw profile settings but had the same result.
Profiles can't fix noise and the noise is caused by under exposure.
When working with noisy images, sharpening has to be done carefully and conservatively, and the Masking slider is particularly important.
It is set to 0 by default, which means that every part of the image is sharpened equally.
Dragging the slider to the right will mask out flat areas (where noise is most visible) and protect them from sharpening.
You can see the effect by pressing the Option key (Alt key on Windows) while dragging the slider. White areas will be sharpened, black areas will be protected.
After applying masking, use Luminance noise reduction if necessary. This also has to be done carefully, too much noise reduction will reduce sharpness.
Always work at 100% when applying sharpening and noise reduction.
Can you upload one of the raws to something like Dropbox so the actual raw data can be examined outside any processing with something like RawDigger?
ISO per se isn't the cause of more noise (in some cases, higher ISO actually reduces noise):
One major factor in the noise here is under-exposure. This is from RawDigger, which provides NO processing like LR or any other raw converter and shows the actual raw data with exposure stats (and in this case, blue overlay for under-exposed data). See the stats outlined in the 3rd screen capture below.
This last image is likely to be a wider dynamic range than the camera can capture! If you add another stop or more to provide much better data in the shadows (and blue areas), you'll blow out the window. In fact, with the exposure just above, you can see, the window is already blow out (red overlay):
Again, this IS the raw data itself being analysed, there is no raw processing edits etc being applied.
This is fundamentally an exposure issue. Less exposure, more noise.
This has nothing to do again with ISO either. ISO does not affect exposure. ISO affects an exposure recommendation. You (can) control exposure if you wish. Setting ISO speed does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to incoming light, like volume control does not change the sensitivity of a radio. In both cases the setting (ISO or volume) controls only the signal processing, while the input stage (sensor, antenna) provides the same input signal and in this case, exposure to the sensor.
That's why when ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure results in more noise - automatic exposure in this case decreases the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light captured by the sensor). Less exposure, less light, more noise. If a camera 'feature' under exposes the raw, that's not good. Optimal exposure, for raw (which differs from a JPEG), a color neg, a transparency is all basic photography 101.
Articles on exposing for specifically and only raw: http://www.onezone.photos http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/ https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/ http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range
That meter is based on a JPEG, not raw data. The articles I provided in the last post discuss this (and more).
Even if the meter did base itself on a raw, reflective meters are often wrong! Point your camera at a black cat on coal or a white dog on snow and what the matter suggests will be a good two stops off.