Do RAW images create excessive noise at high ISOs?

[Larry S.]

The noise is there at the shooting stage.
The only issue is when and how to take steps to reduce the noise.
In the background - part sidetracking the original discussion - in something like Lightroom applying Denoise to a RAW file gets 10,000 ISO RAW file noise close to 400 ISO and to a moderate extent can increase resolution.
A possible downside using Lightroom is the age and specification of the computer.
My M2 + chip takes about 45 seconds a file.
Some with old computers report up to 10 minutes. Some other PP systems are widely reported as processing the equivalent of Denoise much quicker.

I find with wildlife it is rare for more than 1 in 20 images to merit significant post processing.
This reduces PP time when shooting at high ISO's.

Thanks Len! I will explore this in LrC. I have the Macbook w/M3 chip coming next week that should improve editing.

 

[Larry S.]

I think if you set your camera to record a raw and a jpeg and went into nx studio with a raw file and applied the various sliders to a similar degree that you set your camera to, you could demonstrate for yourself that the raw does not have more noise than the jpeg. As mentioned, you might be looking at the raw before the settings are applied.

I'd venture to say that these days most of noise comes from variability in light itself that becomes more evident when we use the iso dial to force the camera to underexpose in terms of the actual amount of light we allow to hit the sensor. The iso isn't creating the noise, setting the camera to high iso is forcing the meter to underexposure in terms of f number and/or shutter speed, and when we amplify the underexposure to brighten it, the noise that is there gets amplified right with it.

Exactly, the wren was backlit horribly and I knew going in that the ISO would really jump. What surprised me was how effective the “in camera” NR worked at 1,400 iso with JPEGs. The RAW image at 1,400 iso, without editing, looks like newsprint. Didn’t understand at the time that “in camera” NR had no effect on RAW images. Makes more sense now, thanks Bill….

 

[Larry S.]

The needs of Sports and Press photography are the primary motivation for optimizing in-camera jpgs. In short, the industry demands relatively small files shared at high speeds, enabling editors to not only meet deadlines but get their best shots into syndicated news feeds.
Consider, for example, how rapidly this image went viral from Tahiti

Shot of the Olympics taken with a Nikon Z9

bcgforums.com

The engineers designing pro ILCs have invested heavily in optimizing the camera to edit high quality images at very fast speeds before writing to disk, but smaller enough to network in real time to servers. So press ready.... With little or no time for post processing, except perhaps cropping in the studio.
Trending subjects and events are often captured in less than ideal light conditions, hence the prowess of in-camera editing of flagship ILCs to minimize image noise at high ISOs. Moreover, picture control files provide Pros with the on site editing tools to optimize their images contingent on local conditions.
However, our cameras also allow capturing RAW+jpg if one chooses. Best of both worlds.

Interesting! Didn’t know the backstory here. Thanks for taking the time to explain the “wherefores and the whys”>>> (great Gordon Lightfoot by the way)