Up side down Vol. 2

[Galaxy99]

I went back to shoot the dance show (mostly break/hop hip). As organizer asked me to pick up any seat I want to, I sat at front row, 5 feet way from the stage. I was able to use my 17-55 instead of 70-200 to get wider angle effect. I set ISO to 1600 due to the inconsistant lighting, I had no time to switch setting at all. M mode with f/2.8 fix, adjusted shutter speed depent on the lighting and dancer's movement. I feel that I still could complete focus on a dance, (Ai Servo, with center AF point/area AF points), my photo is noise too, even after a big photoshoping and Noise Nijar... Well, I am still to both softwares too though, so maybe someone can enlightern me for how to remove noise... here comes one picture I took. ((image edit is OKAY):)

Oh, I did shoot in Raw! (first time)

Thank you.

[johnstoy]

Very nice...great action selection... I would also bring up individual shots of each of the dancers... you might find the best selections out of other group shots... just trim them out...
We also want to see more than just one picture...

Both programs have noise reduction features... you can also "Fade" the applied functions by percentage with a slider...

I often apply sharpening and later Noise Ninja and resharpen, and if the application is too strong, just "Fade" it by a noticeable percentage... even an 80% fade back, on the sharpening, leaves a noticeable quality result...

[Galaxy99]

thanks, John. May I ask what you mean by "fade"? Is it a one of the filters in CS2 or apply to some other function. I do have some individual shots for each dancer, I will post a few of them later. However, I do notice there are noticeable noise, "red dots", What is the most efficient way to reduce those "red dots" with Noise Ninja? I always feel the way I play around Ninja doesn't really improve the noise level... Sorry, if my question is too rookie... Thank you, guys.

[René Damkot]

Right after using a filter (USM or blur for instance), go Edit > Fade ...
Color noise is easily removed by duplicating the layer, using Filter>Noise>Median (radius about the number of Mp of your camera, so 8 to 10)
Then set the blend mode to 'color'.
One drawback: Small details with a different color then the surrounding (like the red lettering on the black shirt), might get affected. You might want to mask the layer on such areas.

[Galaxy99]

thanks Rene. Just for clarification, Fade is going to be done after i save raw file to either tif or jpg, Is that correct? I assume the steps I should use on an under exposed picture will be:

1. Cs2 raw process, increase exposure - will cause noticeable noise, (red dot)
2. save it as Tiff
3. in regular CS 2, apply face, then use filter-noise-median.(or i can do it in raw file, color noise reduction)
4. Lastly, apply noise ninja to the picture to see if there is any way to improve noise a bit more.

Hope my thought is on the right track. Thanks.

[Galaxy99]

I tried sharpening then fade... Does it look a bit better?????????
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Lencal76/postforadvice-sharpen-fade.jpg

[René Damkot]

thanks Rene. Just for clarification, Fade is going to be done after i save raw file to either tif or jpg, Is that correct? I assume the steps I should use on an under exposed picture will be:

1. Cs2 raw process, increase exposure - will cause noticeable noise, (red dot)
2. save it as Tiff
3. in regular CS 2, apply face, then use filter-noise-median.(or i can do it in raw file, color noise reduction)
4. Lastly, apply noise ninja to the picture to see if there is any way to improve noise a bit more.

The 'underexposed' part explains why you have a 'lot' of noise... (I don't find them overly noisey BTW)

You could use NR in the raw converter.

Don't know what you mean by 'apply face'?

The last edit of the image has too high contrast / saturation IMO.

[Galaxy99]

sorry, It was a typo, I meant apply sharpen then fade... It is too early in the morning for my brain functioning correctly..lol

What does NR stand for if you don't mind? I have lightroom and CS2 to deal with Raw. Actually i have no clue with lightroom yet...hehe...

[René Damkot]

Noise Reduction ;)

[johnstoy]

I tried working with the 1st image from this end, and after importing it into Photoshop found it too difficult to apply any additional post processing...

especially when I cropped out the second dancer from the right... once enlarged there was no more quality resolution and detail to work with...

You must have cropped it some at the very beginning...or it was a slow shutter speed shot that needed lots of sharpening...

On your second one, I would use levels, and adjust the black ... looking at the black curtain in the left center, the definition is gone in the second pic... you could slowly bring that back in levels, to acquire more middle tones...

Got any other ones?

[Galaxy99]

yes, John, I have cropped and reduced the solution before post it. Let me place an link to original tiff once i got home... Thanks a lot!!

[Galaxy99]

Hey, John, the "original" jpeg is here under the link. It is too big to place it here. Can you tell me the processing you have done with CS2 and Ninja after playing around with the picture? Thank you a bunch!

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Lencal76/Groovaloo3-17-07025.jpg

[Galaxy99]

here is another one I have no idea if it is good or aweful... sigh...http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Lencal76/Groovaloo3-17-07029-advice.jpg

[johnstoy]

Here we go...I did a little Boogaloo on your Groovaloo...

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l60/stoy17/POTN%20Modified%2007/Groovaloo3-17-07025.jpg

I imported the image into Photoshop and first went into the "Filter" column and Sharpened the image and then applied Levels from the "Edit" Column - in Adjustments...
In Levels I first took a white sample with the eye dropper of the white T shirt of the girl on the left (whitest part of her chest)...then with the black eye dropper took a sample of the black slacks from the guy in the back with the black T shirt with cut of sleeves "Rockies"... then using the sliders, I lightened the gray zones for more middle tones between gray and black... Saved the changes...

Went right to Noise Ninja and applied a mild dose of application at around the 41.00 index... Then, to bring back more detail again... in the "Edit" column, I chose Fade Noise Ninja and faded it back with the slider to only 28% of the original Noise Ninja apllication...

When I went into the Photoshop program, my intentions were to bring out the middle tones and more gray zones... I didn't mess with the colors except at the very end...In Zoom Browser EX, prior to exporting the image to the Forum, I added a little Color Saturation to revitalize the slightly pale image...

[johnstoy]

here is another one I have no idea if it is good or aweful... sigh...

It is a pretty good capture of action on the dance stage...

If you're going to shoot a lot of these stage pics you might want to start saving for a fast prime lens... The Canon 50mm 1.4 is real fast, but it isn't very wide... Try your lens at 50mm and see what it looks like...:rolleyes:

Otherwise the Canon 35mm 1.4 is another good alternative... Primes are fast... your shutter speed at 1/60th is nice for colors and still images and rough for action...

Personally, I'm saving for the Canon 24mm 1.4 prime lens...It costs a lot...

EDIT:
Try bringing back some pics in RAW...Now that you have Photoshop...you can adjust the exposure in RAW, before you do detailed post processing...I compared the above pics and find that mine is actually too light...the best of the lot would be a combination of your second attempt and mine middle tones in the third...

[René Damkot]

Gave it a shot as well.
http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/POTN/Groovaloo3-17-07025.jpg

IMO the levels adjustment by John is too much (as he noted himself ;)): The red channel is allready clipping in the original. In his edit the highlights are completely blown... Also the WB is affected too much IMHO.

I used a channel mixer adjustment layer to recover the red channel a bit (Red channel: R=90%, G=5%, B=5%)
Then I used a masked curves adjustment layer to pull up the midtones on the dancers a bit (126/113), and a curves adjustment layer with the mask inverted to darken the BG a bit (97/108 ). Lastly I applied a USM of 200%, radius 0,3, threshold 0 to sharpen, and converted to sRGB for web display.
No NR needed IMO.

[Galaxy99]

Wow, you guys are awesome! Thanks so much Rene and John. The picture looks much better after your process. I will come back with more questions for sure. :)

I don't know if I am a lousy photographer cuz I don't see the sharp focus at all on all of my pictures. I know my lens is not that bad and I even used AF entire area focus to make my focus job a bit easier comparing to center AF point focus. I know I can use excuses as the lighting, focus speed, blar, blar. I really like to know where I can improve the quality of my shots as I will go back to do my 3rd try this week. I really really like to see a SHARPER focus in my picture.

Lens wise, I am getting a used 85mm f/1.8 primarily for indoor volleyball shooting, but I don't know if it will help at stage dance shooting too. (I know an excuse for my poor skills again, sigh...) I guess I can't be able to shoot the stage (not wide at all), but only for individual dancers. Do you think f/1.8, ISO800/1600, is it possible to get shutter speed up to 200 or higher to capture their movement. (all the pixes I posted were taken at f/2.8 ISO 1600 and shutter speed from 60-160, adjusted exposure in CS2 in Raw file) They do lots of flips, spins, etc... I really like to hear your opinion of that since it is coming up pretty soon.

As 50mm shot John asked, I am posting a pix I took @50mm. Thanks a bunch.http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/Lencal76/Groovalooshow12.jpg

[johnstoy]

The 85mm is a fast focus f1.8 lens and will give you substantial, additional leverage, for shutter speed...You will need to shoot from further back to get the entire body into the pic...Try viewing through one of your lenses at 85mm, it will give you a better idea. I shoot the greater half of my shows with the 85mm.

This 50mm sample gives you a fair example of what the 50mm 1.4lens would do... a Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is available, at a ridiculously low price of about $75...but the 50mm 1.4 is even faster...The 85mm 1.8 prime lens is one of the best deals in the business.

[Galaxy99]

I actually have an interesting finds by comparing the picture quality from 70-200L f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The pictures look sharper and cleaner from 70-200L I used last time. Both operated @ 2.8 all the time under low lighting/unstable lighting situation. So L lens does perform better even the price difference between two is less than $250.

Again, I am only saying at low lighting indoor situation, 17-55mm on landscaping kicks a$$! I hope prime 85mm f/1.8 will outperform L f/2.8 as it should be its specialty.

[René Damkot]

I don't know if I am a lousy photographer cuz I don't see the sharp focus at all on all of my pictures. I know my lens is not that bad and I even used AF entire area focus to make my focus job a bit easier comparing to center AF point focus. I know I can use excuses as the lighting, focus speed, blar, blar. I really like to know where I can improve the quality of my shots as I will go back to do my 3rd try this week. I really really like to see a SHARPER focus in my picture.

A few points:
Auto AF point selection will let the camera choose where to focus. Probabely something will be in focus, but according to Murphy, it won't be the subject you intended ;)

I think the image I edited was in focus (hard to see on such a small image). Just needed a bit of sharpening.

Motion blur is another thing then an OoF image. At 1/60, I think motion blur is the biggest problem with dance.

A fast prime like the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 will give you a very shallow Depth of Field. So focus will be more critical...

[Roy Mathers]

I imported the image into Photoshop and first went into the "Filter" column and Sharpened the image and then applied Levels from the "Edit" Column - in ...

It is generally accepted that sharpening is the last thing you do to an image (after all the other adjustments), not the first!

[johnstoy]

It is generally accepted that sharpening is the last thing you do to an image (after all the other adjustments), not the first!

Thanks Roy,
You make an interesting point... I just got Pagemaker in December, and a Pro from the forum suggested the sequence of post processing to me...

Personally, I find that some questionable images need to be sharpened up front, to check the potential quality of the final results... If the image just isn't salvageable, than I don't continue to post process it at all...

I usually Fade back, the sharpening for a realistic appearance when ever sharpening...

Toward the end of the post processing, and after applying Noise Ninja, I usually try to sharpen for the first time, or again... and fade back again, to enhance the image...

In a perfect world, I wouldn't need to sharpen, or apply Noise Ninja... So it's a judgment call... based on the many variables of images taken without a flash, in very low light, and usually with focusing and exposure complications... I try to post process everything... but some images just don't make it...

I do expect for my sequence in post processing to change greatly... as I start to apply the many other applicable actions... It remains to be seen...

I appreciate your point regarding what is generally accepted and will weigh the benefits of same as needed...

[Roy Mathers]

HI John

If you sharpen first just to see the effect, and then remove or fade it, then it should be all right but the reason most pundits advocate against sharpening first is because sharpening should only be applied relative to size and output media. For instance, if you plan on sharpening an image for the Web, and you get it just right, applying that same level of sharpening to a print will usually yield less than perfect results. Applying sharpness to a print that is destined to be printed 5"x7" on a desktop printer will require different sharpness settings from one destined to be printed 16"x20" on the same printer. In addition, if you sharpen the image before carrying out any colour adjustments or retouching, the sharpening artifacts become even more noticeable afterwards. I know you say that, in a perfect world, nothing would need sharpening but I've also heard it said that practically every digital image could do with a little sharpening (even, as in the case of P&S, in the camera!). Good luck with your work flow!

[johnstoy]

HI John

If you sharpen first just to see the effect, and then remove or fade it, then it should be all right but the reason most pundits advocate against sharpening first is because sharpening should only be applied relative to size and output media. For instance, if you plan on sharpening an image for the Web, and you get it just right, applying that same level of sharpening to a print will usually yield less than perfect results. Applying sharpness to a print that is destined to be printed 5"x7" on a desktop printer will require different sharpness settings from one destined to be printed 16"x20" on the same printer. In addition, if you sharpen the image before carrying out any colour adjustments or retouching, the sharpening artifacts become even more noticeable afterwards. I know you say that, in a perfect world, nothing would need sharpening but I've also heard it said that practically every digital image could do with a little sharpening (even, as in the case of P&S, in the camera!). Good luck with your work flow!

Thanks Roy....I'll keep this in mind... It's not a big issue with me to modify my approach to processing...The positive changes will be welcome.:D

[René Damkot]

I sharpen twice: Once at the beginning ('capture sharpening'), once at the end: Based on output.
Canon recommends a USM of 300%; radius 0,3 for capture sharpening on a 1DMk2 IIRC.