Red Sox Game

[mdineenwob]

Hi,

Can everyone/anyone take a look at this? I bumped up the shutter speed so I could get a 'still life' image. Well it's wayyy too dark. Any ideas on how I can reduce noise?

I'm new to night photography and sports photography. Any and all critisism is more than welcome. What would I do to improve this image and/or improve future photos

The below image is a really quick edit. I just wanted to show the noise.

Thanks!

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4M7IHWpHWMU/Sgo-OrcKhhI/AAAAAAAAAag/BJASy1GczdU/s800/Beckett%201.jpg

[maxblack]

Do you see an image in your own post?
I see no image.
______________

[mdineenwob]

Do you see an image in your own post?
I see no image.
______________

Yes. Can anyone else see it?

Update - I think I figured out the problem. Please let me know if you still can't see it.

[RMXSeven]

Hey,

Can't see the image in your post, but following the link worked.
I'm a bit confused as to why there is soo much noise @ ISO 100?
Does the Rebel XT have inbuilt noise reduction?
I'm having similar concerns with my 40D (although not as severe) so am really interested to find out why!

~Ronen

[mdineenwob]

Hey,

Can't see the image in your post, but following the link worked.
I'm a bit confused as to why there is soo much noise @ ISO 100?
Does the Rebel XT have inbuilt noise reduction?
I'm having similar concerns with my 40D (although not as severe) so am really interested to find out why!

~Ronen

I think it does, but I didn't have it on :o

I left the ISO down because I thought that would reduce the noise in the photo.

I shot this in RAW and bumped up the exposure in CS3.

Any ideas?

[nphsbuckeye]

It looks overexposed - you have lost a lot of detail in the jersey and there is a lot of empty room on that image.

[RMXSeven]

Do you have the original, non CS3 exposure modified version?
Just interested in how much you've ramped up the exposure on it, as that's probably what is causing it all. If the original was heaps under-exposed, the sensor in your camera would have missed the info, then once ramped up, it kinda assumed that's how it should be, noise and all.

Of course, I am still a n00b, but interested in the original none the less ;)

~Ronen

[Flo]

I am wondering why ISO 100????

[mdineenwob]

I am wondering why ISO 100????

I thought that would minimize noise...guess not?!?

[mdineenwob]

Do you have the original, non CS3 exposure modified version?
Just interested in how much you've ramped up the exposure on it, as that's probably what is causing it all. If the original was heaps under-exposed, the sensor in your camera would have missed the info, then once ramped up, it kinda assumed that's how it should be, noise and all.

Of course, I am still a n00b, but interested in the original none the less ;)

~Ronen

Here's the original. Just taken out of camera and converted to JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4M7IHWpHWMU/Sgq95ibo1dI/AAAAAAAAAbk/AVLWI9Q37fM/s800/Beckett%20as%20shot.JPG

[maxblack]

You need to "up" your ISO. There's almost nothing there.
It actually came out "pretty good" with the
small amount of information it had to work with.
Definitely raise your ISO next time. That will help enormously.
____________________

[mdineenwob]

You need to "up" your ISO. There's almost nothing there.
It actually came out "pretty good" with the
small amount of information it had to work with.
Definitely raise your ISO next time. That will help enormously.
____________________


....so there is nothing I can do to salvage this? LOL

[Evil_Edge]

i did a quick edit in camera raw and lightroom. lowered the exposure a touch, did some noise reduction and sharpening and lowered the fill light a touch.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q237/carling666/-1.jpg

[Flo]

I would run it through NR again, and call it a good shot;) It also looks pretty durned cool in B&W

[gcflora]

I had a quick play with it. Made a mask to protect the edges; applied median filter to the non-masked areas; curves; and sharpen and it actually turned out pretty well. I'd post the image, but I am not on the computer I did it on. The image won't ever be top-notch, but it's certainly salvagable.

[gcflora]

*VERY* quick edit:

364904

[PETERSYMES]

It is almost certainly noisy because there was so little light available.
When the light level is very low the difference between the sensors signal level (image) and background sensor noise is much less so when you process the image you include a lot of sensor noise.
If you increased the ISO you are amplifying the image portion of the signal giving a bigger difference over the background sensor noise and it would have looked better.
In very low light the signal to noise ratio is much smaller.
A low ISO for a less noisy image is valid for situations where there is enough ambient light to expose the image fully, or you are using film.
Back in those days there were not millions of transistors making a row.

I like low light photography and my 5D didn't cope to my liking hence chopping it in for a MKII with its much reduced sensor noise levels (i hope)

Tricky Eh!

[RMXSeven]

Here's the original. Just taken out of camera and converted to JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_4M7IHWpHWMU/Sgq95ibo1dI/AAAAAAAAAbk/AVLWI9Q37fM/s800/Beckett%20as%20shot.JPG

So, at ISO 100, if you look past the darkness, you get very little noise :) (Which was the concept you were mentioning)
Its just the ramping up the exposure in PP that amplifies the lack of detail (introducing noise) as mentioned by Peter.


~Ronen

[BenJohnson]

Shooting the image underexposed (especially as much as you did), and then increasing
the exposure in post processing creates MUCH MORE noise, than if you upped the
sensitivity of the sensor (ie. increased the ISO in the camera settings).

[Bill Boehme]

Just to clarify things a bit about ISO for the OP, changing the camera's ISO setting does nothing to the sensor's ability to respond to light. The thing that is different about using a higher ISO occurs after the exposure when the analog sensor data is being read -- a much higher gain is applied to the data as it is being read since the recorded light levels are so much lower. The reason that increasing he camera ISO is much better than increasing exposure during post processing is that your editing works on digitized data where the the difference between incremental brightness levels in dark areas occurs in much larger steps than the increments in the bright areas (by a factor of over 100). So, in addition to the various types of sensor noise, another type of noise called quantizing noise (also sometimes called quantization noise) is introduced into the image. Quantizing noise looks a lot like posterization on smooth areas of an image.

[mdineenwob]

Just to clarify things a bit about ISO for the OP, changing the camera's ISO setting does nothing to the sensor's ability to respond to light. The thing that is different about using a higher ISO occurs after the exposure when the analog sensor data is being read -- a much higher gain is applied to the data as it is being read since the recorded light levels are so much lower. The reason that increasing he camera ISO is much better than increasing exposure during post processing is that your editing works on digitized data where the the difference between incremental brightness levels in dark areas occurs in much larger steps than the increments in the bright areas (by a factor of over 100). So, in addition to the various types of sensor noise, another type of noise called quantizing noise (also sometimes called quantization noise) is introduced into the image. Quantizing noise looks a lot like posterization on smooth areas of an image.

Thank you all for the help!!! All I need now is the boss to give me the company seats again so I can shoot this again :rolleyes: