Noise???

It is what it is... Not sure what are the noise characteristics of the Sony, but it's likely due to lifting the shadows. In post, have you already applied a degree of noise reduction?

Side thought: You sure you want to print this photo with some people in shoes and others not? Makes me wonder if the shot overall is worth printing... if anything, crop at the shins or higher and get more of the painting in the background as if it were more of a feature in the composition.

Damo77 wrote in post #18286235
This is the problem. You must NEVER resize or crop during editing.
Only crop/resize after all editing is done, and you're actually saving a print file.

Damo77 wrote in post #18286333
Just because you, or they, don't know any better, doesn't mean it's not true. You would be GOBSMACKED at how good your prints can be.

Please let's leave the "I've never seen it, so it can't possibly be true" arguments to athiests.

Would you care to enlighten us with a written transcript instead of just pasting links to your website.

Damo and Reichner are arguing tangents. Tom started off simply stating that he'd like to see the how the crop compares to the original uncropped shot. That is, he wanted to get a sense of how much of a crop it was... there was no indication that it was a 100% crop to begin with. It's a question of resolution and whether any resampling was going to happen when the final image is printed. Relevant question because we didn't have enough to go on to begin with.

That particular pattern is caused by the method and amount of noise reduction you've already applied. Different methods of noise reduction (and different noise reduction tools) may help produce a more acceptable pattern.

However, we need to acknowledge that infinite noiselessness is not obtainable. At some degree of enlargement and somewhere in the shadows noise will always be found. Shadows that are dark below the dynamic range of the sensor and actually containing no detail should be allowed to go black.

Tom points out in #10 that fixing underexposure in post might be the cause of undesirable noise in that tone the first place.

RDKirk wrote in post #18286940
That particular pattern is caused by the method and amount of noise reduction you've already applied. Different methods of noise reduction (and different noise reduction tools) may help produce a more acceptable pattern.

However, we need to acknowledge that infinite noiselessness is not obtainable. At some degree of enlargement and somewhere in the shadows noise will always be found. Shadows that are dark below the dynamic range of the sensor and actually containing no detail should be allowed to go black.

Tom points out in #10 that fixing underexposure in post might be the cause of undesirable noise in that tone the first place.

Sorry to disagree, but it's just the Sony JPEG engine. Even if you don't lift any shadows in post the Sony JPEG engine at high ISO's will generate a "mosaic" pattern instead of a a grain that you see in Canon JPEGs. This happens even when you have High ISO NR turned off. You only see it when viewing the image at high magnification or cropping a small section of a photo...both of which the original poster did. I've seen the artifacts on my A6300 and a point and shoot HX90V.

Below are two examples from the A6300. SOOC, 100% crop. The first pic is relatively good light at 2000 ISO and the second is very poor light at 4000 ISO.

john crossley wrote in post #18286851
Would you care to enlighten us with a written transcript instead of just pasting links to your website.

The links are quite safe, I assure you.

Damo77 wrote in post #18286971
The links are quite safe, I assure you.

Right, of course they are, but many of us don't want to go visit somebody's website just so see their point.

When somebody posts a link to their site, it seems as though they are trying to direct us to their site, either:

A - because they want to increase overall traffic to the site, or . . .

B - because they think we will be impressed with their work.

These two possible motivations cause me to simply refuse to click on the link. .If all the person wanted to do was to share info and help others, then they would have no problem copying and pasting it right into the body of their post here on POTN, instead of trying to make us go to their website.

.

*shrugs* You can learn, or not learn. Ultimately, it's not my problem.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18286984
Right, of course they are, but many of us don't want to go visit somebody's website just so see their point.

When somebody posts a link to their site, it seems as though they are trying to direct us to their site, either:

A - because they want to increase overall traffic to the site, or . . .

B - because they think we will be impressed with their work.

These two possible motivations cause me to simply refuse to click on the link. .If all the person wanted to do was to share info and help others, then they would have no problem copying and pasting it right into the body of their post here on POTN, instead of trying to make us go to their website.

.

Or C - to pay for information which is freely available elsewhere on the internet, which seems to be the case here.

Merlin_AZ wrote in post #18286111

Hosted photo: posted by Merlin_AZ in
./showthread.php?p=182​86111&i=i114760261
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

It's even on the back wall in the brighter parts of the image, but it wasn't lit well enough by the ambient.
I have to assume at this point that it's because of the ISO I had to shoot at without better lighting.

I can't see anywhere you've mentioned this - what software do you have?

.

john crossley wrote in post #18286998
Or C - to pay for information which is freely available elsewhere on the internet, which seems to be the case here.

.
Yikes! I didn't want to believe that, but it appears as if your accusation is true.

He appears to be using POTN to try to gather clients to something he charges for. That is wrong, and violates this site's Terms of Service.

Not to mention (although I am mentioning), he makes some statements here in this thread that are inaccurate and misleading, and one statement that was actually non-sequitur ......... just how much should anyone trust the author of such inaccuracies?

.

Damo77 wrote in post #18286988
*shrugs* You can learn, or not learn. Ultimately, it's not my problem.

Sorry ... it is your problem. Whether or not you actually are, you are adopting an approach that seems arrogant.

It comes across as 'look here to benefit from my wisdom and expertise' ... instead of ... 'OK, maybe this could be some help'.

It's easy to believe that what you think you are saying is just what others hear. It often isn't.

Damo77 wrote in post #18287002
I can't see anywhere you've mentioned this - what software do you have?

I have to go out for a while, but if you have Photoshop or Elements, you should find that ACR will remove the noise nicely. Remember, work on the original-size file only, don't resize it in any way.

john crossley wrote in post #18286998
Or C - to pay for information which is freely available elsewhere on the internet, which seems to be the case here.

Yes, and this happened back with a thread with Bassat as well. This forum is much more about each of us helping one another, than is to sell each other services or goods. That activity is for the Services for Sale section on this board, or the member's signature line.

Of course in that thread, it was much less veiled than it was here.

Damo77 wrote in post #18268250
https://www.damiensymo​nds.net/trainingsharp.​html
It will change your life, I promise.

Now back to this particular situation, that is quite ugly from the Sony JPG engine?! There is little you can do with that, as the detail is already destroyed by the mosaics. There are a few techniques available to try to blur contrast points around the noise a bit, then do an overall slight reduction, but when you sharpen back, there won't be anything left really to sharpen, at least not in the crops you posted from your sample.

It sounds like the camera was shot in JPG mode only, so there are no raws to go back to. I have no idea if it is possible, but is there any way to coordinate a re-shoot with everyone? This way you can go with raw, and also recompose the scene a bit differently, so that people are wearing footwear, and there aren't decorations coming out the back of peoples' heads. These are easy traps to fall into though, I still do that often. I go back to a pic, and go "WTH?" because there are these things in the background placed in very terrible places in relation to the heads.