Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 26 Feb 2017 (Sunday) 17:47
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Noise???

 
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,655 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 106
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
Mar 01, 2017 10:01 |  #61

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18287005 (external link)
.

.

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?

.

Hmm. Sounds like questions being asked in other contexts around the world. ;-)a


Digital EOS 7D Mark II Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Colorblinded
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 432
Joined Jul 2007
     
Mar 01, 2017 10:38 |  #62

pknight wrote in post #18288819 (external link)
Hmm. Sounds like questions being asked in other contexts around the world. ;-)a

:lol: Or maybe I should cry.

Anyway, in agreement that it looks like what you can expect from that Sony shooting at that ISO. RAW would be better, but so it goes.

Also agree that seeing the original gives us context on whether the noise is unusual, as it depends on how many pixels we're actually seeing or if you've zoomed beyond 100%, etc. From an academic standpoint, I wouldn't try to say "that's normal" or "that's a problem" without having the unmodified original image to give proper context.

The fact that you have all the factors against you: shot at 6400, in JPEG, and are trying to lift details, will not help matters regarding noise.

You can certainly process it to reduce it but as mentioned in the previous post by TeamSpeed you will want to watch the faces and other details.

At 20x30 it won't be a stellar looking print, but it should be passable.


http://www.colorblinde​dphoto.com (external link)
http://www.thecolorbli​ndphotographer.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,698 posts
Gallery: 146 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3841
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 01, 2017 10:42 |  #63

.

Colorblinded wrote in post #18288858 (external link)
The fact that you have all the factors against you: shot at 6400, in JPEG, and are trying to lift details, will not help matters regarding noise.

And I think the biggest factor was that the image was underexposed (at least for the dark clothes), and that he had to then pull the darker areas up in post.

I can't help but to wonder how much less noise there would be if he had exposed 2/3 of a stop brighter. .A few tiny areas of highlights may have gotten clipped, but the tradeoff would have most likely been well worth it.

The second biggest factor affecting print quality is the fact that the image was shot so wide, with a huge amount of useless 'context' around the group of people. .So the end result will actually be as though he is printing the image at 40 inches or 44 inches, and then cutting a 30 by 20 inch section out of that big print......just another big hit on the image quality.

EDIT: After looking at the original again, I don't see any highlights that would have been clipped if the scene would have been shot at 2/3 of a stop brighter.....except for the area of glare coming off the wall above the people - but that probably won't even be in the print, as it will most likely be cropped out when the OP sets the desired framing for the print. So there really wouldn't have been any problem with giving this image a lot more light in the original exposure. .Shooting to the right will always result in less noise!

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Colorblinded
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 432
Joined Jul 2007
Post edited over 2 years ago by Colorblinded. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 01, 2017 11:51 |  #64

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18288861 (external link)
.

And I think the biggest factor was that the image was underexposed (at least for the dark clothes), and that he had to then pull the darker areas up in post.

I can't help but to wonder how much less noise there would be if he had exposed 2/3 of a stop brighter. .A few tiny areas of highlights may have gotten clipped, but the tradeoff would have most likely been well worth it.

The second biggest factor affecting print quality is the fact that the image was shot so wide, with a huge amount of useless 'context' around the group of people. .So the end result will actually be as though he is printing the image at 40 inches or 44 inches, and then cutting a 30 by 20 inch section out of that big print......just another big hit on the image quality.

EDIT: After looking at the original again, I don't see any highlights that would have been clipped if the scene would have been shot at 2/3 of a stop brighter.....except for the area of glare coming off the wall above the people - but that probably won't even be in the print, as it will most likely be cropped out when the OP sets the desired framing for the print. So there really wouldn't have been any problem with giving this image a lot more light in the original exposure. .Shooting to the right will always result in less noise!

.

Yes, that's going to hurt it a lot. I didn't specify it but I alluded to it when mentioning "lift details"

This is far from "worst case scenario," at least the image was less than a stop underexposed, but it's not good!


http://www.colorblinde​dphoto.com (external link)
http://www.thecolorbli​ndphotographer.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,069 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 593
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by RDKirk.
     
Mar 01, 2017 13:11 |  #65

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18288861 (external link)
[So there really wouldn't have been any problem with giving this image a lot more light in the original exposure. .Shooting to the right will always result in less noise!

.

I shoot RAW nearly always (can't think of a time since 2003 that I haven't shot RAW in stills). The primary tone I pay attention to is the "brightest highlight that must retain detail."

I used to carry around a textured white plastic panel to use as a test target. I'd point the panel at the main light and raise exposure until I was just losing the panel texture on the LCD, then give it half a stop more (which I had determined by testing would put the RAW exposure right at the point of that highlight almost losing its texture).

So if the "brightest highlight that must retain detail" is exposed as much as possible without losing that detail...then shadows will have been given as much exposure as they can get as well. Looks too bright on the LCD, but works out just fine in RAW.

So I'm not just watching the highlights, but looking at particular highlights...and not really worrying about the shadows--they will get what they can get.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,827 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 637
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by kirkt. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 01, 2017 16:20 |  #66

Remember also that if you need to be a little more aggressive than you would like with your NR, consider treating color more aggressively than luminance noise. In the crop posted earlier, it is apparent in the image that, in a YCbCr system, the Cb and Cr components exhibit large blocky compression artifact. These can be treated aggressively to remove low frequency, typically green and magenta, color blobs and restore more natural color. The higher frequency "grain" is primarily in the Y channel and can be treated less aggressively. The color is way more distracting in this image than the higher frequency Y channel artifact.

Finally, after noise reduction, consider adding back some "film grain" or whatever it may be called in your specific application. This will usually restore a more natural look to your image, breaking up the plasticky look of aggressive noise reduction and potentially adding some acutance (perceived sharpness) back into your image.

Attached is the YCbCr channel representation of the crop. You can see all of the JPEG blocks easily in the Cr and Cb channels.

kirk


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,827 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 637
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Mar 01, 2017 16:23 |  #67

Attached is the crop (original) and the treated crop - both have had a curve applied to boost the overall brightness. The treated image has had noise reduction applied, then some grain added and also some local contrast added. It is difficult to tell if this treatment would be sufficient to print this image.

kirk


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Merlin_AZ
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
869 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Mar 2010
     
Mar 02, 2017 11:07 |  #68

Again, I appreciate everyone's comments and time.
I started again from scratch, did what I could with keeping as much detail as I could, and sent it off to my printer to have a 20x30 metal done for my parents.
It is what it is.
There is a list of things (RAW, compose better, watch exposure/lighting, for starters) I could have done better, and will hopefully address these next time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,472 posts
Likes: 195
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Mar 02, 2017 16:14 |  #69

Some photos are treasured because they demonstrate good technical craftsmanship. Some photos are treasured because they embody artistic inspiration. And some photos have neither, but they are no less treasured because they make special moments eternal.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,733 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 296
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Mar 03, 2017 07:53 |  #70

tzalman wrote in post #18290053 (external link)
And some photos have neither, but they are no less treasured because they make special moments eternal.

That's a romantic, flowery notion. In more cases, some photos have neither, but they are valued only because there's no alternative to the record.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,852 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5752
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Mar 03, 2017 08:05 |  #71

Or the photos, however poorly composed or captured, provide blackmail material or tabloid material.... :D Very valuable indeed!


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
photosbytw
Goldmember
Avatar
1,343 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 1209
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains
     
Mar 03, 2017 10:20 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #72

:eek:


Don't even begin to think I'm criticizing your images.
Just a natural curiosity.
tw

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,864 views & 46 likes for this thread
Noise???
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Wahama90
838 guests, 268 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.