Please give feedback on Photoshop editing...

So I had a client show up 30 minutes late to my second location tonight and I lost a LOT of light. Naturally, I upped my ISO and while I was taking the pictures, everything looked fine on the LCD (back of camera). I get home and put the pictures up on my monitor and "HOLY GRAIN BATMAN!".

Fast forward a few hours, and a lot of trial and error in Photoshop to try and fix the grainy-ness, and I came up with this. Naturally, it's not what I was hoping for but it's best at what I can do now. Please critique and let me know any pointers that may help. Thank you.

NOTE: First one is un-edited, the second is my final product so far.

jhaywald wrote in post #18605839
So I had a client show up 30 minutes late to my second location tonight and I lost a LOT of light. Naturally, I upped my ISO...

There was no need to up your ISO that high since you don't need to shoot people at 1/5000s. Shooting at 1/125s would have given you plenty of shutter speed and you'd have been working at a manageable ISO. Having flash available would also have solved your problem. I can't imagine going to any paid portrait shoot and not having an off camera flash setup available.

Sorry I haven't offered any help or suggestions for fixing the "grainy-ness", but my suggestions may help you in the future.

I will paraphrase you, jhaywald, and say "HOLY 1/5000s BATMAN"

Bob is right on both points - shutter speed and having an extra light with you at all times.

As it is, I would not imagine to give client something like this and if this one of the best ones, in my mind the only option is either tell the truth or make up some story about broken memory card and NOT GIVING images to the client. To offer a re-shoot - it is unpleasant, but will make SO MUCH LESS damage to you as a photographer [also people, if they are not a**holes, do understand, that sometimes sh*t happens].

As for getting rid of the noise. I never go further some automated processes in LR or Nik. Try them out. Nik sometimes do wonders, but, as I noticed, only in 8-bit images, so keep that in mind - don't export 16-bit TIFF, for example.

In simpler terms....Holy S*%t 1/5000 @ 25600 iso!

Look here:

I do have one more thought about this image. You said "So I had a client show up 30 minutes late to my second location tonight and I lost a LOT of light." Since you lost much of your ambient light and you were not adding flash, why would you want to place her in a hole to reduce the ambient light even more? Your choice could not have been to place her in an attractive pose, since you cut off her one arm at the elbow and the other at the wrist, neither which is acceptable for portraits.

I don't know your background or how long you've been shooting, but if this is one of your typical images, you may want to gain a little more experience before soliciting paying customers.

What the others' said, plus, color balance seems off.

Edit: I just realized you are the self described noobie who has been asking for lots of advice, and has been into photography for about a month. Take this in the context of honest constructive criticism that I have tried to provide you once or twice ... until you know wtf you are doing, you have no business shooting weddings or charging people for your services.

I mean: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1494600

Bob, even I felt smoke in my nostrils from this one.

Not to pile on, but look-down shots are seldom flattering. And what's with the background? It looks like an apartment complex basement. That pipe is like - ugh - get it out of there!

There are a few very good noise reduction programs out there, and I suggest looking into those. Noiseware, NIK tools, etc all have NR engines. Photoshop's isn't the best, nor is Lightroom's.

There is a technique to noise reduction, all unto itself.

Provide the raw file to us, and we can go through it and give you pointers on ways to process high ISO shots in the future, this will require the raw, because there isn't much that can be done with the POTN jpeg result. Of course, as others stated though, the issue is in the settings used.

Next time, run manual mode and get your aperture and shutter speeds correct for what you need (aperture to control blur/DOF, and shutter being reasonable for the movement or lack of), then use ISO to work your histogram so that your exposure is good.

Easy way to learn this is to put a doll or stuff animal in this same location and try some settings out. Once you have those figured out, then experiment with perspective. Get down low, off to one side, etc to see what kinds of results you like best. Then go get your significant other and try it out for real.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18606009
What the others' said, plus, color balance seems off.

Edit: I just realized you are the self described noobie who has been asking for lots of advice, and has been into photography for about a month. Take this in the context of honest constructive criticism that I have tried to provide you once or twice ... until you know wtf you are doing, you have no business shooting weddings or charging people for your services.

I mean: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1494600

Thanks for posting the link - this explains a lot.

olafs osh wrote in post #18606013
Bob, even I felt smoke in my nostrils from this one.

Olaf, I really was not trying to be rude, but I think a certain amount of skill is needed before one sets themselves up as a "Professional". A potential client should expect a "Professional" to have the skills required to produce decent work, and that is simply not the case for this person. After seeing the link provided by Left Handed Brisket above, it appears that the person bought some fantastic gear thinking that would make him a "Professional" photographer. There really is no substitute for putting in the work to learn a skill. I've been shooting off and on for over 60 years and I hope I'm still learning.

olafs osh wrote in post #18606013
Bob, even I felt smoke in my nostrils from this one.

Sometimes feedback hurts. We learn more from what we might fail at (and the feedback we get) then the successes and "fluffy" comments like "good job", or "I like that". If one cannot handle that, one should not post questions on a medium that is known to have a wide variety of response types and tones.

So far jhaywald has proven he is more than able to deal with any of the critiques, which is a sign he is really wanting to learn quickly and run with this new venture.

If I feel somebody is being overly rude to me, repeatedly, they just make their way into my timeout list. About a week or so, everything quiets down, and they are taken off the list.

That all being said, since there isn't a raw file available, this was the best I could do really with the material, but the resizing and JPG compression all make for a less than ideal starting point. I would suggest looking at some inexpensive strobes like the Godox AD200 and XPRO for the transmitter, along with a decent light stand and softbox. Very portable, and would help when your lighting has diminished like it did here.

So, thank you to everyone who gave their positive and not so positive feedback. It is greatly appreciated.

I do, however feel, that somethings are being assumed here and maybe it was my wording that led to it.

Last night, when I posted I was mad/disappointed. I thought I took some great shots (judging from the back of the camera), with the light I had, so when I got home I was severely let down...which may be why I just made my first post in this thread so short.

This wasn't "my" client... I am, I guess what you would call "second shooting"??? behind another photographer who is letting me. She told the client that we were out of light, but I wanted to try and take some pics with my ISO up (because they were looking so good on the back LCD of my camera). The photographer and client had already established a new date/time to meet to take more pictures, so this picture I posted up was one of 5-6 that I took in that light (I just picked it because all 5-6 were just as grainy...naturally).

As for the lens that I purchase, I appreciate the kind words that you guys think I'm labeled a "professional" photographer (sarcasm), however, I've done as much research as I could when it comes to buying each lens and would like to work with the best that I can get my hands on. My thought process behind it is, if you were learning to play basketball, would you want to learn from a high school coach or Kevin Durant?)

As for other, more helpful posts, I do appreciate it and realize that I need to basically leave ISO alone and really learn to "master" shutter and aperture first.

So, as a general rule of thumb, what ISO do you not go ABOVE? Or is there even a general rule of thumb (should have been rule of wrist) for this?

First, congrats for not taking all the comments too hard. Lots of people would never post here again. Like your other threads, this show you are willing to learn while taking advice. That's awesome.

The very first thing you need to focus on is aperture and SS. So if you consider those two carefully for any particular shot, set them to the minimum (or maximum), and only then set an appropriate ISO to get a decent exposure you will avoid a lot of hassle with noise.

A good model with an understanding of the shooting conditions can often remain still down to 1/30. Most anyone posing for a pic can do 1/125.

Before I get back to fixing this stupid lawnmower, I want to say, for the love of god, realize that you are entering the world of top shelf nerds. When you say "my client" that is exactly the way we read it. The degree to which we communicate literally and with industry specific terms cannot be understated. This has led to plenty of communication breakdowns, understand that comes with the territory.

Be careful out there!

Cheers.

lol

Here's a great example of how terminology is important.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1493316

It all takes time, stick around and pretty soon you too will be a top shelf nerd!

jhaywald wrote in post #18606234
So, as a general rule of thumb, what ISO do you not go ABOVE? Or is there even a general rule of thumb (should have been rule of wrist) for this?

I think it like this:

For still subjects (in this order):
1. You pick the aperture to get the look and depth-of-field you require for the focal length and distance you use.
2. You pick the minimum shutter speed that stops your hand shake and possible AI focus movement. With IS this may need a lot less ss than without.
3. You pick an ISO which enables the shutter speed and aperture you required above, to achieve correct exposure. If you have some headroom (like ISO can really be anything between 50 and 400), then increase shutter speed.

For moving subjects (in this order):
1. You pick the minimum shutter speed that stops hand shake and subject movement. Camera movement and closer distances needs a lot faster ss. More megapixels (larger prints) need faster ss. IS does not really matter here (it only affects hand shake).
2. You pick aperture and ISO which enables the shutter speed required above, for correct exposure. Aperture choice is for getting the look and depth-of-field you require for the focal length and distance you use. You toggle ISO and aperture until you get what you want.

In time those will come quite naturally quite close on first try. As you approach a photo situation, you can think of these before you even power on your camera.