| Author |
Message |
paco
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Posts: 3
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:52 am
|  |
I keep getting pictures rejected for noise. I run them through the Photoshop noise filters but they still keep getting rejected. Help? |
|
hiepdng
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 474
Location: USA
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:45 am
| |
I suggest to retake pictures at the lowest ISO and at the good lighting condition.
Noise filter won't work, if it does, it also makes pictures look unnatural. |
|
prairierattler
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 1489
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:30 am
| |
| paco wrote: | | I keep getting pictures rejected for noise. I run them through the Photoshop noise filters but they still keep getting rejected. Help? |
By Photoshop noise filters, I assume you're talking that "noise" filter that does almost nothing? Forget it. I always thought it odd that Adobe did not put effort into a built-in NR process that competed with the well known NR applications out there (e.g. Noise Ninja). But that's another discussion.
I'll assume you already know how to limit your noise BEFORE Photoshop (e.g. use lowest ISO possible; choose best exposure for the image you are capturing; avoid wide dynamic ranges altogether). Don't just fire away and rely on PS to fix things like noise; rely on PS to enhance and fine tune.
Having done that, some noise in underexposed areas or broad expanses of same color (like sky) can be adequately addressed by PS's surface blur (1-3 pixels is normally plenty). Also, don't over-process such that existing noise is accentuated or worsened.
My aging Nikon D70 gives me some noise in shadows and skies and I get images accepted by using surface blur. I've never used Noise Ninja or anything like it.
I had difficulty with noise last summer after SS started rejecting at a high rate so I was forced to research and revise my practices. So I expend effort to minimize noise at shutter time, deal with any noisy areas using surface blur, and walk away from some shots that just have too wide a dynamic range to work as a stock submission. |
|
smarsenault
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Massachusetts
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:55 am
| |
I've had good results using Neat Image. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18977
Location: Books and Class Info, www.rindersmithphotography.com or, www.rinderart.com
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:18 pm
| |
exposure,exposure,exposure. |
|
Forgiss
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 4852
Location: For videos of our shoots: http://forgiss.libsyn.com
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:56 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | exposure,exposure,exposure. |
Just to clarify... Laurin didn't mean "take three images" but rather, make sure your exposure is spot on (or even 1/3rd over if you can shoot RAW)
;-D
Our tests show (and these are not scientific at all) that 1/stop under-exposure at ISO 100 equals approx 2mp downsize to get rid of noisy artifacts (thats on the 5D, on smaller sensors, it was closer to 2.5-3mp)
1/stop over-exposure took approx 0.5mp to downsize to a non-noise/artifact state.
You can also be pretty much assured that in 80% of the cases, if your lightmeter says spot on exposure, you are 1/3rd to 2/3rds under-exposed. (use a greycard to get more acurate exposure readings) |
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3635
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:14 pm
| |
| Forgiss wrote: | | rinder99 wrote: | | exposure,exposure,exposure. |
Just to clarify... Laurin didn't mean "take three images" but rather, make sure your exposure is spot on (or even 1/3rd over if you can shoot RAW)
;-D
Our tests show (and these are not scientific at all) that 1/stop under-exposure at ISO 100 equals approx 2mp downsize to get rid of noisy artifacts (thats on the 5D, on smaller sensors, it was closer to 2.5-3mp)
1/stop over-exposure took approx 0.5mp to downsize to a non-noise/artifact state.
You can also be pretty much assured that in 80% of the cases, if your lightmeter says spot on exposure, you are 1/3rd to 2/3rds under-exposed. (use a greycard to get more acurate exposure readings) |
Quote from Rick Sammon-Professional Photographer, Author and Canon spokesperson:
“I have learned from experience to underexpose all my digital images slightly. (1/3 to ½ EV stop)
In the digital darkroom, (Photoshop etc.,) bringing back slightly dark, (underexposed) images is easier than bringing back washed-out highlights; sometimes the latter is impossible.” |
|
pharm
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6131
Location: Contemplating
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:43 pm
| |
| kenny123 wrote: |
Quote from Rick Sammon-Professional Photographer, Author and Canon spokesperson:
“I have learned from experience to underexpose all my digital images slightly. (1/3 to ½ EV stop)
In the digital darkroom, (Photoshop etc.,) bringing back slightly dark, (underexposed) images is easier than bringing back washed-out highlights; sometimes the latter is impossible.” |
Pretty much true if you're shooting jpg. In my experience, it's rarely true if you're shooting RAW. |
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 3635
Location: Masterton, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:15 pm
| |
| pharm wrote: | | kenny123 wrote: |
Quote from Rick Sammon-Professional Photographer, Author and Canon spokesperson:
“I have learned from experience to underexpose all my digital images slightly. (1/3 to ½ EV stop)
In the digital darkroom, (Photoshop etc.,) bringing back slightly dark, (underexposed) images is easier than bringing back washed-out highlights; sometimes the latter is impossible.” |
Pretty much true if you're shooting jpg. In my experience, it's rarely true if you're shooting RAW. |
But then,who in their right mind, shoots Raw? |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18977
Location: Books and Class Info, www.rindersmithphotography.com or, www.rinderart.com
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:20 pm
| |
| pharm wrote: | | kenny123 wrote: |
Quote from Rick Sammon-Professional Photographer, Author and Canon spokesperson:
“I have learned from experience to underexpose all my digital images slightly. (1/3 to ½ EV stop)
In the digital darkroom, (Photoshop etc.,) bringing back slightly dark, (underexposed) images is easier than bringing back washed-out highlights; sometimes the latter is impossible.” |
Pretty much true if you're shooting jpg. In my experience, it's rarely true if you're shooting RAW. |
being a pure Jpg guy from Day one and use my eyes as a meter. I agree with this. I always have my exp Comp down 1/2 stop. But...And this may come as a shocker. With the new D3 and NX software. Im creeping into raw territory. For the first time Im seeing a difference in 12 bit.so for distant locale shooting I'll probably be doing raw+Jpg. But for blasting in the studio or product or sports etc. Jpg is fine with me. never had a complaint yet.Damn this D3 is amazing. I posted some 300/400% jpg crops at 6400Iso on the selling my D300 thread. Thats a print size of 60 x 80. still had good detail.Also one at 25,000Iso.200% crop. this darn thing even has a built in Gyro for leveling shots.Damn nice machine.Best thing I've ever used and I get to try them all.Canon better forget the MP race and make what they have better. I love all cameras and have zero brand loyalty But I gotta tell ya. It's Mind numbing what this thing is capable of. I hope I can come up to it's power. and battery life? First camera I don't need a spare battery for.What a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Sword Serenity
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 237
Location: Cairns, Australia
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 10:43 pm
| |
I used to get a fair few noise rejections when I used to shoot with my A95. The main thing I did to compensate is to focus more on getting photos with good natural lighting (ie, no harsh sunlight, but not cloudy either).
Touch ups were done using Neat Image to get rid of fine noise. I still use Neat Image now with my 400D, but there's a lot less post-processing done since the camera has much more pleasant grain and noise artifacts than the A95. |
|
mnoor
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 83
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:01 pm
| |
Try reducing the photo size in PS but within the minimum requirement of submission size.
It will help reduce noise on your photo. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 18977
Location: Books and Class Info, www.rindersmithphotography.com or, www.rinderart.com
|
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:16 pm
| |
| mnoor wrote: | Try reducing the photo size in PS but within the minimum requirement of submission size.
It will help reduce noise on your photo. |
Ya a good option , But Not the correct option in the long run. You want EL's?????? I live on them. Go ahead shoot noisy images you can fix by down sizing. What do you have? Nothing but small images with noise. Thats Bullshit!!!.sorry Think about the big picture here. Folks with that way of thinking is killing this site............Period. |
|
Forgiss
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 4852
Location: For videos of our shoots: http://forgiss.libsyn.com
|
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:00 pm
| |
That mr Rinder... is a kickass avatar! |
|
Captured Nuance
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 1609
Location: So Cal
|
|
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:00 pm
| |
I always downsize my images for the stock sites but only after they have been cleaned up and would pass inspection at full size. Of course there are a few oprhans where downsizing was the only alternative.
But then again I shoot in RAW and if my exposure is right on, I don't have to much trouble with noise. Its the shadow areas I find i have to clean up
Gordo |
|
| |
|
Log in
