MicrostockGroup

yeah i would denoise the area that is flat and really needs it and leave the parts alone that have lots of detail.

If you buy the version of noise ninja that can be used inside of photoshop as a plug in, you can make an copy layer of your background and then use noise ninja on that.  Then you can mask that layer to show or hide so you can put the noise reduction where you want it and have it 50% some areas and 25% other areas and full strength in other areas......

if that made sense.

 Amen, Hatman.....   sound advice...  unlike the old days when you had all the time in the world to play with your photos...  if you want to make it in stock,  you need to eliminate as much as possible,  post-shoot work 'photoshoping'.   There's no time for it.
       I have totally changed the way I shoot now... doing all I can to get the best possible image out of the camera, rather than.... "oh, i'll just fix that later in photoshop".   One can't be spending a half hour painting out this or that or denoising or making horizons straight, whatever....    just ain't no time, bro!
        Of course, there will be those shots that you will want to make special,  or,  at the advice of a reviewer,  you will have to tweak if you want them to accept it. After 45 years of shooting, believe it or not,   selling in the micros has made me a better, more discriminant photog. I spend the extra seconds or minute at the shoot, saving who knows how long pounding on the keyboard and sliding the mouse until 1 in the morning.  LOL -tom

I think sometimes the rejection reason is not correct.  I had a couple of imags rejected some time ago for artifating, but they were natural speckles from reflection on a texture.  Scout reverted the rejection.

I had two rejected yesterday for noise/artifacting, but I think it's the texture (rough paper) that is mistakenly being taken as noise.  Another Scout ticket on its way.  If only these reviews were faster...

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes Tom I agree wholeheartedly.

However sometimes all the planning in the world doesn't allow for things not seen at the scene or not noticed at the time.

On Saturday I had a three hour studio session with a lovely girl, and I've got 37 'possibles' out of about 120 shots.  That's great.

Now if only I had noticed that logo on her jeans..........

BTW, the double stitch in the back pocket of Levis jeans is trademarked.

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi,Too much noise is noise visible to the naked eye at 100%

If you use Noise ninja,grain surgery,or neat image,you will only degrade your images.

To avoid unacceptable noise,get your exposure right:

Exposure

Thanks to digital cameras, exposure has never been so easy and simple to achieve, for general outdoor photography. (Studio work still requires a hand-held meter and grey card for its more exacting demands on the photographer) Most of the time matrix (evaluative) metering, will do a great job. For portraiture, centre-weighted is preferred, and where high contrast separates dark from light, spot metering comes into its own.  Considering stock photography, we need to also keep in mind the element of noise, the biggest reason for rejection in our business- noise can be reduced in  post-processing, to an extent, but if we can avoid excessive noise when making our images, the better our chances of approval, and less time at the computer. Correct exposure is how to control noise at the making/taking stage- and correct exposure is simple-By studying the histogram on the camera’s monitor screen, we can adjust our exposure compensation to ensure that the bulk of the graph is just to the right of centre, and each end is just touching bottom corners.- If left-hand side of graph climbs left screen edge, the shot will be over-exposed, with no detail in the shadow areas: If the same thing happens to the right-hand side, highlights will be blown, rendering the shot totally useless. For a second opinion, we can use the highlight flashes, also on the monitor screen, which flash black and white  when highlights are blown. NOTE: If you can, get hold of a hand-held exposure meter, and you will be amazed at the difference it will make to your images
        Sometimes you will find a scene will be beyond the camera’s 5-stop dynamic range, so if you meter using ,Matrix (Evaluative) or Centre-weighted, you will lose some detail in either highlights or shadows. A split-graduated neutral density filter (ND Grad) is recommended, But if you don’t have one: Try Dynamic Range Increase: With camera on tripod: meter for highlight,  take a shot-then  meter for shadows, take another shot. In Photoshop, add lighter image to darker as a new  layer, then: Select> Color Range-click highlights ,check “invert”, click “OK”. Add layer mask. Filter> Blur> Gaussian Blur 250 pixels. Flatten and save. You will get detail in highlights and shadows


To reduce noise in existing images:

- Noise
 Image> Mode> LAB Colour> Channels
Channel “a”   Gaussian blur drag radius slider until noise just starts to go - click “OK”
Channel “b”   Ctrl+F
Channel “lightness” Filter> noise> despeckle
Image> Mode> RGB colour

Regards, Grizzlybear

Istock won't accept anything where noise or artifacts are present IN ERROR, in other words where they could have been avoided.

However there are situations where noise is unavoidable, such as in sports arenas or shots taken at night; noise is part and parcel of this type of photography.

I have found that in the few occasions when I've had noise unavoidable but wanted to submit the image, an explanatory note to Inspector and Buyer usually does the trick.

Example here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3704818

and here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3085277

I sure see your point, Cricket.   I've been down that very road.  I have a number of my pictures published in magazines..... pix that were shot down by one or another micro and accepted by others. These were handled directly by the editors and art directors working for the publishing company.  More to the point, these were pix that were shot down for.. noise and artifacting. Some of these pictures were used in the mags, full page as article covers. So I too often wonder about 'what is too much noise'.  I can see if someone wants to blow the thing up the size of a roadside billboard... but they look just fine in the magazine and/or book.
     I just had over half of my latest batch shot down by IS for 'artifacting'. These were pix shot over a period of 2 years, interestingly, some in series of shots,  where others of the series have already been accepted on IS.  I understand they are the boss, it's their site, their business, their rules...  no problem...  and, honestly, 
                        I'm not complaining here....

  I hope to continue to upload to IS,  I think I will do well there. (I usually don't do that bad .... in fact I usually do well uploading to IS... just shocked me to see that kind of rejection this time).

Ain't no biggie,  just confusing, don't get the rationale sometimes...   I just smile, sit back and take another sip of beer.  LOL   Guess I need to invest in Noise Nija or something...  I've been in the business for a year now and have never used a 'denoise' program.  Suppose I'll have to learn.    -tom

Tom wrote:

To Others:  I just want to comment on this thread.  This is a perfect example of what a great bunch of people we have here on MSG!!!  The help and advice is given so freely in effort to help and encourage those of us new to the business. I appreciate these gestures very much, again, this thread a perfect example!  Once again I sincerely send my thanks to Leaf for his efforts and to all you more learned photogs here!!

I second that opinion!!! Thanks to everyone for their replies to this thread.

And tom... I really I like your note about having a sip of beer.  I am doing that right now as I am writing this post as it definitely helps in making this noise/artifact topic a little more clearer.   

Cricket

i'm guessing istock found it.
Even though the reviews at istock can be as varied as any other site - if there is something wrong with a photo - they manage to get it pretty often.  They are perhaps the most thorough reviewers out there i think.