Author Topic: Shutterstock rejections - noise problems (Read 2001 times)

danielitos · « **on:** March 18, 2012, 04:05 »

Hello to all

I need help. Shutterstock rejected 5 my photos again. The only reason - Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info.

I use Noise Ninja and Neat Image. Although my pics are rejected. Please give me advice. Which is the best software for removing noise?

Thanks

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2012, 04:47 »

What camera have you got? The best solution is to expose pictures so that they do not have noise.

danielitos · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2012, 05:30 »

My camera is Cannon EOS 55O D

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2012, 05:58 »

Quote from: danielitos on March 18, 2012, 05:30

My camera is Cannon EOS 55O D

The rule of thumb is: get it right in-camera, no software in the world will help, unless youve got your settings right. In camera, switch all noise and shapness to zero, these alone stand for at least 50% of all rejections, lowering contrast a bit can also help. An approriate Raw-converter can more or less change settings as well.
I dont use any of these noise-red softwares but the only one I have ever come across that does its job, at least up to 50%, is a software from Barco, film studio software, pricetag is around, 4K, so you see there are no shortcuts.

Im not familiar with the cam.550 D, but I should imagine you have differant in-camera settings?

danielitos · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2012, 06:02 »

Thanks

panicAttack · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2012, 07:16 »

danielitos, what ISO do you shoot at?

use 100-200, never above that with 550D

I use pentax k-x which handle much better high iso compared to 550D and only few of my images were accepted on iso above 400 and non on iso above 800

photoshop is everything you need if your exposure is correct and iso is low

danielitos · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2012, 13:01 »

Thanks to all! Really good advices! Thanks!

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2012, 13:34 »

noise is one of several catch all rejections, esply from SS - it could mean too much, or over ruse of Noise reduction, or the reviewer is just using a random reason -- i often get 'overuse of noise reduction' when nothing was done to the image

Noise Ninja does help get accepted - if an image is rejected only for 'too much noise' - i'll check it - often, ifthe noise is in the background [skies at dusk, out focus backgrounf, etc) NJ will clear it up enough to have the image accepted. if the entire image is noisy, it probably won't help

Scans of slides can often get accepted after treating with noise ninja

Wim · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2012, 07:50 »

Lowest ISO / RAW / Expose to the right

LR3/4 has good NR but if you need more I would suggest Dfine or Denoise. I've tested them all in the past and Denoise came out sharpest but Dfine (what I currently use) has that neat color range reduction feature so for instance, only the sky could be affected (no more selections)

Good luck!

tab62 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2012, 09:09 »

The 550D is the Canon Rebel T2i. Set ISO to 100 and use camera raw to develop your photos. Sharpen in RAW only to about 35% with Mask. Try to keep the photo as bright as possible as well. Also I assume you are shooting in RAW mode...

T

rinderart · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2012, 13:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 18, 2012, 05:58

Quote from: danielitos on March 18, 2012, 05:30
My camera is Cannon EOS 55O D

The rule of thumb is: get it right in-camera, no software in the world will help, unless youve got your settings right. In camera, switch all noise and shapness to zero, these alone stand for at least 50% of all rejections, lowering contrast a bit can also help. An approriate Raw-converter can more or less change settings as well.
I dont use any of these noise-red softwares but the only one I have ever come across that does its job, at least up to 50%, is a software from Barco, film studio software, pricetag is around, 4K, so you see there are no shortcuts.

Im not familiar with the cam.550 D, but I should imagine you have differant in-camera settings?

Agree. noise is 90% exposure and noiseware sucks unless you do it on a layer and erase where you don't want it. Very few use noiseware nowdays as compared to 2003/2006 As a long time reviewer. i've seen it do much more harm than good. I come from 45 years of shooting film. I still overexpose by 1 stop and under process. and I shoot the Nikon D3 which is basically Noiseless if done correctly to 6400 ISO. A flagship camera in My opinion.

Mantis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2012, 18:45 »

Quote from: rinderart on March 21, 2012, 13:45

Quote from: lagereek on March 18, 2012, 05:58
Quote from: danielitos on March 18, 2012, 05:30
My camera is Cannon EOS 55O D

The rule of thumb is: get it right in-camera, no software in the world will help, unless youve got your settings right. In camera, switch all noise and shapness to zero, these alone stand for at least 50% of all rejections, lowering contrast a bit can also help. An approriate Raw-converter can more or less change settings as well.
I dont use any of these noise-red softwares but the only one I have ever come across that does its job, at least up to 50%, is a software from Barco, film studio software, pricetag is around, 4K, so you see there are no shortcuts.

Im not familiar with the cam.550 D, but I should imagine you have differant in-camera settings?

Agree. noise is 90% exposure and noiseware sucks unless you do it on a layer and erase where you don't want it. Very few use noiseware nowdays as compared to 2003/2006 As a long time reviewer. i've seen it do much more harm than good. I come from 45 years of shooting film. I still overexpose by 1 stop and under process. and I shoot the Nikon D3 which is basically Noiseless if done correctly to 6400 ISO. A flagship camera in My opinion.

I remember so clearly the days of hauling hundreds of rolls of film on my travels, writing down rolls with "+1", "-1". The only thing I miss about film is the dynamic range and the "anticipation of reviewing my film" hours, days and weeks later.

antistock · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2012, 08:10 »

this noise phobia is pure rubbish.

do the guys at SS are aware that people shooting for news go as high as iso 12800 with horrible and visible grain and noise and on top of this they're told to shoot in JPG ?

many music events also forbid photographers using a flash so all the pics you see around of the most famous artists doing a live show are usually shot in iso 1600-6400 handheld with F2.8 zooms !

cascoly · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2012, 13:30 »

Quote from: antistock on March 24, 2012, 08:10

this noise phobia is pure rubbish.

do the guys at SS are aware that people shooting for news go as high as iso 12800 with horrible and visible grain and noise and on top of this they're told to shoot in JPG ?

many music events also forbid photographers using a flash so all the pics you see around of the most famous artists doing a live show are usually shot in iso 1600-6400 handheld with F2.8 zooms !

right, SS is one of the worst in terms of flexibility - they hate any noise, they think shadows are devilspawn

rubyroo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2012, 03:12 »

Back in the early days I tried Noise Ninja et al, and found they softened the images way too much and made them look 'waxy'.

However, I've found Lightroom's noise algorithm to be absolutely brilliant. It only needs a fraction of a touch to do a perfect job. From what I've seen, the new release will allow you to use the adjustment brush to single out specific areas without even touching the rest of the image. I'm looking forward to that.

I'm a bit paranoid about noise, so I always put a (really) tiny touch of noise reduction on every image - even if I can't see any noise in it. My acceptance rate across most agencies has been over 90% for the last year or two (apart from FT), so I'm very confident of this method.

antistock · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2012, 23:11 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2012, 13:30

right, SS is one of the worst in terms of flexibility - they hate any noise, they think shadows are devilspawn

yeah and the result is SS having millions of "postcard" style images looking fake and artificial.

antistock · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2012, 23:14 »

Quote from: rubyroo on March 25, 2012, 03:12

Back in the early days I tried Noise Ninja et al, and found they softened the images way too much and made them look 'waxy'.

However, I've found Lightroom's noise algorithm to be absolutely brilliant. It only needs a fraction of a touch to do a perfect job. From what I've seen, the new release will allow you to use the adjustment brush to single out specific areas without even touching the rest of the image. I'm looking forward to that.

denoising will never be perfect, it can't be as you cannot "guess" how to replace noise .. and it's selective also as it's more visible in darker areas, it's not like subtracting a layer.

the only solution is bigger CCDs and higher MPs, not software.

lagereek · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2012, 02:05 »

Quote from: antistock on March 25, 2012, 23:14

Quote from: rubyroo on March 25, 2012, 03:12
Back in the early days I tried Noise Ninja et al, and found they softened the images way too much and made them look 'waxy'.

However, I've found Lightroom's noise algorithm to be absolutely brilliant. It only needs a fraction of a touch to do a perfect job. From what I've seen, the new release will allow you to use the adjustment brush to single out specific areas without even touching the rest of the image. I'm looking forward to that.

denoising will never be perfect, it can't be as you cannot "guess" how to replace noise .. and it's selective also as it's more visible in darker areas, it's not like subtracting a layer.

the only solution is bigger CCDs and higher MPs, not software.

Bigger CCDs ? yep, thats what we are being told and its logical, isnt it? yet when you take an HD4, etc, outdoors, yep! you do get noise and in subdued lighting, plenty of it.

A digital picture, any digital picture, regardless of camera, CCD, lens, etc, will always contain a slight noise, the totally noiseless sensor, havent been invented yet, science havent got that far.
So, theres not much we can do about it.

Besides, the old French Impressionists, didnt do too bad with noise and grain, did they. Claude- Monet, "water lillies" 250 million dollars at Sothebys.

heywoody · « **Reply #18 on:** March 26, 2012, 05:04 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 26, 2012, 02:05

...... Besides, the old French Impressionists, didnt do too bad with noise and grain, did they. Claude- Monet, "water lillies" 250 million dollars at Sothebys.

So true. In any case the noise levels that cause rejections are apparent checking an image section by section from 2 feet away - totally invisible to anyone looking at the whole picture.

rubyroo · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2012, 05:07 »

Quote from: antistock on March 25, 2012, 23:14

denoising will never be perfect, it can't be as you cannot "guess" how to replace noise .. and it's selective also as it's more visible in darker areas, it's not like subtracting a layer.

Well, you know, when I say 'perfect' I am speaking in the context of perfectly acceptable quality for microstock reviewers.

rubyroo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 26, 2012, 05:31 »

Quote from: cascoly on March 24, 2012, 13:30

they think shadows are devilspawn

IME, as long as the shadows are noiseless and the elements inside the shadows are actually visible, it's not that hard to get a shadow shot accepted.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2012, 09:38 »

2 of 14 accepted. Rejection were mostly NOISE. I think most reviewers ignore descriptions, titles and key words. It was a foggy, misty day over a coastal ghost town. I specifically stated that fog and mist accentuated the eerie feel of "ghost town."

Grrrrrrr...

antistock · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2012, 03:07 »

Quote from: heywoody on March 26, 2012, 05:04

Quote from: lagereek on March 26, 2012, 02:05
...... Besides, the old French Impressionists, didnt do too bad with noise and grain, did they. Claude- Monet, "water lillies" 250 million dollars at Sothebys.

So true. In any case the noise levels that cause rejections are apparent checking an image section by section from 2 feet away - totally invisible to anyone looking at the whole picture.

AND even more invisible when printed !
so once again, what's the point in this noise-phobia ?