MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Would you consider this as too much noise?  (Read 15963 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 27, 2008, 14:20 »
0
My camera originally output very noisy images. I just submit few photos to DT and waiting for review.
In the meantime I've select another image which have a lot of "clear" sky where noise become really obvious.
This photo was taken on ISO 50 and shutter speed 1/500 so on good camera I think noise wouldn't be apparent.
I've attached two images, one is unfiltered with uncorrected WB and filtered one(with neat image), but I'm afraid it's still have a lot of noise.

What do you think is cropped part of filtered have acceptable amount of noise or not?


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2008, 14:30 »
0
if that is a 100% view that is probably fine... as long as you didn't take away all detail in other parts of the image (like the ground, or trees or things)

It also looks like there is just as much pixelation (from a compact camera that compresses the files) as anything, but noise ninja helped lots.

« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2008, 14:39 »
0
what is a good camera to you?

As well, I think thats a ridiculous amount of noise in the unfiltered one and shouldn't even be there especially at ISO 50.  I think that you're exposure is definitely off and if you correct that you might be able to fix the noise issue, but I can't tell since the crop doesn't give any indication to the rest of the photo.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2008, 15:22 »
0
That's a ton of noise reduction so unless you just applied applied it to the sky (where I can still clearly see  noise) I would be concerned that it ruined the detail in the other areas. If so, you reduced the noise but now may get an overfiltering rejection.

You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.

« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2008, 15:54 »
0
Using a P&S camera, I find skies particularly difficult to handle regarding noise.  My sunsets/sunrises, although generally beautiful in colors, suffered a lot from that, and rejections are plenty.  Try to stick to more well lit subjects, and apply denoise only in the sky.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2008, 15:55 »
0
That's a ton of noise reduction so unless you just applied applied it to the sky (where I can still clearly see  noise) I would be concerned that it ruined the detail in the other areas. If so, you reduced the noise but now may get an overfiltering rejection.

You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.

or and old canon 10D would be good as well.  The 10D has a larger sensor than the Rebel, so it might be a better bet.

« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2008, 15:58 »
0
if that is a 100% view that is probably fine... as long as you didn't take away all detail in other parts of the image (like the ground, or trees or things)
yeah it's 100% crop of image.

Quote
It also looks like there is just as much pixelation (from a compact camera that compresses the files) as anything, but noise ninja helped lots.
yeah, when I took this photo I had small SD card at my possession and used standard compression settings instead of fine. Although I have to say that Fine compression doesn't help much anyway, so my only hope is neat image and GIMP.

Quote
Try to stick to more well lit subjects, and apply denoise only in the sky.
Indeed, Adelaide, that was sunset time picture, and on daytime I've got less noise and it's more easy to clean.
you've mentioned Noise Ninja, is it works better than Neat Image? As I've tried trial version of NoiseNinja and it seems to work not as effective as NI.

Quote
what is a good camera to you?
In time when I bought Dimage Z3 I have Minolta F200 which was very slow zooming and focusing but produce great images(but it have bugs with batteries and keep hanging up), Z3 have very quick focus which was must have feature for me in future camera, have more suitable zoom for closeup work and have possibility to attach filters. I didn't suppose to sell my photos at any point so noise and image resolution wasn't big issue to me.

Now I would definitely go to dSLR as I really wish to have a way to control DOF which isn't possible with P&S, have a way to work with wider lens when needed, have low noise sensor or good processor which in result produce clean images without lot of noise(as I frequently do night shots but they came out very crappy).

Quote
As well, I think thats a ridiculous amount of noise in the unfiltered one and shouldn't even be there especially at ISO 50.  I think that you're exposure is definitely off and if you correct that you might be able to fix the noise issue, but I can't tell since the crop doesn't give any indication to the rest of the photo.
yeah, I've messed a bit and didn't have time to setup camera manually as tried to catch bird flight. I didn't upload full picture so it wouldn't use up my bandwidth. But I'll send you  link to it in PM so you can check full image.

Quote
That's a ton of noise reduction so unless you just applied applied it to the sky (where I can still clearly see  noise) I would be concerned that it ruined the detail in the other areas. If so, you reduced the noise but now may get an overfiltering rejection.
Hi Nazdravie! I've looked for details and I don't think they are lost but I'm not sure if such kind of picture would actually be interesting for stock, I'll send you PM too if you don't mind ::)

Quote
You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.
Yeah I wish to get either Nikon D50/D40 or Pentax K100D, but any of these cameras would cost me two month salaries that's why I joined microstock.

« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2008, 15:59 »
0
I did it! ;D I'm finally manage to post answer for thread as each time I've hit reply there was message about new replies  ;D

Thanks  a lot for help, folks, I really appreciate this!

« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2008, 16:37 »
0
I used to have a noisy compact camera and I got around the problem by taking two or three photos and joining them together in photoshop and then reducing the image size.

« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2008, 16:54 »
0
I used to have a noisy compact camera and I got around the problem by taking two or three photos and joining them together in photoshop and then reducing the image size.
thanks for sharing idea, sharpshot! I've  stitch a lot of panoramas but never thought about using it to minimize image noise, I'm going to try it out when got free moment.

« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2008, 17:59 »
0
you've mentioned Noise Ninja, is it works better than Neat Image? As I've tried trial version of NoiseNinja and it seems to work not as effective as NI.

I think both are good tools (I tried NI demo version), but I opted for NN because so many people suggested it to me.  I found NI interface easier to understand, however.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2008, 18:07 »
0
you've mentioned Noise Ninja, is it works better than Neat Image? As I've tried trial version of NoiseNinja and it seems to work not as effective as NI.

I think both are good tools (I tried NI demo version), but I opted for NN because so many people suggested it to me.  I found NI interface easier to understand, however.

Regards,
Adelaide
I could choose NN if it would release it's Linux version earlier... As Linux is my primary OS and NI worked better under Wine, that's why it was my choice.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2008, 20:57 »
0
Quote
You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.
Yeah I wish to get either Nikon D50/D40 or Pentax K100D, but any of these cameras would cost me two month salaries that's why I joined microstock.

Used Canon Rebel 300D on Ebay = $250US
Used Canon 50mm f/1.8 = $50US

Your job pays $150 per month?  Time to ask for a raise...

« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2008, 21:11 »
0
Quote
You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.
Yeah I wish to get either Nikon D50/D40 or Pentax K100D, but any of these cameras would cost me two month salaries that's why I joined microstock.

Used Canon Rebel 300D on Ebay = $250US
Used Canon 50mm f/1.8 = $50US

Your job pays $150 per month?  Time to ask for a raise...

Not everybody lives in the USA! Cameras are more expensive and people make lot less. I grew up in Slovakia and I know people who make $300 a month.
On the other hand, I totally agree that you NEED a DSLR. If you are serious about microstock I think it would be worthwhile to take out a loan to get a DSLR, you can make $500 on microstock in less than few months if you take it seriously, have enough time and internet connection (which you obviously do).

« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2008, 21:16 »
0
Quote
Used Canon Rebel 300D on Ebay = $250US
Used Canon 50mm f/1.8 = $50US
300$ + custom taxes which doesn't define whenever equipment is new or used. From what I know it would add 50% from the item price(customs define the price). Also from experience I can tell that most sellers won't ship in xUSSR countries anyway or shipping price would may reach very high numbers for new camera(Last time I've checked Nikon D40 on Ebay and shipping was $89 to my country).

Quote
Your job pays $150 per month?  Time to ask for a raise...
it's around 300$ right now and I'm self employed so can't ask myself to raise my salary ;D I'm working on the web and people in my city earn even less than this :P

« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2008, 21:19 »
0
Quote
Not everybody lives in the USA! Cameras are more expensive and people make lot less. I grew up in Slovakia and I know people who make $300 a month.
nice to meet neighbor here! ;)

Quote
If you are serious about microstock I think it would be worthwhile to take out a loan to get a DSLR, you can make $500 on microstock in less than few months if you take it seriously, have enough time and internet connection (which you obviously do).
I'm already have loan to pay :P But once I finish initial uploading of photos to stocks, I'm going to take few web projects for development and if I have luck it would be enough to get new camera(just dreaming) ::)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2008, 21:29 »
0
Okay, that makes sense. You should be able to give yourself a raise pretty quickly with microstock.  ;D

« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2008, 21:33 »
0
Okay, that makes sense. You should be able to give yourself a raise pretty quickly with microstock.  ;D
hope so :)

« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2008, 21:35 »
0
Not everybody lives in the USA!
Yes, a lot of people forget that, and that in some countries import taxes are very high, making items very expensive.  That's the case here in Brazil.  A Canon 400D kit costs over US$1000 here.  We do have our local e-Bay, but quite frankly I would never buy something so serious in a place like that.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2008, 21:39 »
0
Didn't thought that Brazil have similar problem as it's too close to US. But guess it's all mostly depends from government...

« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2008, 10:36 »
0
I think the  problemhere is  underexposing the image, with shutter speed at 1/500 and ISO at just 50 you need hell lot of light, and that seems too be an evening/morning sky. So I think you should try to to shoot (raw if possible) over exposing a  bit (like a very tinyyyyyyyyy bit, without blowing out your highlight) and bring back darks afterwards in your raw editor.

« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2008, 11:01 »
0
I think the  problemhere is  underexposing the image, with shutter speed at 1/500 and ISO at just 50 you need hell lot of light, and that seems too be an evening/morning sky. So I think you should try to to shoot (raw if possible) over exposing a  bit (like a very tinyyyyyyyyy bit, without blowing out your highlight) and bring back darks afterwards in your raw editor.

Hello Vika! Thanks for suggestion, and I know it wasn't properly exposed but since I was photographing bird I wouldn't be able to choose longer shutter speed, I also wish it look like silhouette.


BTW I've uploaded whole filtered picture: http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/1.jpg
I've already submit it to DT but now have doubts if I did correctly or it would be rejected right away and affect my approve ratio, if possible I'd like to heard advice whenever it's suitable for submission or not?

« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2008, 11:26 »
0
I think the  problemhere is  underexposing the image, with shutter speed at 1/500 and ISO at just 50 you need hell lot of light, and that seems too be an evening/morning sky. So I think you should try to to shoot (raw if possible) over exposing a  bit (like a very tinyyyyyyyyy bit, without blowing out your highlight) and bring back darks afterwards in your raw editor.

Hello Vika! Thanks for suggestion, and I know it wasn't properly exposed but since I was photographing bird I wouldn't be able to choose longer shutter speed, I also wish it look like silhouette.


BTW I've uploaded whole filtered picture: http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/1.jpg
I've already submit it to DT but now have doubts if I did correctly or it would be rejected right away and affect my approve ratio, if possible I'd like to heard advice whenever it's suitable for submission or not?

using flashes would have helped, of course not if it was an improvised  shot.  I also spotted a dust grain on the upper side  that you should take care of the next time. Sorry to tell you, but it still is quite underexposed, but bumping the exposure up would bring only  more artifacts and noise  :(

« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2008, 13:48 »
0
using flashes would have helped, of course not if it was an improvised  shot. 
it was improvised and I didn't have much time to prepare(I only managed to change shutter speed).

Quote
Sorry to tell you, but it still is quite underexposed
are you referring to sea-gull? as it wasn't intended from beginning to be exposed from the front but look as silhouette and regarding sky it's look more or less like that from what I could remember.

Quote
but bumping the exposure up would bring only  more artifacts and noise  :(
guess that I'd better delete this image. I actually asked about it just to see on example what margins of noise are acceptable with stocks.
Thanks for your feedback, Vika!

« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 13:55 »
0
Quote
Used Canon Rebel 300D on Ebay = $250US
Used Canon 50mm f/1.8 = $50US
300$ + custom taxes which doesn't define whenever equipment is new or used. From what I know it would add 50% from the item price(customs define the price). Also from experience I can tell that most sellers won't ship in xUSSR countries anyway or shipping price would may reach very high numbers for new camera(Last time I've checked Nikon D40 on Ebay and shipping was $89 to my country).

Quote
Your job pays $150 per month?  Time to ask for a raise...
it's around 300$ right now and I'm self employed so can't ask myself to raise my salary ;D I'm working on the web and people in my city earn even less than this :P

well i hope you managed to get some images online and eventually upgrade your equipment so start a serious microstock income.  I keep thinking to myself that microstock would be the PERFECT job for people in countries where the earnings are very low.  it would be very simple to earn $1000/month if you put in a bit of work..... The problem often is (as ist he case with you) technology is so much more expensive (relativly speaking compared to how much you are currently earning)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
12234 Views
Last post November 23, 2010, 19:40
by djpadavona
9 Replies
3656 Views
Last post August 31, 2013, 02:19
by Ron
14 Replies
4568 Views
Last post February 26, 2014, 11:36
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
4363 Views
Last post February 06, 2015, 17:30
by hsfelix
5 Replies
3945 Views
Last post July 30, 2018, 12:08
by alan b traehern

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors