Microstock Photography Forum - General > Photo Critique

Artifacts & Noise... How much is too much?

(1/4) > >>

Cricket:
Hi Guys,

Another newbie question here.  I have been playing around with the noise ninja demo and I am thinking of buying it as it really does greatly clean up images.  However when it comes to things like fine textures... it has a tendency to blur stuff.

Fortunately though, Noise Ninja has an undo brush where I can undo areas that get de-noised too much.

Anyway... the question is... how much noise is too much noise? 

For example, I can still see what looks like noise artifacts in a photograph that I took which had a pine tree in it (fine texture).

However, if I de-noise the pine tree too much in an attempt to get rid of some the stray pixels that don't quite match the color of the rest of the pine tree, the tree's needles begin to look all smudgy.

So what do I do??

Leave that area of the photograph alone?  And only de-noise areas where there is relatively uniform (or should be anyway) color (i.e. blue sky, etc) ?

I guess I am asking this question, because I-Stock seems totally obsessed with noise/artifacts compared to other places and that was the company who rejected me  (see my previous post of "Compression Artifacts... How do I spot them?").

Anyway... any thoughts/advice you have on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Cricket

leaf:
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.

hatman12:
What camera are you using Cricket?

It seems to me that you are trying to hide/mask/resolve a problem without first of all trying to get rid of the problem in the first place.

Noise and artifacts are usually created by incorrect exposure/camera settings/high ISO.

I assume you are using ISO 100 for everything stock related.

Next, turn off all the in-camera processing - sharpness, saturation etc.

Then, find out how to correctly expose for your camera.  Learn how to 'shoot to the right' for those pictures with white highlights, and 'shoot to the left' for those with heavy shadows.  Take a number of exposures and compare the results.

In 99% of cases, noise is a result of incorrect exposure.  You might THINK you are exposing correctly, but you should go through a test procedure to make absolutely sure.  You will be surprised by what you find out.

a.k.a.-tom:
 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 8)-tom

Cricket:
Leaf,

Thanks for the advice.  I think that I-stock is just getting incredibly picky, as the photographs that they rejected for artifacts and noise were accepted by the other agencies.

Anyway.... I have to wonder... is this artifact and noise thing that I-stock is obsessed with that big a deal????

I mean if I have to blow up the image to 400% to see it... is it really going to affect the quality of the image if it is used in a magazine, book or on a website?

I guess I can see it as a problem if the image was purchased with the intention of interpolating it to a larger size... then noise/artifacts might become an issue.... but I just don't see how artifacts which can only be  seen at 400% can be an issue if the image is going to be printed out at 100% or less.

I guess I am venting about I-stock... but I would love to hear other's thoughts on this artifact thing.

Cricket 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page