MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Paranoid about noise and things  (Read 7161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 07, 2009, 14:36 »
0
Since having some of my first uploads rejected for quality, and changing cameras, could I please have an opinion? There are one or two sites that demand uploads in 300ppi. Having looked at my new camera's images (still learning it), I can see noise at 300ppi, but it's not really visible at 72ppi. Do you think something might pass at this level for noise and sharpness (ignoring composition, saleability, levels, balance etc)? Am I being overly critical? The eye is sharp - just so you know where the focus point is.

Straight conversion from raw to 16 bit tif from ViewNX (4288 x 2848 pixels), then to 8 bit tif in Photoshop, otherwise untouched.
Nikon D5000, kit lens 18-55 VR at 34mm f8 1/320 natural light, 200 ISO
Sharpness set to zero in camera, I think it was on the macro setting but I can't remember now. It's a horse, by the way.

100% crop corner at 300ppi

reduced size whole image at 72ppi (for location)


I'd be grateful for any opinions so I know what to aim for, thanks!


ap

« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2009, 14:44 »
0
yes, i do see noise (sorry), but it's manageable. (whew)

the noise is usually found in the background or in the shadow areas. if you have lightroom, i use their noise reduction to deal with this or you can just isolate the noisy area in photoshop and do a surface blur.

did you shoot this at a low iso? iso 100 will help reduce a lot of noise.

« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2009, 15:05 »
0
Yeah, I agree there is slight noise, but it should be passable.  I think we get carried away with pixel peeping sometimes.  Granted digital noise isn't as aesthetically pleasing as film noise - but there are still limits to how picky we need to be.  I think that much noise would get past Shutterstock which seem to be the pickiest on that particular 'error'

I wonder if you are confused about ppi though.  When an image is displayed on a computer monitor at 72ppi (or dpi) or 300 dpi it will look the same size.  There is no real difference in the images other than what it is set to PRINT at.  When viewing on a monitor, if an image is 300 pixels wide, it will show all 300 pixels when viewing at 100% weather it is set to 1ppi or 1000ppi
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 15:15 by leaf »

« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2009, 15:09 »
0
Here I resized your image to show what I mean.

image 'example1' is resized to 1dpi
image 'example2' is resized to 10,000dpi

the images are the same.  If you open them up in photoshop (you have to click on the file then choose "Open With > Photoshop" ... if you just try and drag and drop them into photoshop they will get automatically changed to 72dpi), and click image > image size you should be able to see that they are indeed the dpi that is stated.  
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 15:14 by leaf »

« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2009, 15:20 »
0
Thanks leaf, I was just trying it out for myself as you wrote the second post - I see what you mean, and I'm old enough to know better!

@ ap, no I haven't got Lightroom, just an aging version of Photoshop, but I think I can improve on it if I mess around a bit. The D5000 has a sort of fake low ISO (I believe), but 200 is the basic lowest setting. I shall have to do some more experimenting.

Thanks both  :)

« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2009, 16:40 »
0
Another way to handel  that area with noise in Photoshop is to duplicate the flattened image layer (or create new layer and on it Stamp Visible by using CTRL-ALT-Shift-E), do a Gaussian Blur, put a black mask on the layer, and paint white on the mask to reveal that now not so noisey area. This is a good technique with dark noisey areas throughout the image, using different size/soft brushes and you can reduce the effect by changing the opacity of the layer.

I know this is old news to most people, but . . . . . . .

« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 16:47 by etienjones »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2009, 17:04 »
0
Not old news to me, etienjames.  My masking techniques are severely lack.  I really need to take the time to sit down with some good references.

Thanks for pointing that out.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2009, 17:44 »
0
Another way to handel  that area with noise in Photoshop is to duplicate the flattened image layer (or create new layer and on it Stamp Visible by using CTRL-ALT-Shift-E), do a Gaussian Blur, put a black mask on the layer, and paint white on the mask to reveal that now not so noisey area. This is a good technique with dark noisey areas throughout the image, using different size/soft brushes and you can reduce the effect by changing the opacity of the layer.

I know this is old news to most people, but . . . . . . .



Very good advice!  This is the way I deal with noise also and it works great. 

Best to shoot at ISO 100 whenever possible and avoid the noise altogether, but sometimes that just isn't possible.  Especially on location work I find I sometimes need to go as high as ISO 400. 

When I do then creating another layer, running a gaussian blur of about 1.5, and masking out the areas that need to be sharp is the quickest and most effective way I have found to handle it.

« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2009, 18:32 »
0
also you can use noise reducing software i use neat image and had many images accepted using this good piece of software ,ideally get it right in the camera use a tripod and the lowest iso you have got

« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2009, 19:35 »
0
Noise doesnt only is about ISO settings, its more a thing of exposure. One image can have more noise at ISO 100 that at ISO 200 with the same camera if the ISO 100 was underexposed, so the better would be to expose with a litle bit of OVEREXPOSE, just 1/3 or 2/3 stops when dealing with high ISO, and then correct the exposure in the RAW processing. This way you can reduce greatly noise in high ISO shots.

« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2009, 22:43 »
0
Sites are absurdly picky about noise.  I read many people who buy photos saying this is not so important, unless it's something that harms texture in your main subject if you need a high resolution image.  If the image is going to be used in small sizes (like XS, S and even M), a little noise like shown in you example is possibly not an issue at all.

« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2009, 17:20 »
0
Sites are absurdly picky about noise.

I agree. I did an interior shot, that was noisy and would never pass inspection for stock. I was told that noise is an MS issue...that if you are sending photos to print, the noise just isn't that kind of issue.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I sent the photo out to a lab to see what it looked like. I got an 8x10 print and it looks great. Next time I get some prints, I'll get a 12x18 of that and check that.

I wish they would lighten up a little on that. Sometimes they go overboard with their noisy rejections.

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2009, 10:16 »
0
Noise doesnt only is about ISO settings, its more a thing of exposure. One image can have more noise at ISO 100 that at ISO 200 with the same camera if the ISO 100 was underexposed, so the better would be to expose with a litle bit of OVEREXPOSE, just 1/3 or 2/3 stops when dealing with high ISO, and then correct the exposure in the RAW processing. This way you can reduce greatly noise in high ISO shots.

This is an excellent point!  Slightly overexposing can reduce noise a lot.  You have to be careful though, not to blow your highlights.  They cannot be recovered if gone. 

Shooting RAW does give you more leeway to overexpose a bit, though, you are right.

« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2009, 17:30 »
0
I know this is old news to most people, but . . . . . . .

Thank you for that information! I'm always looking for new PS tutorials to try. I have been using Picture Cooler to handle the noise (the free version). I think it does a pretty good job and it really takes no time at all.

« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2009, 22:19 »
0
Do you guys find that you are using these de-noise tools on every image you submit (just to be safe)? Or only the ones that you feel are necessary?

vonkara

« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2009, 14:17 »
0
This is me dealing with my Nikon D300 banding and noise



I share the paranoia fealing. Still it's better to shoot low iso on tripod and sharpen your image than using higher iso and and add blur.

« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2009, 15:14 »
0
An update. I've been looking at ways to combat the problem, and for those of you that haven't discovered it yet (sorry if millions of you already know) I discovered neatimage (as chasmcn mentioned earlier but I overlooked), and even though I don't get any commission, I'm impressed at what it can do - and so easily!


(Sorry if the images are a bit big)

The noise reduced image looks slightly lighter, but that may be as it was made from the first jpg example and not the original - i.e. opened, cropped and saved as first example, noise reduced and saved as example 2.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 15:58 by gill »

ap

« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2009, 16:07 »
0
this is the exact same effect as when i use noise reduction in lightroom or apply a slight surface blur in ps. do most people find this acceptable or will reviewers reject it for being too  'neatmatized'?

« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2009, 16:20 »
0
Who knows?! Since my first six acceptances (which were pretty miserable low-res things), everything else I submitted was rejected, so I've taken a step back to "analyze". So, having a total of six images accepted anywhere, maybe others can give a better insight, but it seems a bit like choosing wallpaper really - everyone has their own ideas.
I'm just trying to get as many "weapons" under my belt as I can before I do battle again :)
Edited to add. I only have an old version of ps, so this is the bees knees to me!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2009, 16:21 by gill »

« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2009, 16:37 »
0
Do you guys find that you are using these de-noise tools on every image you submit (just to be safe)? Or only the ones that you feel are necessary?

Only where necessary.  I generally know where to look for it: in deep blue sky or other dark areas.  I'll often select just the sky and run Neat Image on that, so it leaves the detail of the rest of the image alone.

BTW, the easiest way to spot noise is to go to a 100% view and scroll left and right.  If you see a pixely texture sliding by, it might benefit from noise processing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
12548 Views
Last post October 23, 2007, 22:14
by Beckyabell
20 Replies
7230 Views
Last post May 21, 2008, 08:15
by stokfoto
17 Replies
6478 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 05:35
by MicrostockExp
1 Replies
3281 Views
Last post May 20, 2009, 03:12
by dirkr
16 Replies
4647 Views
Last post May 21, 2014, 16:07
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors