pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock - "Noise" Rejection, How to clean up the sky  (Read 9817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2008, 12:50 »
0
I just got this image rejected at SS:

Here is 100% crop of the sky:


Rejection: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.

Tech details: Canon 40D at ISO 100, processed from RAW. It was correctly exposed. Lens: 17-40L shot at f/8.
(I don't really know how else to improve my equipment other than buying a Full Frame camera).


So my questions:
What do you think is the rejection reason? Noise or artifacts?
I think I will downsize it to 4MP and resubmit it. Any other suggestions?

In general, what do you do with noisy skies (Do all DSLRs have some noise in the sky?)?
(I could clean it up in noise ninja but then I would probably get a rejection from iS for overfiltering.
So, what is your workflow for similar images (brightly lit landscapes and lots of sky)???

FYI: The image was accepted at iS and FT. I think SS is sometimes little too strict on the noise for their own good.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 13:01 by maco0708 »


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2008, 13:38 »
0
I've had a few rejected recently for same.
I think when you throw in something with a bare sky you are really running a  higher risk of rejection.

But, on some previous rejections, I have took out the noise and they were accepted on second submission.

If the noise is apparent you really have to clean it up.

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2008, 13:52 »
0






why dont you try with Neat Image:


« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2008, 14:01 »
0
I find myself that it is best to get the noise out in Raw stage. If you are using Photoshop, go to Detail in the raw stage - turn Sharpen all the way off and Color and Luma noise to 100%. Usually works for me.

If a little sharpening is needed for the detail, I use Filter>Other>High Pass, using a setting that will just begin to show detail (the layer will look all grey), then use either Overlay or Soft Light Blend Mode for that filtered layer. I usually use a layer mask with this High Pass layer, so that no artifacts are re-introduced into the sky and I can just reveal the detail where I need.

Just another option for you.

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2008, 14:06 »
0
There is some noise in the blues , and Its alway easier to take care of the noise in the sky like this than the cloudy sky , cause running clouds trough noise reduction you loose details on the cloud and get artifacts. The way to handle that is to use layer mask on the noise reduction layer.
I have new monitor and I didn't have the time to calibrate it properly ,  but I'm almost sure that there is too much magentas here so your snow is kind of reddish.

Well anyway hope you don't mint that i tried to fix it a bit , I run it trough noise reduction , changed white balance a bit , a added some sharpness only to the rocks.



 



« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2008, 14:08 »
0
I see Chode was faster  ;)  ,  anyway I used noise ninja here

« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2008, 14:22 »
0
There is some noise in the blues , and Its alway easier to take care of the noise in the sky like this than the cloudy sky , cause running clouds trough noise reduction you loose details on the cloud and get artifacts. The way to handle that is to use layer mask on the noise reduction layer.
I have new monitor and I didn't have the time to calibrate it properly ,  but I'm almost sure that there is too much magentas here so your snow is kind of reddish.

Well anyway hope you don't mint that i tried to fix it a bit , I run it trough noise reduction , changed white balance a bit , a added some sharpness only to the rocks.



Thanks for the suggestions. The warm tone is intentional since the image was shot close to sunset and I indicated that in the description (which you did not have). He is the picture at iS:http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5841086

I also have noise ninja but I try to be careful so I don't get rejections at iS.
WHICH ONE IS BETTER? Noise Ninja or Neat image?
I find that with the 40D and lots of sky the default setting (from the 40D profile at ISO 100) is not enough to remove the noise. Do you turn it up or use profile for higher ISO setting?

« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2008, 14:46 »
0
I use Neat Image personally. I wouldn't use it for that though. Best thing for cleaning up the sky would be a touch of Gaussian Blur.

Are you sure they aren't referring to artifacts in the snow?

« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2008, 14:49 »
0
I never use default settings , Just look at the photo and use it to your needs , use profile image option , and if you have suspitious areas add them manually in the profile. Sometimes is good to use few settings in few different layers for noise reduction , and use layer masks on them , cause you have different amounts of noise on different parts of your image so single profile might not work well.

« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2008, 14:51 »
0
I personaly think that in this picture noise not a problem. There is a LOT Color aberration in your picture. Use Adobe Lihtroom to correct this

« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2008, 14:59 »
0
I personaly think that in this picture noise not a problem. There is a LOT Color aberration in your picture. Use Adobe Lihtroom to correct this

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I wish they had VERY specific rejection reasons. If it's noise, say noise, if it's artifacts, say artifacts,....

Do you consider that a LOT of color aberration? What lenses do you use? This was taken with the Canon 17-40 f/4 L at f/8. Is there a better wide angle zoom for Canon? Maybe the 16-35 II?
Or all lenses have aberration and we just have to correct it in the photoshop?

« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2008, 19:14 »
0
No, not all lenses doesn't have CA. Some zoom lenses has CA on wide position and some on tele(zoom) position. I am using Olympus pro series lenses like 11-22 and 50-200 and in some cases I have small CA.

Because you use Canon please some Canon user give us advice witch lenses has smaller CA or probably without CA.

If you want to test and see by yourself download test images from this site:
http://raw.fotosite.pl/
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx

« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2008, 20:12 »
0
I personaly think that in this picture noise not a problem. There is a LOT Color aberration in your picture. Use Adobe Lihtroom to correct this

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I wish they had VERY specific rejection reasons. If it's noise, say noise, if it's artifacts, say artifacts,....

Do you consider that a LOT of color aberration? What lenses do you use? This was taken with the Canon 17-40 f/4 L at f/8. Is there a better wide angle zoom for Canon? Maybe the 16-35 II?
Or all lenses have aberration and we just have to correct it in the photoshop?
Every wide angle zoom I've tried from Canon has sufficient chromatic aberration that I've had to clean it up using lens correction to get the edges acceptable to me at 100 per cent view. (that includes the 17-40 - although I've seen images from that lens that were better in that respect than the copy I tried). It's the main reason I haven't spent a lot of money upgrading from my good copy of the 17-85IS. Yes it's got horrid chromatic aberration wide open at the edges. But it's no harder and more time consuming to correct moderately large amounts of CA than it is to correct small but still noticeable CA. 
I'm really looking for a landscape lens (so it doesn't have to be super fast) that is sharp right out to the corners at f8 with no appreciable chromatic aberration. So far I haven't found it. (the 10-22 EFS seems to be the best bet, but I'm still thinking about full frame so don't want to spend that much on an EF-S lens)

« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2008, 20:42 »
0
I just got this image rejected at SS:

Here is 100% crop of the sky:


Rejection: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.

Tech details: Canon 40D at ISO 100, processed from RAW. It was correctly exposed. Lens: 17-40L shot at f/8.
(I don't really know how else to improve my equipment other than buying a Full Frame camera).


So my questions:
What do you think is the rejection reason? Noise or artifacts?
I think I will downsize it to 4MP and resubmit it. Any other suggestions?

In general, what do you do with noisy skies (Do all DSLRs have some noise in the sky?)?
(I could clean it up in noise ninja but then I would probably get a rejection from iS for overfiltering.
So, what is your workflow for similar images (brightly lit landscapes and lots of sky)???

FYI: The image was accepted at iS and FT. I think SS is sometimes little too strict on the noise for their own good.

Use neat image at 50% on a separate layer so you can isolate the sky. Then use clone tool set at 15-20% to smooth out any stuborn spots. can't remember last rejection for noise in the sky. The sky always has a little noise in it after processing, even at iso 50.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 20:45 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2008, 14:00 »
0
Dont worry, just grab a "blur tool" about 50-80% blur and "paint" the sky and thats it. Or select just the sky and use median with high radius. Theres always solution to this "invisible noise" policy.

Btw. I dont think FF camera will help, 40D is not worse then 5D.

« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2008, 14:38 »
0
I submit a lot with skies and do nothing special to reduce the noise.  I've got an XT and the 17-40L.  I always shoot at ISO 100 and overexpose by a stop and recover with the RAW editor.  The only NR that I use is to bump up the Lum smoothing in ACR to 25 for skies, or the Chro NR to 25 if the shot has heavy shadows/black areas.  I haven't had a noise rejection anywhere since I started shooting like this.  Since ACR corrections are recorded in the EXIF, I go no higher than 25 to avoid overfiltered rejections at IS, above 50 they tend to reject a lot more.

However I always correct fringing with my 17-40.  I do it in PS with the lens correction filter.  Generally I bump up the red/cyan slider 3-5 steps to the right, that almost always is enough to correct the problem.

In this shot the fringing appears much more noticeable than the sky noise, though the sky noise does seem high for the setup.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2008, 15:05 »
0
Waldo4- If I stop submitting images with exif data, will that stop rejections for "Overfiltered"?  Sometimes when they (Most sites I use) reject my images for Overfiltered, I can resubmit by reducing color saturation a little.  However iS still rejects them.  Think the rascals are using my exif file against me?


« Reply #17 on: May 02, 2008, 01:27 »
0
1.) I use Nikon!
2.) I use median filter in photoshop
3.) I use Neat Image plug in to photoshop

 I love blue sky and have a lot of them, sometimes if nothing of this does not work.

If i have a customer in a hurry i have a ethical NONO, (I let my client know and decide if to do it, and i never post such pics for STOCK) copy one of my standard Skye's i have in my "sky" library.

« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2008, 02:16 »
0
Downsize it to 4MP   is the fastest way :). I am using lightroom noise reduction in RAW and for SS I downsize in addition.
I actually do not remember when I had my last rejection for noise. I am using the 30D.

« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2008, 07:24 »
0
The sky? Very simple, very fast, and always successful. Use plugin called "Noiseware" developed by "Imagenomic" , preset "Weaker noise"


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4254 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 08:01
by anonymous
30 Replies
5881 Views
Last post June 05, 2011, 16:00
by lagereek
21 Replies
4552 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 22:10
by Uncle Pete
14 Replies
4136 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:28
by etudiante_rapide
20 Replies
3186 Views
Last post December 25, 2018, 09:06
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results