Discussion
I have royally 
ed up today. I've been trying to shoot a car for a magazine for the last few weeks and have been thwarted by the weather. Today I made the 300 mile round trip to get the photos, managed to get everything I needed in a window in the weather which was fantastic, got all the shots done in less that 2 hours. The problem is the old addage "less haste, more speed". In this case film speed 
In my rush to get everything done I forgot to check the ISO setting and guess what I had it set to, yep 1600
I now have 120 odd very noisy images that are certainly not fit for a magazine. No amount of noise ninja is going to save these babies. Anyone have any suggestions other than go back and do it again? I feel like such a tt
ed up today. I've been trying to shoot a car for a magazine for the last few weeks and have been thwarted by the weather. Today I made the 300 mile round trip to get the photos, managed to get everything I needed in a window in the weather which was fantastic, got all the shots done in less that 2 hours. The problem is the old addage "less haste, more speed". In this case film speed In my rush to get everything done I forgot to check the ISO setting and guess what I had it set to, yep 1600
I now have 120 odd very noisy images that are certainly not fit for a magazine. No amount of noise ninja is going to save these babies. Anyone have any suggestions other than go back and do it again? I feel like such a tt 
) Thanks for the suggestions. I would reduce size but I'm pushing it with a 300D for a mag as it is I think.
Here is one of the RAW files (8mg) if anyone wants to have a play...
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.gran
Here is one of the RAW files (8mg) if anyone wants to have a play...
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.gran
Ouch, you have my sympathy, I've been there but certainly never when there's anything riding on it.
I remember a year or two ago Matt (gravy) posted a "how I do it" thread when he did a photoshoot of a yellow Lambo. It always stuck in my mind that there was a picture of a lens with a post it note stuck on which said "check ISO".
Just had a play with your RAW file and it seems to my eye that using the photoshop "noise->despeckle" filter on the whole image does a pretty good job of removing the worst of the noise without softening the image up horribly.
Whether it's enough for a mag...
I remember a year or two ago Matt (gravy) posted a "how I do it" thread when he did a photoshoot of a yellow Lambo. It always stuck in my mind that there was a picture of a lens with a post it note stuck on which said "check ISO".
Just had a play with your RAW file and it seems to my eye that using the photoshop "noise->despeckle" filter on the whole image does a pretty good job of removing the worst of the noise without softening the image up horribly.
Whether it's enough for a mag...
badbeachbuggy said:
Thanks for the suggestions. I would reduce size but I'm pushing it with a 300D for a mag as it is I think.
Here is one of the RAW files (8mg) if anyone wants to have a play...
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.gran
Sadly, I'm pap when it comes to Photoshop so cannot help there
It may be worth you buying either www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321330625/qid=1144539938/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/203-6485020-0196716 and/or www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0240519841/qid=1144539965/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/203-6485020-0196716
Good luck!
Ouch
It took a fair time, but I think I have a solution (if a rather slow one). Points to note are:
1. Any de-noise/de-speckle over the entire image will make it look soft, and probably overemphasise the edges.
2. The noise is only noticeable on the big car panels. The tarmac and brick wall don't show the noise and the bright chromework, high contrast windows, radiator and lights only show a relatively small amount.
Manually select the painted metal area - one panel at a time is probably easiest. I found the "reduce noise" function better than de-speckle. The windows need a less agressive application. Obviously try any other 3rd party de-noise plugins you may have. The chromework needs to be excluded, otherwise it can tend to "glow" and give the impression of a dirty lens.
The metal cladding above the car could probably be hidden with a blur in the direction of the folds, or subtle use of a graduated filter.
On the left is the original, in the middle is 1 pass of the de-noise, on the right is a section with 2 passes which looks a bit too plasticky due to softening of the reflections. It does soften the dark shut-lines slightly, but on the whole just gives the impression of smooth burnished paintwork albeit with a slight airbrushed look - not totally inappropriate for the subject matter though. I would have a go at the full image but it could take a couple of hours.
It took a fair time, but I think I have a solution (if a rather slow one). Points to note are:
1. Any de-noise/de-speckle over the entire image will make it look soft, and probably overemphasise the edges.
2. The noise is only noticeable on the big car panels. The tarmac and brick wall don't show the noise and the bright chromework, high contrast windows, radiator and lights only show a relatively small amount.
Manually select the painted metal area - one panel at a time is probably easiest. I found the "reduce noise" function better than de-speckle. The windows need a less agressive application. Obviously try any other 3rd party de-noise plugins you may have. The chromework needs to be excluded, otherwise it can tend to "glow" and give the impression of a dirty lens.
The metal cladding above the car could probably be hidden with a blur in the direction of the folds, or subtle use of a graduated filter.
On the left is the original, in the middle is 1 pass of the de-noise, on the right is a section with 2 passes which looks a bit too plasticky due to softening of the reflections. It does soften the dark shut-lines slightly, but on the whole just gives the impression of smooth burnished paintwork albeit with a slight airbrushed look - not totally inappropriate for the subject matter though. I would have a go at the full image but it could take a couple of hours.
I'm no expert but would probably concentrate on trying to get one image up to the best standard you can.
Then use all the tricks variously on the others to make do :
- B&W
- Soften focus
- Litho
- Bi-chromatic
- Shrink 'em (or a montage ?)
Given the subject you could even toss in a bit of sepia unless you think that's a little passé
Good luck . . .
Then use all the tricks variously on the others to make do :
- B&W
- Soften focus
- Litho
- Bi-chromatic
- Shrink 'em (or a montage ?)
Given the subject you could even toss in a bit of sepia unless you think that's a little passé
Good luck . . .
Thanks for your help everyone. I still feel like a total dufus. To get the quality pics I wanted I'm gonna have to do it again. I don't mind that part too much after all it's my fault and I need to put things right. The bit I really am gutted about is letting the guy down who's car it is and having to take up more of his time and letting the editor and magazine down and possibly damaging their rep. There was a whole load of politics around doing this shoot too. Ah well I'll make the phone calls tomorrow.
I think this debacle had pretty much put an end to me doing commercial work, I have enough to deal with in my day job without this stress too I prefered it when it was just for fun.
I think this debacle had pretty much put an end to me doing commercial work, I have enough to deal with in my day job without this stress too
I prefered it when it was just for fun. Nick
All IMHO
Firstly, contract photography is about as stressful as it gets. I turn down lots of photo commission work as I just don't need the stress.
Secondly, I've been in your situation in my 'proper freelance job', when a recording studio session has gone completely pear shaped - you should see the faces when the music is written in the wrong key! (and all I wanted to do was put my head down a toilet).
I overcame the session nightmare because I had to (mortgage). And I never made the same mistakes again... well not so far. (bigger mortgage).
I guess you just need to choose which way to go.
Personally, photography is SO much better when it doesn't HAVE to bring in the cash.
...and I now mostly hate music, and still love photography.
Good luck.
Steve
All IMHO
Firstly, contract photography is about as stressful as it gets. I turn down lots of photo commission work as I just don't need the stress.
Secondly, I've been in your situation in my 'proper freelance job', when a recording studio session has gone completely pear shaped - you should see the faces when the music is written in the wrong key! (and all I wanted to do was put my head down a toilet).
I overcame the session nightmare because I had to (mortgage). And I never made the same mistakes again... well not so far. (bigger mortgage).
I guess you just need to choose which way to go.
Personally, photography is SO much better when it doesn't HAVE to bring in the cash.
...and I now mostly hate music, and still love photography.
Good luck.
Steve
I think anything you love that becomes a way of making money can quickly turn into something you hate.
When I started DJing, it was the best thing in the world - I thought it was great when I started getting gigs alongside big name DJs, and was making a bit of money from it. But very quickly it stops being a hobby and starts being a job, and that's when the fun goes out of it. Driving home from the middle of shitting scumsbury at 5:00am in torrential rain when you've had to deal with slack jawed morons all night isn't exactly living the dream...
I gave up playing for money just over 2 years ago, and have probably only listened to music a handful of times since - the job made me HATE music, as Steve says, and I only did it for a few years.
Now I'm just starting to listen to music again, but it's too easy to remember how much I hated it all - I couldn't bear that to happen with my photography, so when I get asked to do anything where money is involved, I politely decline the offer. I'd rather be out of pocket than lose my favourite hobby again.
When I started DJing, it was the best thing in the world - I thought it was great when I started getting gigs alongside big name DJs, and was making a bit of money from it. But very quickly it stops being a hobby and starts being a job, and that's when the fun goes out of it. Driving home from the middle of shitting scumsbury at 5:00am in torrential rain when you've had to deal with slack jawed morons all night isn't exactly living the dream...
I gave up playing for money just over 2 years ago, and have probably only listened to music a handful of times since - the job made me HATE music, as Steve says, and I only did it for a few years.
Now I'm just starting to listen to music again, but it's too easy to remember how much I hated it all - I couldn't bear that to happen with my photography, so when I get asked to do anything where money is involved, I politely decline the offer. I'd rather be out of pocket than lose my favourite hobby again.
badbeachbuggy said:
I think this debacle had pretty much put an end to me doing commercial work, I have enough to deal with in my day job without this stress too
Mate you have my deepest sympathy on this. Its a f**king hard job to try and do. The stress of it can be horrific at times. I've come pretty close to jacking it in too before now. Its great when it goes well and aweful when it doesnt.
A shame about the shoot, but if theres one thing I know, you'll forget the pain when you see it in print. TBH as the shoots/mags get bigger, the time available gets shorter and the travel gets measured in days it only gets worse, but jacking it in after one mistake might not be the way to go... give it another crack and it might be great. You've got good talent, try to remember that and why you wanted to do it in the first place.
Matt
To be honest, I don't think it's that bad, I've seen a lot worse (thank your lucky stars you didn't shoot with another brand! 
).
How big is the mag likely to reproduce the pics? You'd be amazed at how much the screen in the print can hide things. First off, I'd try noise reduction and send a sample to the mag.
Noise Ninja does do a good job. Do you have access to CS2? If so you could try noise reduction. I had a quick play and found opening the RAW (thank goodness you shot RAW) in ACR I was able to apply luminance smoothing (under the detail tab) to achieve this...
.... after and before, this @200%. Then apply a little unsharp mask, or better still smart sharpen, to bring the edges back. You might just get away with it, if it's not acceptable, then eat humble pie and do a reshoot.
Chalk it down to experience. I have made (as everyone does), loads of cock ups in my career. here's a few belters:
Being on location with the army when they suggested crashing a tank through a water logged ravine, looked amazing through the viewfinder until I realised the film hadn't caught in the sprockets and wasn't winding on (hadn't checked in the heat of battle). Same problem when shooting fashion bible shots (guide/reference shots when models are fitted to garments before going on location), with four models... they really weren't happy when I told them we had to reshoot the 34 shots. Or going hangliding with a large reflector with a gust of wind.... straight into a model, gave her a nasty 8" bruise on her thigh... Ooops. Or to keep it car related, tripping over a studio stand and watching the background roll support prong (about 6" long) go straight through the middle of the bonnet of the car I was photographing
.
Still, I can laugh about it now
.
). How big is the mag likely to reproduce the pics? You'd be amazed at how much the screen in the print can hide things. First off, I'd try noise reduction and send a sample to the mag.
Noise Ninja does do a good job. Do you have access to CS2? If so you could try noise reduction. I had a quick play and found opening the RAW (thank goodness you shot RAW) in ACR I was able to apply luminance smoothing (under the detail tab) to achieve this...
.... after and before, this @200%. Then apply a little unsharp mask, or better still smart sharpen, to bring the edges back. You might just get away with it, if it's not acceptable, then eat humble pie and do a reshoot.
Chalk it down to experience. I have made (as everyone does), loads of cock ups in my career. here's a few belters:
Being on location with the army when they suggested crashing a tank through a water logged ravine, looked amazing through the viewfinder until I realised the film hadn't caught in the sprockets and wasn't winding on (hadn't checked in the heat of battle). Same problem when shooting fashion bible shots (guide/reference shots when models are fitted to garments before going on location), with four models... they really weren't happy when I told them we had to reshoot the 34 shots. Or going hangliding with a large reflector with a gust of wind.... straight into a model, gave her a nasty 8" bruise on her thigh... Ooops. Or to keep it car related, tripping over a studio stand and watching the background roll support prong (about 6" long) go straight through the middle of the bonnet of the car I was photographing
. Still, I can laugh about it now
.I have a friend who is a Photoshop god. I will mail him this link tomorrow morning and see what he can advise. I think that making a feature of the grain could be a way forward. Much will come down to the quality of the repro on the magazine.
We all make mistakes. The important thing is that you learn from them. My old studio manager once said to me, "Emma, just remember, whatever happens, nobody will die if we make a mistake." You have images to work with so all is not lost.
I was talking with a couple of photographers from 'The Sunday Times' once and they were comparing disaster stories (good old days of film). Chris Smith once put a film through his camera twice, completely ruining shots of an important women's tennis final. Another friend of mine was covering a Juventis match once and he discovered that one of his batteries was totally flat. To his horror he discovered that his spare was virtually flat too.
The rule is to always test and check your equipment the night before. And always have twice as many batteries as you are ever likely to need (for camera, flash and light meters). And if using studio flash on location, always have a spare fuse, lamp and, whenever possible, head. I always run through everything, from colour matrix setting to checking that I don't have auto-bracketing set on the camera. Imagine what could possibly go wrong and take every step imaginable to avoid it happening.
I try to avoid working when I am really tired too as I nearly lost one and a half shoots when I inadvertantly ejected my CF card from the card reader thinking that I had put it in the trash. Thank God for image rescue software.
We all make mistakes. The important thing is that you learn from them. My old studio manager once said to me, "Emma, just remember, whatever happens, nobody will die if we make a mistake." You have images to work with so all is not lost.
I was talking with a couple of photographers from 'The Sunday Times' once and they were comparing disaster stories (good old days of film). Chris Smith once put a film through his camera twice, completely ruining shots of an important women's tennis final. Another friend of mine was covering a Juventis match once and he discovered that one of his batteries was totally flat. To his horror he discovered that his spare was virtually flat too.
The rule is to always test and check your equipment the night before. And always have twice as many batteries as you are ever likely to need (for camera, flash and light meters). And if using studio flash on location, always have a spare fuse, lamp and, whenever possible, head. I always run through everything, from colour matrix setting to checking that I don't have auto-bracketing set on the camera. Imagine what could possibly go wrong and take every step imaginable to avoid it happening.
I try to avoid working when I am really tired too as I nearly lost one and a half shoots when I inadvertantly ejected my CF card from the card reader thinking that I had put it in the trash. Thank God for image rescue software.
badbeachbuggy said:
http://freespace.virgin.net/nick.gran
That link is not working for me. Can you email the file to me please, Nick?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff