noise and light

[UKBob]

Its lack of light which creates noise, correct?

Someone recommended neat image for noise correction. Has anyone tried it. I assume you perform an autolevels "one click" solution, rather than having to remove noise with a brush.

Do erm (apologies for all the questions) raw processing programs have noise removal tools built in? Just wondering in which format/order files need to be processed Apparently, stock libraries are pretty strict on noise which has to be removed before submission.

[Bee_Jay]

OK,

NoiseNinja, Noiseware etc remove noise, some as stand-alones and some as plug-ins.

Some RAW software can reduce noise, but it is better done on the JPEG.

My workflow is:

If it's loads of images, batch process RAW to JPG in Rawshooter then open JPG in Photoshop, if a one-off, open RAW direct in Photoshop.

Once there, I use the noiseware plugin filter from Imagenomic - excellent with loads of settings and good previewing, but also some 'idiot' modes as well.



>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Wednesday 10th May 12:24

[Andy M]

Bee_Jay said:

If it's loads of images, batch process RAW to JPG in Rawshooter then open JPG in Photoshop, if a one-off, open RAW direct in Photoshop.

I've found myself shooting JPG only with my 5D due to the RAW+JPG files being HUGE (and making my 2GB memory card appear oh so small).

I do this because I'm not very selective with shots - in other words I use the GetCarter method of carpet bombing - and find that my memory cards just aren't big enough. I seldom shoot RAW only due to the amount of post processing which would be needed - I find the RAW files to be dull and lifeless compared to the JPG's I shoot.

If you're converting from RAW -> JPG, how do you go about batch processing the converted JPG's to appear less flat and more lively?

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

UKBob said:

Its lack of light which creates noise, correct?

Nope. It's there accross the whole image, but you don't notice it in brighter areas.

[Bee_Jay]

Andy M said:

Bee_Jay said: If it's loads of images, batch process RAW to JPG in Rawshooter then open JPG in Photoshop, if a one-off, open RAW direct in Photoshop. I've found myself shooting JPG only with my 5D due to the RAW+JPG files being HUGE (and making my 2GB memory card appear oh so small). I do this because I'm not very selective with shots - in other words I use the GetCarter method of carpet bombing - and find that my memory cards just aren't big enough. I seldom shoot RAW only due to the amount of post processing which would be needed - I find the RAW files to be dull and lifeless compared to the JPG's I shoot. If you're converting from RAW -> JPG, how do you go about batch processing the converted JPG's to appear less flat and more lively?

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=268089&f=109&h=0

Have a look at the above thread where we are currently having the discussion. You will be a RAW-only convert I am sure.

The simple answer is buy a few bigger memory cards!

Also, if using a decent PP like Rawshooter (or any for that matter) your RAW only appears flat because of how you process it. The RAW file is what your 5D started with to make the JPG it wrote to the card, so the difference is all in how your 5D is processing (what picture style you have set in your case). Your 5D will lock in a white balance, set tints, saturation and sharpen to make the JPG. Using RAW none of this happens, you get to choose how much of each you do, however RS allows you to do this to one image in a set and then apply the same settings to 100s of photos with one click.

Shoot a few RAW, play with them in Rawshooter by dragging all the sliders to their extremes to see what you can do and you will be amazed!

P.S. - I have NO association with Pixmantec, I just love their stuff. Also If JPG works fin for you, then stick with it, I just know how much I regret that my early shots are just in JPG.

Joe.

>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Wednesday 10th May 12:49

[Andy M]

Bee_Jay said:

Shoot a few RAW, play with them in Rawshooter by dragging all the sliders to their extremes to see what you can do and you will be amazed! P.S. - I have NO association with Pixmantec, I just love their stuff. Also If JPG works fin for you, then stick with it, I just know how much I regret that my early shots are just in JPG. Joe.

Am in a bit of a rush so can't reply as much as I'd like to. Rawshooter looks excellent aside from one thing, it appears to be Windows only (I'm a Mac user).

Can anybody recommend a application alike Rawshooter which is available for Mac?

Andy.

[_dobbo_]

Yo Bob, if you are a moron like me and you forget to turn off ISO800, or leave the camera in auto-iso, then neat image et al can be very very useful. Only problem I find is that you lose a bit of sharpness and skin tones in particular go a bit soft. Aside from that it's pretty good, here's a thread from about a year ago I posted;

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=109&t=162049

[J111]

UKBob said:

Its lack of light which creates noise, correct?

Kind of. Your camera has to amplify the amount of information it's getting. The less light, the more amplification. Just as with an audio amplifier (where it would manifest as hiss) the more amplification, the more noise.

[Bee_Jay]

Andy M said:

Bee_Jay said: Shoot a few RAW, play with them in Rawshooter by dragging all the sliders to their extremes to see what you can do and you will be amazed! P.S. - I have NO association with Pixmantec, I just love their stuff. Also If JPG works fin for you, then stick with it, I just know how much I regret that my early shots are just in JPG. Joe. Am in a bit of a rush so can't reply as much as I'd like to. Rawshooter looks excellent aside from one thing, it appears to be Windows only (I'm a Mac user). Can anybody recommend a application alike Rawshooter which is available for Mac? Andy.

Yup - I use Macs too (on my MacBook Pro right now!)

Have a look at Adobe Lightroom - is a free beta at the moment and very good - workflow isn't as simply obvious as rawshooter, but you get it soon enough. Forget Apple Aperture - though it is good, you have to import all your pictures into their monolithic database, which is impractical if like me you use lits of big firewire drives and laptops...

[Andy M]

Bee_Jay said:

Yup - I use Macs too (on my MacBook Pro right now!) Have a look at Adobe Lightroom - is a free beta at the moment and very good - workflow isn't as simply obvious as rawshooter, but you get it soon enough. Forget Apple Aperture - though it is good, you have to import all your pictures into their monolithic database, which is impractical if like me you use lits of big firewire drives and laptops...

RE: MacBook Pro - how is it? Have you previously used a Powerbook, if so how do they compare?

I'll have a look at Lightroom - I checked out Aperture but couldn't get along with it. According to Think Secret Aperture is going to receive a full overhall in the coming months. Once Lightroom is fee based, Aperture may be worth a re-visit.

[Bee_Jay]

Thread Hijack Warning !!!

Re: MacBook Pro - I LOVE it - I had a 17" last generation G4 before, and the MacBook is lightning in comparison (I have the 15" with 2.16GHz, 2GB RAM and 100GB 7200 drive). Not really had any issues with things not running on it apart from a couple of obscure utilities, but that is fixed now.

Even though PS CS2 is not running native, it still runs as fast as it did on my G4, if not faster. Everything else though is great about it.

Not had the whining problem people talk about on the net, and it does run hot but that doesn't really bother me. Remote is cute but don't often use Front Row apart from hotel rooms. iSight is great for travelling (I use iChat to stay in touch with the family back home) and saves having to carry one around separately like I used to with the Powerbook.

Parallels Workstation is excellent and runs XP beautifully, even full screen so you can freak poeple out by having XP running on your MacBook. Boot Camp is a waste of time, don't want to spend time rebooting if I want XP.

Back on topic - I still prefer Rawshooter on the PC to anything on the Mac for RAW processing.



>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Wednesday 10th May 16:40

[UKBob]

80cm Tent results

1: Shot on my desk, in late afternoon sunlight.


2: Shot in the tent, 2x60w bulbs, one above to the rear, and one to the left. The image was overexposed a little in camera, not sure how much.


Both images had PS autolevels. Still far from perfect, but looking a little snappier. Its nearly 2am, my brain is fried, and I cant think - Does the second one look a little overexposed C&C?

ThatPhilBrettGuy said:

UKBob said: Its lack of light which creates noise, correct? Nope. It's there accross the whole image, but you don't notice it in brighter areas.

Yes, but the problem with noise is the fact that you can see it. If you cant see it, and lack of light causes it... Which raises the question, does the second image look a flat without the noise, or not?

[J111]

UKBob said:

Does the second one look a little overexposed C&C?

Yes, the first one has a far healthier levels curve and gives you more to work with, the second has blown highlights. (although I'm not sure what you mean by C&C)

UKBob said:

Both images had PS autolevels

I cannot recommend strongly enough learning to use the levels tool yourself. Autolevels is one of Photoshop's bluntest tools. This is a decent enough primer on levels, brightness, variations, and saturation.

ThatPhilBrettGuy said:

Yes, but the problem with noise is the fact that you can see it. If you cant see it, and lack of light causes it... Which raises the question, does the second image look a flat without the noise, or not?

The lack of light doesn't cause noise. The lack of light causes the camera to need to amplify the signal from the CCD more (increase its effective ISO) which gives rise to noise. You could take an almost noise free photograph by moonlight if you locked the camera to 100ISO and left the shutter open for several minutes. Since the first photo was taken at 100ISO (the camera's minimum setting) the noise will be as low as it will get.

There is a little noise on either shot. There is significant oversharpening - this should always be carried out in Photoshop rather than in-camera.

[UKBob]

Cheers J111

I'll try shooting again without overexposing. It looks far from right.

C&C - comments and criticism. Thanks

re: the sharpening, the original is just about as sharp at 100% with very little in camera sharpening. So sharp in fact, that you can hardly notice the difference before and after sharpening, which is good news because I was having a LOT of trouble getting sharp images and wasnt sure if my lens was focussing properly

I'll try it again. And again etc

[V6GTO]

Bob...use your histogram to get the exposue spot on every time.

Martin.

[UKBob]

V6GTO said:

Bob...use your histogram to get the exposue spot on every time. Martin.

If its less time consuming than a hysterectomy I'll give it a go. Too keen to shoot and ask questions later, Ive done loads of reading but not too much shooting so far.

The light tent manual said cameras need to be set to overexpose when shooting white. With constant bulb settings, I just need to find the right exposure setting, Id imagine.

[V6GTO]

UKBob said:

V6GTO said: Bob...use your histogram to get the exposue spot on every time. Martin. If its less time consuming than a hysterectomy I'll give it a go. Too keen to shoot and ask questions later, Ive done loads of reading but not too much shooting so far. The light tent manual said cameras need to be set to overexpose when shooting white. With constant bulb settings, I just need to find the right exposure setting, Id imagine.

Take a shot...look at the hystogram. You need to have the bit that looks like a mountain as far to the right as you can get it without going off the edge. To move it right right let more light in, and left is less. I hope that wasn't a "too simplistic" explaination, I don't want to sound condesending. The other metho is RTFM

Martin.

[UKBob]

V6GTO said:

UKBob said: V6GTO said: Bob...use your histogram to get the exposue spot on every time. Martin. If its less time consuming than a hysterectomy I'll give it a go. Too keen to shoot and ask questions later, Ive done loads of reading but not too much shooting so far. The light tent manual said cameras need to be set to overexpose when shooting white. With constant bulb settings, I just need to find the right exposure setting, Id imagine. Take a shot...look at the hystogram. You need to have the bit that looks like a mountain as far to the right as you can get it without going off the edge. To move it right right let more light in, and left is less. I hope that wasn't a "too simplistic" explaination, I don't want to sound condesending. The other metho is RTFM Martin.

My right or your right Cheers for that, I'll have a lookread this weekend