Quality, noise, etc.

[lisah2006]

I just shot an entire session at very high ISO. thank goodness I found this forum and learned a person can be banned for submitting noisy images and having them fail QC  Yikes. I think I'll have to throw the entire session out as I am not an expert in reducing noise in Lightroom, though I'm working on it. I'll let the person I photograph have them for personal use at least. Glad to have found the forum and grateful for the info.

[Bryan]

All might not be lost, depends on the camera, the actual ISO and the lighting. If the main subject was well lit, that part of the image might be fine without significant noise reduction.

 

One technique would be do two raw conversions in LR with light and heavy noise reduction, and then combine the two in PS. The well lit detailed areas would probably not need as heavy handed an approach, while plain areas in shadow would benefit from it without materially affecting the overall quality of the image. 

 

People who are more LR savvy than I am would probably be able to do this kind of thing within that program.

[RedSnapper]

Export from Lightroom @ 3000x2000px  (just above the Alamy minimum file size) will help minimise the appearance of noise

 

km

[Rick Lewis]

Define very high ISO.  For some of us it is 800 ISO for others it may be 6400 ISO.  Also, the ISO is irrelevant, IMHO, but the noise is not.  I have binned 200 ISO shots taken with a micro 4/3's camera, Olympus OMD E-M1 MkII, due to excessive noise, not the ISO value.  Really what counts is image quality, not ISO value.  Keith, gave you some very good advice; export @3000x2000 and take a look at the image at 100% to see if there is excessive noise.  That helps a lot.

 

Rick

[lisah2006]

I'll try these suggestions. Thank you! 

[lisah2006]

I just worried about getting banned for 10 days! I'm trying to build up my portfolio.

[Colin Woods]

Post one here. You will soon have loads of opinions on whether the noise is too excessive or not. I have photos here that I shot at ISO 6400, with the Nikon D750. As has been said it depends on the camera. The actual ISO figure doesn't mean that much.

[imageplotter]

Hi Lisah, I agree, don't bin anything yet!! Especially if you think the images themselves are good. Post one or a few. ISO is very relative. For one, ISO performance varies greatly between brands, camera models (some have built-in iso reduction which may or may not perform well), and software performance also varies greatly, depending on programmes used and confidence in using those. 

 

I often shoot live gigs for bands and musicians, as well as ballet/dance (these do not go to alamy). Depending on whatever stage lighting is available (and it is often very dark, especially for dance), you have to work with the given conditions unless it's a specifically arranged shoot for you. It comes with the territory of live performances. So ISO of anywhere between 1600 and 3200 is very common, or higher! Ditto in some sports photography, where fast shots matter and even at F2.8 you may still need to go above ISO 2000 to get catch that very fast action. It's often better to leave some noise in than to over process the noise and make it go soft (I get very annoyed when I see otherwise sharp sports imaged getting the soft-porn vaseline treatment). so it really depends.  So if the session was one where high ISO was a must, then I wouldn't give up on it so easily. (for stage images, b&w often works a treat, too, but that's obvs not applicable for stock images as they're less likely to sell). Unless of course the high ISO was an accident and you shot at ISO 6400 in bright sunlight.... that's a different matter. 

 

Performance of the equipment used can also play a park. What camera/s were you using for the shoot? I'm mostly shooting on 3 generations of 5D, a Mk II, III and IV (plus sometimes hire bodies for client work) and there is a noticeable improvement in ISO performance between each generation of these. (I still think Nikon have the edge on noise)

 

If you do decide to work on correcting the noise, I'd gradually increase the noise compensation and check at 100% or higher. You can also try to manually reduce noise with brushes just in the background areas around the main subject (with fairly wide feathering on the brush to avoid having a visible drop off on the edge). That way, you will keep all the detail in a performer's face, for example, but the dark background, which may be nice and blurry anyway, can take more noise compensation. If it's a colour image, don't go overboard with sliding up the overall luminance, but try playing with the colour luminance/detail and smoothness sliders gradually and have a look at the effect that has at 100% and 50% etc. It's not an exact science and often depends on what's in the image. Bryan's technique of combining two raw conversions is also very useful, as is the final step of exporting at smaller image dimensions/file size. There are lots of different things you can try - everyone has their own little way of working, too!

 

Back in the day of non digital slr, many, many great images in news, documentary and performance were shot in less than ideal conditions, with lots of noise and grain in the final image, and some of the most iconic images are less than perfect in one aspect or another.

 

Gee, I've produced 4 paragraphs. It's a very rainy morning in London. Off to the coast to shoot some seascape. Quite possibly in high ISO. 

[MDM]

If you are posting an image, best to post the raw if you want any really meaningful comments as it would really be necessary to have a proper look at the original. You can't post the raw here but you can create a Dropbox account and post the link here.

 

 

[losdemas]

 

3 hours ago, imageplotter said:

<snip>

Gee, I've produced 4 paragraphs. It's a very rainy morning in London. Off to the coast to shoot some seascape. Quite possibly in high ISO. 

 

Some very good tips, there imageplotter. Hope your day at the coast was productive. It's going to be better weather tomorrow! 

[Sally]

17 hours ago, lisah2006 said:

I just worried about getting banned for 10 days! I'm trying to build up my portfolio.

I don't think one QC fail will get you banned.  

[Southmind]

On 03/11/2017 at 18:08, lisah2006 said:

I just shot an entire session at very high ISO. thank goodness I found this forum and learned a person can be banned for submitting noisy images and having them fail QC  Yikes. I think I'll have to throw the entire session out as I am not an expert in reducing noise in Lightroom, though I'm working on it. I'll let the person I photograph have them for personal use at least. Glad to have found the forum and grateful for the info.

 

I have been using a plugin for Photoshop for years. (Noiseware from Imagegenomic) .it removes the noise by keeping the details and can work on certain areas like, for example,  working on the sky without bluring the sea. I do not have the last version but I plan to update my old one soon. 

[Bryan]

Another observation, I find that the noise reduction software in LR6 is much better than that in my aged copy of PS (CS4), so it pays for me to correct in LR before moving to PS.  However those fortunate folk with the latest version of PS might not find this to be the case,

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Southmind said:

 

I have been using a plugin for Photoshop for years. (Noiseware from Imagegenomic) .it removes the noise by keeping the details and can work on certain areas like, for example,  working on the sky without bluring the sea. I do not have the last version but I plan to update my old one soon. 

 

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Another observation, I find that the noise reduction software in LR6 is much better than that in my aged copy of PS (CS4), so it pays for me to correct in LR before moving to PS.  However those fortunate folk with the latest version of PS might not find this to be the case,

 

Improvements in noise reduction aside, it's simply far better to correct noise in the raw image before converting and opening in Photoshop. Lightoom can of course do local as well as global noise reduction. Same with correcting chromatic aberration as in another thread - far more effective on the raw image. While I love Photoshop and can't imagine life without it, I find myself using it less and less. because I do much more work on the raw images now than I used to, because Lightroom/ACR have advanced so much. Adobe are I think claiming improved noise reduction in the latest version of Lightroom (Classic not the other one) but I've not checked that out yet,

[Nick Hatton]

21 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Improvements in noise reduction aside, it's simply far better to correct noise in the raw image before converting and opening in Photoshop. Lightoom can of course do local as well as global noise reduction. Same with correcting chromatic aberration as in another thread - far more effective on the raw image. While I love Photoshop and can't imagine life without it, I find myself using it less and less. because I do much more work on the raw images now than I used to, because Lightroom/ACR have advanced so much. Adobe are I think claiming improved noise reduction in the latest version of Lightroom (Classic not the other one) but I've not checked that out yet,

 

21 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

Improvements in noise reduction aside, it's simply far better to correct noise in the raw image before converting and opening in Photoshop. Lightoom can of course do local as well as global noise reduction. Same with correcting chromatic aberration as in another thread - far more effective on the raw image. While I love Photoshop and can't imagine life without it, I find myself using it less and less. because I do much more work on the raw images now than I used to, because Lightroom/ACR have advanced so much. Adobe are I think claiming improved noise reduction in the latest version of Lightroom (Classic not the other one) but I've not checked that out yet,

 

[Nick Hatton]

Does anyone know if I can reduce noise in A C

R if only using Elements? 

[MDM]

21 minutes ago, Nick Hatton said:

Does anyone know if I can reduce noise in A C

R if only using Elements? 

 

I don't know if Elements offers noise reduction in its cut down raw converter (might be version dependent) but what I would suggest is that you bite the bullet and subscribe to the Adobe photography package. You have some really nice photos in your port and you would certainly benefit a lot from the upgrade, not least the CA tickbox which I'm assuming is not available in Elements. It's only a tenner a month for Lightroom and full  Photoshop - that is a bargain.

[Vincent Lowe]

19 minutes ago, MDM said:

It's only a tenner a month for Lightroom and full  Photoshop - that is a bargain.

 

 

Less than the cost of a pint of beer in London.  Well, at least in one pub it is......

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-pub-criticised-pint-costing-1340-craft-beer-cloudwater-double-ipa-borough-market-a7915096.html

[Nick Hatton]

18 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I don't know if Elements offers noise reduction in its cut down raw converter (might be version dependent) but what I would suggest is that you bite the bullet and subscribe to the Adobe photography package. You have some really nice photos in your port and you would certainly benefit a lot from the upgrade, not least the CA tickbox which I'm assuming is not available in Elements. It's only a tenner a month for Lightroom and full  Photoshop - that is a bargain.

Thanks for that MDM nice to know you like my port, think I would prefer to buy LR classic outright, hate monthly bills!

[Erika Pieu]

I'll try these suggestions.

[lisah2006]

On 11/4/2017 at 05:38, imageplotter said:

Hi Lisah, I agree, don't bin anything yet!! Especially if you think the images themselves are good. Post one or a few. ISO is very relative. For one, ISO performance varies greatly between brands, camera models (some have built-in iso reduction which may or may not perform well), and software performance also varies greatly, depending on programmes used and confidence in using those. 

 

I often shoot live gigs for bands and musicians, as well as ballet/dance (these do not go to alamy). Depending on whatever stage lighting is available (and it is often very dark, especially for dance), you have to work with the given conditions unless it's a specifically arranged shoot for you. It comes with the territory of live performances. So ISO of anywhere between 1600 and 3200 is very common, or higher! Ditto in some sports photography, where fast shots matter and even at F2.8 you may still need to go above ISO 2000 to get catch that very fast action. It's often better to leave some noise in than to over process the noise and make it go soft (I get very annoyed when I see otherwise sharp sports imaged getting the soft-porn vaseline treatment). so it really depends.  So if the session was one where high ISO was a must, then I wouldn't give up on it so easily. (for stage images, b&w often works a treat, too, but that's obvs not applicable for stock images as they're less likely to sell). Unless of course the high ISO was an accident and you shot at ISO 6400 in bright sunlight.... that's a different matter. 

 

Performance of the equipment used can also play a park. What camera/s were you using for the shoot? I'm mostly shooting on 3 generations of 5D, a Mk II, III and IV (plus sometimes hire bodies for client work) and there is a noticeable improvement in ISO performance between each generation of these. (I still think Nikon have the edge on noise)

 

If you do decide to work on correcting the noise, I'd gradually increase the noise compensation and check at 100% or higher. You can also try to manually reduce noise with brushes just in the background areas around the main subject (with fairly wide feathering on the brush to avoid having a visible drop off on the edge). That way, you will keep all the detail in a performer's face, for example, but the dark background, which may be nice and blurry anyway, can take more noise compensation. If it's a colour image, don't go overboard with sliding up the overall luminance, but try playing with the colour luminance/detail and smoothness sliders gradually and have a look at the effect that has at 100% and 50% etc. It's not an exact science and often depends on what's in the image. Bryan's technique of combining two raw conversions is also very useful, as is the final step of exporting at smaller image dimensions/file size. There are lots of different things you can try - everyone has their own little way of working, too!

 

Back in the day of non digital slr, many, many great images in news, documentary and performance were shot in less than ideal conditions, with lots of noise and grain in the final image, and some of the most iconic images are less than perfect in one aspect or another.

 

Gee, I've produced 4 paragraphs. It's a very rainy morning in London. Off to the coast to shoot some seascape. Quite possibly in high ISO. 

Oh wow! Thank you so much for taking the time to write all this and explain it to me! Some great tips for photography over all in addition to stock photography! I'll definitely be trying some of the tips and hopefully the images won't fail quality control. Thank you again! 

[lisah2006]

On 11/4/2017 at 17:20, Bryan said:

Another observation, I find that the noise reduction software in LR6 is much better than that in my aged copy of PS (CS4), so it pays for me to correct in LR before moving to PS.  However those fortunate folk with the latest version of PS might not find this to be the case,

Thank you! I find I like noise reduction in LR better.

[lisah2006]

On 11/4/2017 at 05:38, imageplotter said:

Hi Lisah, I agree, don't bin anything yet!! Especially if you think the images themselves are good. Post one or a few. ISO is very relative. For one, ISO performance varies greatly between brands, camera models (some have built-in iso reduction which may or may not perform well), and software performance also varies greatly, depending on programmes used and confidence in using those. 

 

I often shoot live gigs for bands and musicians, as well as ballet/dance (these do not go to alamy). Depending on whatever stage lighting is available (and it is often very dark, especially for dance), you have to work with the given conditions unless it's a specifically arranged shoot for you. It comes with the territory of live performances. So ISO of anywhere between 1600 and 3200 is very common, or higher! Ditto in some sports photography, where fast shots matter and even at F2.8 you may still need to go above ISO 2000 to get catch that very fast action. It's often better to leave some noise in than to over process the noise and make it go soft (I get very annoyed when I see otherwise sharp sports imaged getting the soft-porn vaseline treatment). so it really depends.  So if the session was one where high ISO was a must, then I wouldn't give up on it so easily. (for stage images, b&w often works a treat, too, but that's obvs not applicable for stock images as they're less likely to sell). Unless of course the high ISO was an accident and you shot at ISO 6400 in bright sunlight.... that's a different matter. 

 

Performance of the equipment used can also play a park. What camera/s were you using for the shoot? I'm mostly shooting on 3 generations of 5D, a Mk II, III and IV (plus sometimes hire bodies for client work) and there is a noticeable improvement in ISO performance between each generation of these. (I still think Nikon have the edge on noise)

 

If you do decide to work on correcting the noise, I'd gradually increase the noise compensation and check at 100% or higher. You can also try to manually reduce noise with brushes just in the background areas around the main subject (with fairly wide feathering on the brush to avoid having a visible drop off on the edge). That way, you will keep all the detail in a performer's face, for example, but the dark background, which may be nice and blurry anyway, can take more noise compensation. If it's a colour image, don't go overboard with sliding up the overall luminance, but try playing with the colour luminance/detail and smoothness sliders gradually and have a look at the effect that has at 100% and 50% etc. It's not an exact science and often depends on what's in the image. Bryan's technique of combining two raw conversions is also very useful, as is the final step of exporting at smaller image dimensions/file size. There are lots of different things you can try - everyone has their own little way of working, too!

 

Back in the day of non digital slr, many, many great images in news, documentary and performance were shot in less than ideal conditions, with lots of noise and grain in the final image, and some of the most iconic images are less than perfect in one aspect or another.

 

Gee, I've produced 4 paragraphs. It's a very rainy morning in London. Off to the coast to shoot some seascape. Quite possibly in high ISO. 

I forgot to add that I shoot with a Nikon d750 and the noise reduction is supposed to be superior to the cropped frames in this one, so it does seem to help, but this was a really pretty dark dojo for Karate.

[MDM]

The D750 is a very, very good low light camera but I find going higher than 1600 ISO and the noise starts to really affect image quality. Noise reduction over 1600 noticeably softens the images but they are still usable up to 6400 ISO or maybe higher as long as they have not been underexposed (depending on size and expectations of the client/subject). Not sure how they would fare with Alamy QC. Only way to know is to try it. They are best downsized to minimum acceptable file size.

[Rick Lewis]

2 hours ago, lisah2006 said:

I forgot to add that I shoot with a Nikon d750 and the noise reduction is supposed to be superior to the cropped frames in this one, so it does seem to help, but this was a really pretty dark dojo for Karate.

 

Hi @lisah2006, from this quote it sounds like you are shooting in jpeg mode.  If so, stop, and learn how to shoot in RAW (NEF).  The D750 has an incredible sensor in it and if exposed properly, an image shot at ISO 6400 would be acceptable here at lower resolution, say at 3000x2000 MP.  

 

I won't say all cameras, but most, internal noise reduction systems for jpeg output, is too harsh, leaving the image a little "mushy" at higher ISO values.  I owned the D750 for a short while and can attest to it's good sensor and processor but it's not the best for jpeg output.  

 

I have submitted images from a small Fuji crop sensor camera, X-E2, at ISO 6400 (shot in RAW) and they were accepted and sold!  Like I said previously, the ISO number is just that; a number.  If you are not shooting RAW, learn to shoot RAW.  I have shot Nikons my entire adult life, (now 65), and can tell you the current generation is quite good with digital noise, in RAW.  In my view, their jpeg output is only fair.

 

I use Lightroom CC Classic.  The current version does a very good job controlling digital noise, when needed.  It does take some time and experience to learn when to use it and how much to use but you'll figure it out. (Youtube is a great resource).

 

Now, if you are currently shooting RAW, all of what I've said is totally irrelevant.    So if that's the case, ignore this.  LOL  But, keep reading the Forum.  These guys/gals know what they are doing.  Good luck!!

 

Rick