Jump to content

Rejection reason / SoLD Noise / advice sought


Recommended Posts

 
 
after "boasting" of my improved high ISO slider results, a fail... ūüėí
first in 1-2 years;
noise is lower left over metal chair frame...?
is it blatant or borderline?
using just ACR sliders, not layers, how to eliminate?
in PS 2024 ACR Details > Luminance
was set at +70 for this ISO 6400 image:
advice-comments appreciated...
 

Rejection reason

MX231124001.jpg

Soft or lacking definition

Noise

 
27MB JPG:
MX231124001.jpg
Edited by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a little noisy but i'm sure I've submitted worse. There's some fixed pattern noise.

I'd try a bit of colour NR and maybe drop the shadows a bit to lose those chair backs- the nearest one does catch the eye a bit. Oh, and down size to 3000 long side. That's my standard for 3200 which is my highest acceptable ISO (Sony A58)..

SoLD- not too much to my eye but I think the downsize would have fixed it. How much NR- I don't know how numbers translate across from LR but I don't go above 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:
 
 
after "boasting" of my improved high ISO slider results, a fail... ūüėí
first in 1-2 years;
noise is lower left over metal chair frame...?
is it blatant or borderline?
using just ACR sliders, not layers, how to eliminate?
in PS 2024 ACR Details > Luminance
was set at +70 for this ISO 6400 image:
advice-comments appreciated...
 

Rejection reason

MX231124001.jpg

Soft or lacking definition

Noise

 
27MB JPG:
 

 

 

I wouldn't submit that myself. Colour and luminance noise are evident at 100% view in the chair backs, hair etc. Eliminate - easy - Adobe Denoise would most likely eat that noise and it would very likely be sharp enough for QC as Denoise sharpens beautifully as well with the help of Raw Details (automaticlly applied with Denoise).  How long can you hold out?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those small Sony sensors are great but 6400 ISO is pushing it.

Over all it's a bit blotchy and in the shadows it's noisy.

 

Outdoors with plenty of light and exposed all the way to the right, there will be less problems.

However I would still be very careful lifting the shadows. And I would do a second RAW conversion just for the shadows and paint those in.

Previously with my Canons this was standard for almost all images, so I had a Photoshop action for that, filtering and blending just the shadows in one go. Now with the FF Sony's there's no need. With the small ones, I rarely need it, so I do it by hand. But then again I seldom get to 1600 ISO, let alone go over.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

Those small Sony sensors are great but 6400 ISO is pushing it.

Over all it's a bit blotchy and in the shadows it's noisy.

 

Outdoors with plenty of light and exposed all the way to the right, there will be less problems.

However I would still be very careful lifting the shadows. And I would do a second RAW conversion just for the shadows and paint those in.

Previously with my Canons this was standard for almost all images, so I had a Photoshop action for that, filtering and blending just the shadows in one go. Now with the FF Sony's there's no need. With the small ones, I rarely need it, so I do it by hand. But then again I seldom get to 1600 ISO, let alone go over.

 

wim

 

I agree. I try not to go above 1600 ISO with my RX100mk7.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

adding to what everyone else has said, make sure you crank the chroma noise slider. that gets rid of the blotchy colour noise and leaves the luminance (grain). You don't want an absolute absence of luminance noise or you'll end up with banding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this one is not salvageable at all.  When at 100% everything has tons of noise.  The people nearest the camera (including the guy in the checkered shirt with the strap across his back) have green hair.  Even  the chairs way at the front of the image are full of noise.  And it is so soft.  Time for the bin.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Steve F said:

Agree with other's comments about it being too noisy. But thanks for posting a failed image, it's helpful for everyone.

Agree with Steve, thanks for posting. It's nice to have a comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DXO Pure Raw is worth a trial.

 

I use it as my first stage for all images. No sliders, no complications. 

 

By the way is an upgrade to DXO Pure Raw3 from DXO Pure Raw2 worth £69 ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for all responses;
FYI, my DNG Detail sliders for ISO 6400:
70-Luminance
50-Detail
0-Contrast
70-Color
30-Detail
70-Smoothness
 
My "default" shadow slider setting for ALL images is 60
& this might be issue -- for >ISO 1600 I will lower, blacken noisy detail...
removed (11) ISO 1600 & up from failed batch of (113) &
resubmitted same day, this morning (102) images passed, whew !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of noise, I have a recent image shot indoors at ISO 400 (Sony a6000, APS-C sensor) in low light. There are a lot of red dots in an area of very dark shadow that look like they might be noise. However, when I open the shadows up, I see relatively little conventional noise, plus the red dots disappear. Could the red dots be a type of colour noise or perhaps something else that I needn't worry about when it comes to passing QC? I've always had trouble identifying noise in images.

 

P.S. Forgot to mention that applying NR doesn't seem to have any effect on the dots.

 

 

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, geogphotos said:

DXO Pure Raw is worth a trial.

 

I use it as my first stage for all images. No sliders, no complications. 

 

By the way is an upgrade to DXO Pure Raw3 from DXO Pure Raw2 worth £69 ???

 

I think it's easily the best on the market today. You then migrate it to Lightroom presumably.

 

Whether it's worth £69? Probably but it's a subjective decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gervais Montacute said:

 

I think it's easily the best on the market today. You then migrate it to Lightroom presumably.

 

Whether it's worth £69? Probably but it's a subjective decision.

 

 

I process them in ACR and Photoshop - I don't use Lightroom at all.

 

I am so happy with what DXO Pure Raw2 already does for me that I'm not sure I see any advantage of paying the extra £69. 

 

Processing all images in DXO Pure Raw2 is the first stage of my post-processing for ALL images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, I wouldn't ever normally use ISO higher than 2500 on my A7iii (although you can use much higher). I don't shoot indoor night scenes, but 2500 should be more than enough for a relatively well lit conference room. 6400 seems excessive to me - what focal length was used?

Edited by Steve F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Program mode on my A58 conveniently allows one to go up to 3200 which is useable with care (quite high NR and a downsize to minimum). After that it falls apart but I assume it's quite an old sensor.

I assume I'd be at about 1/30-1/60 at 3200 in that room wide open with my slow kit zoom. Maybe Jeff needed a bit of DoF.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Steve F said:

...what focal length was used?

 
Sony RX10 IV @ widest angle 1/60th ISO 6400;
images at this event are salable "unicorns" so eager to upload;
below is another attempt, is enough noise gone?
do other issues remain that would fail QC...?
(I just noticed in both images blue bleeding from nearest seat:
 
27MB jpg reworked:
 
MX231124001a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:
 
Sony RX10 IV @ widest angle 1/60th ISO 6400;
images at this event are salable "unicorns" so eager to upload;
below is another attempt, is enough noise gone?
do other issues remain that would fail QC...?
(I just noticed in both images blue bleeding from nearest seat:
 
27MB jpg reworked:
 
MX231124001a.jpg

 

Sorry Jeff but after looking at enlarged image I would not send it to QC. Fairly sure they would fail it again.

 

Allan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

below is another attempt, is enough noise gone?
do other issues remain that would fail QC...?

 

Jeff, definitely looks better, but a lot of colour smudging together and detail lost. Colours look very blocky. Would not submit this particular image again, agree with Allan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
√ó
√ó
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.