F11 night shots and noise levels ...

Thanks for the examples and the compliments ! ....

For a $300 pocketable digicam, these ISO 1600 extreme low light photos are AMAZING.

Is there noise present? Of course. But, it is so much less noise than previous small digicams ( or many current large digicams) are saddled with, that it is a miracle.

Simon Johnson, I am sorry, but you blew it in your review. The F10 was a "Highly Recommended" if there ever was one.
--
Gingerbaker
Canon 20D
Fuji 2800z
http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

Well- your photos are wonderful.

I am posting one of mine that I think is miserable. As noted, I just over expected from the F11. I was walking to dinner in Houston. The tall buildings were lit. The trees were lit. ( I think passers-by were 'lit' ...It was NYr's Eve. Our 10th anniversary as well.

It was very foggy. It was a great mood shot.

So, I whip the F11 out of my purse. Go right to 1600 ISO. I make no other changes. Stop walking for a moment, aim and shoot, handheld.

Then I got home and put in on my pc. Gasp. Shame on me...

I post this to show that the F11 can't work miracles. Had I even braced the camera on a car or tried some other settings I would possibly have had at least a possible shot.

So now I will be reading more about understanding the lighting and not having the camera do the 'thinking'...

Again, this next shot has been processed a bit and I used NN. I just made no accommodation for the circumstances and took a foolish shot expecting
wondercam to do the work. Shame on me...

It really was a nice shot--at least to the human eye!



A camera can only do so much...I was not going to post it--but I thought it emphasized some of the points made here.

More to learn!!

Linda

lharris said:

A camera can only do so much...I was not going to post it--but I
thought it emphasized some of the points made here.

More to learn!!

Linda

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing linda, your honesty is appreciated....my train of thought is to think "what can I do to get the best quailty image", if that means I gotta use ISO1600 then so be it, but I ALWAYS explore other avenues first to keep the ISO's as low as possible. High ISO's are a last resort...not a starting point for me, but other users prefer the opposite and that's ok too. That's the way they like their images and I appreciate that too.

--
Cheers,
Packy
http://homepage.eircom.net/~vmax
for my photo album

lharris said:

I am posting one of mine that I think is miserable. As noted, I
just over expected from the F11. I was walking to dinner in
Houston. The tall buildings were lit. The trees were lit. ( I think
passers-by were 'lit' ...It was NYr's Eve. Our 10th anniversary
as well.

It was very foggy. It was a great mood shot.

Click to expand...

It is definitely a pretty shot. And there is pleny of mood in there.

lharris said:

Then I got home and put in on my pc. Gasp. Shame on me...

Click to expand...

Nah ... what you did was capture a shot that could not have been captured by any other pocket cam hand held.

lharris said:

I post this to show that the F11 can't work miracles. Had I even
braced the camera on a car or tried some other settings I would
possibly have had at least a possible shot.

Click to expand...

Bracing nets you one more stop ... maybe. But this image is not hopeless in my opinion. At the loss of a bit more detail, I think it can be smoothed out to regain the mood without the distracting noise.

lharris said:

So now I will be reading more about understanding the lighting and
not having the camera do the 'thinking'...

Click to expand...

Yes, Ben's lighting discussion drives the point home nicely.

But I think we have to remember that these "mistakes" are a one of a kind shot that could not have been preserved any other way, so they are still worth trying to capture. There is no shame in the attempt.

lharris said:

Again, this next shot has been processed a bit and I used NN. I
just made no accommodation for the circumstances and took a foolish
shot expecting
wondercam to do the work. Shame on me...

It really was a nice shot--at least to the human eye!

Click to expand...

I still think it is really nice and has a lot of potential. I've only been there once, and I did not see it at night. So now I have

lharris said:

A camera can only do so much...I was not going to post it--but I
thought it emphasized some of the points made here.

More to learn!!

Click to expand...

In that spirit, I thought I'd see what could be done with the shot and Neat Image at higher settings. The image you posted is very small and heavily compressed (huge jpeg artifacts in the sky for example), so detail is hammered during cleaning. But I thought there still might be a moody shot under there.

I hope you don't mind too much (it is always touchy to play with others' images) but I tried to regain the foggy night experience by removing the distracting noise, even at the loss of fine detail. I also removed the CA and adjusted contrast somewhat using Shadows & Highlights and heavy local contrast enhancement.

More could be done with the original image in my opinion, because the noise cleaning would be much more precise with the noise profiles.

Although I agree with everything you said ... I still think you had to take the shot even if the post processing is a nightmare. The alternative is to lose the memory ...

both images are good...but the ISO 1600 image is remarkably noice-free....quite impressive....
--
kwv

You said that so well. I never really thought of it as have some memory vs. the alternative-none...

You did a good job smoothing out the photo further. I got NN and NI while trying the LX1. I am such a novice with them. I have downloaded your profiles and others from the sites, but can't seem to get them into the programs to use them.

When my nephew or daughters visit, I will ask for help. My computer needed some work and the tech showed me how to at least unzip the files!

I also don't know how to smooth out some areas and not others. I tried them on people shots and they come out so plastic like.

In this shot, there were no faces--which to me, was a good thing in attempting improvement.

There was no way to improve lighting in that shot, but since it is the F11 I might have changed shutter and possibly braced or used a tripod. Of course, silly me, didn't have a tripod on my way to a fancy New Year's Eve party (Ha). I agree, I would have had to have my D70 and a wide and fast lens-like my 17-55--and even then, some stability.

I appreciate your taking the time. I have it full sized on my pc and could probably upload it like that to my site--but re-sized it for posting here.

Hmm--having just commented on your snow blowing photo--I think I should formally invite you to visit here in Houston. Exchange some warmer weather for processing lessons???

As an aside, an old 707 Sony friend (now with 5D and very advanced with night shooting) visited us with his wife a few months ago. He had just gotten his 5D and mailed me night shots he had taken in the city. They live in California.

I wouldn't post photos that are not mine unless I had his permission-but if you e-mail me-you will get a bad case of camera lust!!!( He is also at pro status...)

It is such a treat to have you on this forum!

Linda

Hi-

Were you referring to my Houston image and the one Kim worked ofor me?

(large file-photo also on http://www.quirky.smugmug.com in Just Testing gallery on last page of gallery...)

To me, the first photo was chock full of noise. Or, maybe I am not clear exactly on what noise is.

At the risk of being yelled at- I will try to post the unprocessed, full photo.

Only because I don't know how to just put in the URL. To me, noise is that grainy, blotchy, large dot effect. (I am in the publishing business-but sales side.)

Isn't this noise?



I have gotten excellent 1600 shots in different circumstances-but didn't feel this was one of them. As kim noted, I got a shot to remember-but if I was discussing the photo from a 'noise' perspective- this would certainly

have made my list. I have not tried to print it-bet that would be interesting...especially printing the one Kim improved on.

If the poster meant my photo had little noise- I need a better understanding of what noise is because I thought this was noise.

Linda

Linda,

Even the "original" in your photo album is cropped. Maybe it is not a large effect, but any time you touch a picture and resave it as jpg again, you lose detail. Even if you just rotate a picture 90 degrees and resave it, you lose detail.

At least this is my understanding of JPG compression, which I am fairly certain is correct.

Again, it may not make an appreciable difference in the long run, but it really is best to start with the untouched original before you do any post processing such as noise reduction.
Hope that helps

Oops nevermind, I'm a goofball. I was looking at the second-to-the-last picture in your album by mistake. I see that the actual last picture IS the uncropped original.
Sorry for the useless posts

Some tools, like IrfanView have a set of lossless jpg operations. Rotate is one of them.

ahains said:

Linda,
Even the "original" in your photo album is cropped. Maybe it is not
a large effect, but any time you touch a picture and resave it as
jpg again, you lose detail. Even if you just rotate a picture 90
degrees and resave it, you lose detail.
At least this is my understanding of JPG compression, which I am
fairly certain is correct.
Again, it may not make an appreciable difference in the long run,
but it really is best to start with the untouched original before
you do any post processing such as noise reduction.
Hope that helps

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the DRebel (only around 20.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

ahains said:

Even the "original" in your photo album is cropped. Maybe it is not
a large effect, but any time you touch a picture and resave it as
jpg again, you lose detail. Even if you just rotate a picture 90
degrees and resave it, you lose detail.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.

But there is a way to rotate the original without lowering quality (and even then, the truly clever will keep an unrotated backup ...

Tools such as IrfanView, FastStone Viewer and Dalifer (and I'm sure many others) offer "lossless jpeg rotation" commands that reorient the photo at the file level ... i.e. without going through the jpeg decompression and recompression steps. This is a bit by bit changing of header info and such that changes landscape to portrait orientation and does not (theoretically) change the data at all.

I've used these for years without seeing any degradation, although I cannot say for sure that I have not incurred a tiny amount.

ahains said:

At least this is my understanding of JPG compression, which I am
fairly certain is correct.

Click to expand...

Yes, if you load and resave, you get a pass through the decompression algorithm for display and back through the compression algorithm again to save. At the very highest level of quality, it would likely take a while to begin noticing artifacts, but at medium, you'd start to notice degradation quickly I would bet ... because edge artifacts are going to start appearing on top of other edge artifacts and blocky skies will get blockier ...

ahains said:

Again, it may not make an appreciable difference in the long run,
but it really is best to start with the untouched original before
you do any post processing such as noise reduction.

Click to expand...

It makes an enormous difference even after a few saves. You are dead right to caution against multiple saves by the tool.

See my next answer for work flow that preserves the image quality ...

Here is an example work flow that can preserve the highest image quality while still allowing 3 separate versions to be created at different sizes, say, one for printing, a second for your gallery at 1024 on the long side, and a third for the Fuji Challenge at 800 on the long side

Once you have taken your image to the point of perfection (i.e. you are done with post-processing), you should be doing 4 saves in this example ...

1) "Save as" the working copy in a lossless format like PSD. You can now go back and tweak the image without any further degradation. It even preserves your adjustment layers so you can completely change one layer without affecting the others.

2) Now resize for printing. For small prints, you don't need to resize, just set the size to 4x6 and have at it. You'll get very high dpi in this case, but printers don't mind that. If, on the other hand, the total number of pixels required for the size of print you want is larger than the pixels you have (i.e. you want to print 11x14 from a 3mp camera), then you'll need to use photoshop's bicubic interpolation on the "image size" command to create the correct photo size at 300dpi. After that you must sharpen it again and print it. Do not save this version. You can easily recreate it again if you want to print another.

SIDEBAR If you are going really big here, you can use the stairstep method to avoid losing too much detail. Each time you upsize the image, you have to select "bicubic interpolation", "relative" and "110%" ... which means you'll step upwards toward you goal. This technique is extremely effective in preserving most of the detail while growing the file very large. Another technique recently published indicates that going against Adobe's advice in CS2, and using "bicubic sharper" in a single step to any large size, can create a very detailed poster sized image as well. If you have CS2, try it. But if you don't, use stair steps at exactly 110% to get there.

3) Now you need to resize for posting. The version you have in memory has been interpolated up for printing. You need to reload the working copy from the PSD you saved in the previous step. This brings a perfect version back into memory.

Again, bicubic interpolation at 1024 on the long side (that's the size I use ... if you use 800, then this version works for both purposes and the example is destroyed and this time you "save as" to jpeg at whatever quality you like. Photoshop offers a preview button on the save, and you can clearly see artifacts begin to appear as you really lower the quality. But ... most images look fine even at quality 6.

Bicubic interpolation works great ... but if you have CS2, try bicubic sharper when downsizing. This seems to preserve the original sharpness all on its own (as the name would imply . I still often have to add a touch of sharpness, but not as much and that's a good thing.

4) Now ... the resize to 800. You have just resized to 1024, what is to stop you from resizing again to 800? Well, unnecessary image degradation for one thing. I have read that the bicubic interpolation algorithm works best in a single step (when going downwards, upwards is a different story.) This means that you should reload the working PSD again ... and then repeat the bicubic interpolation downward. Another sharpen to taste and a save as for the Fuji Challenge version.

Note Since the Fuji Challenge has a strict policy of keeping entries below 170k (I presume to equalize image quality a bit and to save space), you need to take great care when saving to set your compression as high as you can go without exceeding the limit. Here, you can use the "save a copy" check box, which means that the in-memory version will not be replaced with the saved-as version (the default behavior.)

Using "save a copy" each time, you can save several times in a row without further affecting the quality of the image. So, save it at image quality 8 (max.) Then check the saved version ... if above 170k, then save it again (always checking "save a copy") at 7 (med) and so on until you fall below 170k. If you save a larger file, FujiMugs will shrink it for you and you will see minor image degradation from that save.

Yes, that photo was probably the noisiest I've ever seen. The following 400% crops show just how noisy it really is ...





Interstingly, the second shot shows some of that fine vertical banding that crops up now and again ....

So this was so bad that I had to hammer it with Neat image at the highest settings I have ever used ...



These settings were arrived at after I loaded the device profile, followed by a fine tune at this spot:



Then I moved all over the image at 100% and 400%, looking for detail and checking the effects to find a balance between the less noise and some detail.

The result is not great, but may print ok. Here are the thre we have so far ...

Your original posted small version:



My original adjusted version using the small original:



And my adjusted version (NI, slight blurring of color channels in LAB, corrected perspective, CA removal, contrast, local contrast, color blotch reduction by dSLR tools, sharpen) from the big original:



It is darker than the originals ... reducing the effects of the noise a bit more for the screen, but would have to be brightened in PhotoShop to print I think ...

If you want to download the saved working copy in PSD format, here it is:
http://letkeman.net/Photos/invisiblephotos/moodshot_big_working.psd
WARNING The file is 14.9MB!

Thanks-didn't know that. I first save the photo as a copy now before I work on it. That is because at other times I have mistakenly saved it not as a copy and lost the original.

Maybe I will do both now with photos that are important.

Thanks for the tip.

Linda

Hmmm- I am preparing for a major week long out of town business trip where I am a 'trainer' so I have banned using my camera and am sneaking on this site every so often today.

Glad you made is 'simple'.. (Grinning).

I am printing this to my photo file of important posts!

Thanks,

Linda

It is going directly to my 'bicubic folder'. -))..

Aren't there any folks there like me who are processing or work flow 'challenged'.

For sure, this is baby talk for Russell Yost!

Linda

Good thing I know it is a blizzard where you are!!!

Well- at least I feel better-that really is 'noise' and lots of it!! Thought I was possibly thoroughly confused by a prior post. The fog may have made it still worse for that photo...

I tried to go to your site and my machine choked twice.

So, when I am at the office end of January, I will search for this post. Then I will be on a T1 line. I had dial-up and am now on microwave transmission internet. Much faster compared to dial-up--but no speed demon.

I live only about 50 miles west of Houston but we have no cable - just satellite and it is now past the Sprint or Verizon limits for there broadband internet at this time. At least we now get cell phone service--I used to have to drive about 5 miles to get in range...

I tried DirecWay satellite Internet but it hardly ever operated right.

Kim, once again, thanks. You may be fast at what you do, but I know this takes time out of your Sunday just to help someone else--it is much appreciated. Also, thanks for showing the visual setting for your noise reduction. That is also a big help for me.

Enjoy the day. Hope you have a nice fireplace and that it is going.

I can't even tell you the price of one month's heat and electric here in Houston...It is too embarassing but it has multiplied by 4 in just about 18 months...It is more than our mortgage right now...Wearing a sweater jacket around the house, even here in Houston.

So hope you have those logs going!

Linda

Personally I think the first noise filter is better ... 'cause it leaves more detail .. also more noise but it already looks more like film grain than the ugly digital noise. The second is cleaner but has more obvious smudges, smudges which are already very faintly visible in the first noise treat but more in the last ....

For the rest ... thanks so much for your contributions ..... looking around this forum I can learn a lot of tricks from you.

That is a great concise tutorial of photoshop basics. Did know some things you said .. but not in detail and learned two very important other things. Thanks.

Just to clarify-the thanks go to Kim, of course..

I am still deciphering all this content!

Linda