Contrast, shadows and noise

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual, cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Very impressive; where did the noise go...? Have found noise on the 7i a real problem and, being a Mac user, Neat Image is out of the question. It has been said here that noise is a positive thing, but I can't quite see that when I have been copying flat art works! Also do resent having to manipulate images that I feel ought to be better out of the camera. However, your step forward is really impressive and can't wait to give it a try myself.
Thanks, Steve

Laurie Caddell

Thanks Steve for demonstrating what you´ve been explaining before; íf this doesn´t make too much work, would it be possible to post a shot with really blue sky, more vivid colours in full resolution?

What I really like in your shots is the "natural, film like" look. I have checked the Sony 717 pics made in the Disney land (Sony Forum) and they all have that very plastic- like look which I definitely don´t like. Your Minolta shots look better in this respect. But having seen the dpreview resolution tests I still think that the Sony has a better resolution.

Thanks anyway,

Bernhard

Hello Steve -

Nice shots. I also do a lot of post-processing in PS to get the look I had intended. My thing is that I have a FujiFilm FinePix 40i - 4.3 mega pixels, but really less than that, (Super CCD thing). It takes great shots - excellent color, but I almost always have to lighten and up contrast. Sometimes saturate a bit. Very similar to what you're doing.

My thought is this: With most pictures needing post-processing, what is the point of paying big bucks for a 5mp camera when you could something like a FujiFilm S602z and get probably better shots out of camera and tweak a little, since you have to anyway. I'm trying to justify a 7Hi but am concerned that it might just be a bit of a waste of money, if most everything can be fixed in PS. Know what I mean?

I just put up some shots I took with my little camera - please let me know what you think.

http://www.pbase.com/ezryder/ezryder

Any thoughts from anyone welcome!!

Eric

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Great job Steve.

The colors/contrast/highlights of the boats look very natural. This verifies what I had been seeing in some of my photos with similar settings. Thanks for articulating and sharing the results.

Rob

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

--
Rob
http://www.pbase.com/photorob

No effense, but I would hope a Jam Cam would retain highlights on a cloudy day like that one. ; ) The noise levels are nice though. Good point there. Would like to see the image a bit bigger, but I think you're still right about the noise on those shots. Nice that can happen without Neatimage and that kind of thing. Seems like for some shots it comes out more, and for others like yours, it's a non issue. I wonder what the difference is... Interesting. : )

B a H

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

--

If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide

2 things.

1. Many of the 717 Disneyland shots WERE of plastic (rides, tables, seats)... LOL!

2. Cloudy day vs bright day taking pictures of Costumes, plastic, metal, and other colorful things that Disney made colorful on purpose. People at Disneyland didn't design the park to look muted and bland. They want colorful, fun colors that stand out. Those colors there at Disneyland are bright and cheerful. Even more so in full sunlight. That is the nature of color. ; ) LOL

With that said, I do like D7i colors the best out of the D7i/707/5700. Seems to be the most natural.

Bernie Ess said:

I have checked the Sony 717 pics made in the Disney land (Sony
Forum) and they all have that very plastic- like look which I
definitely don´t like. Your Minolta shots look better in this
respect. But having seen the dpreview resolution tests I still
think that the Sony has a better resolution.

Thanks anyway,

Bernhard

Click to expand...

--

If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide

Hi Eric,

I like your pics very much. It proves that a good photographer with an inexpensive camera is better than an average one with any camera

It also shows how good PS can be if used with restraint.

All you are doing with a bigger image is starting out with more raw information. The biggest advantage I can see with 5MP is being able to print 10X8's at 250dpi without enlarging the image (ie at native resolution). Since printing is my ultimate goal this matters a lot to me since interpolation is not the best solution (requires too much additional sharpening). Fuji's "interpolated" 6MP image to me looks like a slightly soft 4MP image.

The other things in favour of the Minolta are the 28mm wideangle (without which I would not have been able to take one of the shots here at all) and the level of control it provides in routine shooting without menu access. It also seems particularly good at preserving very subtle colour gradients that lend objects their "3D" appearance. I noticed that most noise reduction techniques kill this, as does oversaturation, so I can live with the Dimages conservative approach for the sake of nice prints.

However I am constantly on guard for highlights in this camera - it blows them out at the least provocation. It does capture lots of shadow detail so underexposing and using curves is a very workable option. Sure, I'd rather not have to, but what the hell. As for resolution, its not the best 5MP, but you are talking small details - in a 20" print it may be noticeable but only just and only in details that the camera can interpolate.

Things you cannot do in photoshop include putting back detail that was not captured, undoing in camera noise reduction(!!) and sharpening, fixing lens distortion and fringing, and expanding a frame outwards!! SO I'd choose a camera that minimises these things. However it is pretty good for saturation control, contrast, gamma and can make a pretty good fist of noise reduction - so I can live with all these as deficiencies in the camera.

I would like to start out with images from a Finepix S2 pro for preference I LOVE the images from that cam. But seeing your pics I think you'd turn in some pretty incredible stuff with a D7Hi.

Steve

Eric Ryder said:

Nice shots. I also do a lot of post-processing in PS to get the
look I had intended. My thing is that I have a FujiFilm FinePix
40i - 4.3 mega pixels, but really less than that, (Super CCD
thing). It takes great shots - excellent color, but I almost
always have to lighten and up contrast. Sometimes saturate a bit.
Very similar to what you're doing.

My thought is this: With most pictures needing post-processing,
what is the point of paying big bucks for a 5mp camera when you
could something like a FujiFilm S602z and get probably better shots
out of camera and tweak a little, since you have to anyway. I'm
trying to justify a 7Hi but am concerned that it might just be a
bit of a waste of money, if most everything can be fixed in PS.
Know what I mean?

I just put up some shots I took with my little camera - please let
me know what you think.

http://www.pbase.com/ezryder/ezryder

Any thoughts from anyone welcome!!

Eric

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Actually there was a lot of ambient light (thin cloud) but very diffuse - if you look at the sky in one shot its blown to hell. But I acknowledge a certain tendency to overexpose highlights on this cam, so -0.5 or 1 stops is pretty normal shooting for me.

Would like to go bigger but 1 hour uploads just kill me - hence the 200% crop - normally this would look like a specklen hen. The only thing I can put this down to is contrast. Back to back shots at normal and low contrast show markedly different noise levels. Oddly, bumping up saturation actually REDUCES noise a bit too - like it reduces the confusion level? I must try "vivid" colour to see what happens.

Reducing contrast also seems to help shadow details, which means as long as you preserve the highlights you can get quite good DR.

Default contrast on this cam is just too high for sunny days, but it works rather well on dull ones. I live in the UK - this is cool with me

B a H said:

B a H

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

--
If you have time to post on this site every day, you HAVE time to
click a banner to feed the starving. http://www.thehungersite.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/gdguide

Click to expand...

You want me to find a blue sky shot in the UK?? OK, I'll try Can't upload full res but will include another crop if I can find one.

I have got through an ink tank printing pics from the Sony (my best friend has one) and the D7i. Resolution? Can't tell at 10X8. Can tell in a larger crop (equivalent to 30") but its interesting. Fine line details are VERY good on the Sony, especially where there is enough contrast - but on coloured backgrounds and edges the Minolta holds its own and maybe even pulls something back. Definately 2 good lenses, with better interpolation on the Sony, and better saturation control on the Minolta.

But the Minolta looks way better in prints than it does on screen. I wish I could show you the print of the boat wrecks.

Steve

Bernie Ess said:

Thanks Steve for demonstrating what you´ve been explaining before;
íf this doesn´t make too much work, would it be possible to post a
shot with really blue sky, more vivid colours in full resolution?

What I really like in your shots is the "natural, film like" look.
I have checked the Sony 717 pics made in the Disney land (Sony
Forum) and they all have that very plastic- like look which I
definitely don´t like. Your Minolta shots look better in this
respect. But having seen the dpreview resolution tests I still
think that the Sony has a better resolution.

Thanks anyway,

Bernhard

Click to expand...

Thanks, Steve -

Great insight - I appreciate it. I'd also love to have the S2 Pro, but... maybe someday the prices on these puppies will come down to 35mm SLR ranges and we can all dance in the streets.

I am worried about the blown highlights, though - I'm hoping the 7Hi will fix this, (why do I doubt it...)

Thanks again,

Eric

Steve Jacob said:

I like your pics very much. It proves that a good photographer with
an inexpensive camera is better than an average one with any camera


It also shows how good PS can be if used with restraint.

All you are doing with a bigger image is starting out with more raw
information. The biggest advantage I can see with 5MP is being able
to print 10X8's at 250dpi without enlarging the image (ie at native
resolution). Since printing is my ultimate goal this matters a lot
to me since interpolation is not the best solution (requires too
much additional sharpening). Fuji's "interpolated" 6MP image to me
looks like a slightly soft 4MP image.

The other things in favour of the Minolta are the 28mm wideangle
(without which I would not have been able to take one of the shots
here at all) and the level of control it provides in routine
shooting without menu access. It also seems particularly good at
preserving very subtle colour gradients that lend objects their
"3D" appearance. I noticed that most noise reduction techniques
kill this, as does oversaturation, so I can live with the Dimages
conservative approach for the sake of nice prints.

However I am constantly on guard for highlights in this camera - it
blows them out at the least provocation. It does capture lots of
shadow detail so underexposing and using curves is a very workable
option. Sure, I'd rather not have to, but what the hell. As for
resolution, its not the best 5MP, but you are talking small details

• in a 20" print it may be noticeable but only just and only in

details that the camera can interpolate.

Things you cannot do in photoshop include putting back detail that
was not captured, undoing in camera noise reduction(!!) and
sharpening, fixing lens distortion and fringing, and expanding a
frame outwards!! SO I'd choose a camera that minimises these
things. However it is pretty good for saturation control,
contrast, gamma and can make a pretty good fist of noise reduction

• so I can live with all these as deficiencies in the camera.

I would like to start out with images from a Finepix S2 pro for
preference I LOVE the images from that cam. But seeing your pics
I think you'd turn in some pretty incredible stuff with a D7Hi.

Steve

Eric Ryder said:

Nice shots. I also do a lot of post-processing in PS to get the
look I had intended. My thing is that I have a FujiFilm FinePix
40i - 4.3 mega pixels, but really less than that, (Super CCD
thing). It takes great shots - excellent color, but I almost
always have to lighten and up contrast. Sometimes saturate a bit.
Very similar to what you're doing.

My thought is this: With most pictures needing post-processing,
what is the point of paying big bucks for a 5mp camera when you
could something like a FujiFilm S602z and get probably better shots
out of camera and tweak a little, since you have to anyway. I'm
trying to justify a 7Hi but am concerned that it might just be a
bit of a waste of money, if most everything can be fixed in PS.
Know what I mean?

I just put up some shots I took with my little camera - please let
me know what you think.

http://www.pbase.com/ezryder/ezryder

Any thoughts from anyone welcome!!

Eric

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Check out the boat pics in the following link. They have been gamma
boosted, sharpened and had saturation increased yet they are still
noise free in the shadow areas. All shots handheld on manual,
cloudy WB, contrast -2, sat +1 - exposure corrected for highlight
preservation.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

... what (and where) is the "London Eye"? That is really one cool picture! Thanks in advance for your reply.

Joe Kurkjian

J A K said:

... what (and where) is the "London Eye"? That is really one cool
picture! Thanks in advance for your reply.

Joe Kurkjian

Click to expand...

On the south bank of the Thames near Westminster bridge and Waterloo station. Worlds biggest wheel I believe and quite a ride, especially on a clear night. Thanks for the compliment!
--
Steve

Maybe this will help. I think the contrast was only -1. If you look at the sky crops - in my view its about as bad as most of the 5MP breed in this case, in other words not much to see at 100%.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=2

However, heres another contrast -1 shot (3 barges), showing some noise in strong shadows. Its not bad at all, certainly not visible at 100% or in A3 prints. However, I also included a simple NR demo that works just fine for MACs and is very effective...check out the second crop.

http://www.arnason.no/modules.php?set_albumName=album17&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php&page=1

Bernie Ess said:

Thanks Steve for demonstrating what you´ve been explaining before;
íf this doesn´t make too much work, would it be possible to post a
shot with really blue sky, more vivid colours in full resolution?

What I really like in your shots is the "natural, film like" look.
I have checked the Sony 717 pics made in the Disney land (Sony
Forum) and they all have that very plastic- like look which I
definitely don´t like. Your Minolta shots look better in this
respect. But having seen the dpreview resolution tests I still
think that the Sony has a better resolution.

Thanks anyway,

Bernhard

Click to expand...

--
Steve

Steve Jacob wrote:
[snip]

*isteve said:

But the Minolta looks way better in prints than it does on screen.
I wish I could show you the print of the boat wrecks.

Click to expand...

[snip]

Funny, I thought the same when I made my first prints. I still think so. For screen, the shots need more Photoshop work.

Petteri
--
http://homepage.mac.com/psulonen/

Eric Ryder wrote:
[snip]

Eric Ryder said:

My thought is this: With most pictures needing post-processing,
what is the point of paying big bucks for a 5mp camera when you
could something like a FujiFilm S602z and get probably better shots
out of camera and tweak a little, since you have to anyway. I'm
trying to justify a 7Hi but am concerned that it might just be a
bit of a waste of money, if most everything can be fixed in PS.
Know what I mean?

Click to expand...

[snip]

There are some things you can't add in post-processing. One is resolution: detail that isn't in the original won't show up no matter what you do. OTOH you only need 5MP resolution (as opposed to, say, 3MP) if you intend to crop or make very big prints.

The other thing is that a D7* gives more control over the shooting process than just about any of the competition. If you enjoy doing all that tweaking, it's a joy. If you don't , you're probably better off with the Fuji you mentioned, the CP5700, or the Sony 7*7 -- they're all excellent cameras optimized for maximum out-of-the-camera quality. With the D7's, you're definitely going to have to do some post-processing, but the end result is worth it.

These cameras are different beasts, aimed at different audiences. The D7's are, I think, for people moving "down" from a film SLR setup (who can't justify the cost of a D-SLR or maybe want something more compact but as versatile as possible), whereas the others are more for people moving up from point-and-shooters.

Petteri
--
http://homepage.mac.com/psulonen/

B a H said:

1. Many of the 717 Disneyland shots WERE of plastic (rides, tables,
seats)... LOL!

Click to expand...

Wow what an argument guess I saw that but look at this shot for example:

ww.a-digital-eye.com/$717DLand/DSC00127.JPG (I left one "w" out I didn´t want to embed a pic. IT all looks plasticish to my and IMO this comes as the Sony noise algorythms kil a lot of texture detail. THis goes very well with what Steve Jacob says: Fine lines are preserved (by the algorythm) but much of texture detail is interpreted as noise and wiped out. The D7i pics look less vivid, but more film like to me. BTW I´m quite aware that it may partly be exactly more noise that makes it look film like too, as film always holds grain

Bernhard

This has been something I've been wondering about - i.e. whether dropping the (in camera) contrast setting and or changing sharpening to soft would alleviate the noise problem.

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Click to expand...

arthur said:

Steve Jacob said:

I can't find any noise in my pictures any more! Since dropping
contrast even areas that would previously have been quite bad seem
almost noise free even after manipulation - including curves.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I dont see a big difference in "soft" mode. By the time I have sharpened to "normal" levels its actually worse. The normal mode provides very artifact-free sharpening (compare to 5700 with nice haloes around high contrast edges). It allows me to use quite a high threshold for USM which gives nice prints but no extra noise.

I actually think higher saturation (in camera) helps too. It reduces the confusion level somewhat. I am off to try -2/+2 to see what happens.
--
Steve

Petteri Sulonen said:

The other thing is that a D7* gives more control over the shooting
process than just about any of the competition. If you enjoy doing
all that tweaking, it's a joy. If you don't , you're probably
better off with the Fuji you mentioned, the CP5700, or the Sony 7*7
-- they're all excellent cameras optimized for maximum
out-of-the-camera quality. With the D7's, you're definitely going
to have to do some post-processing, but the end result is worth it.

Click to expand...

Petteri,

I agree with what you have said. I also have found that the more I learn about this camera about the control you have over the exposure of pictures, the less post processing that you have to do, if any. The time spent post processing can really drop once you set up your camera the way you like it. It seems like what you need to decide with this camera is how much to drop the contrast and how much to under expose so you don't loose the hightlights, with a tweak on color saturation. You do all this in your camera setup and it leaves very little post processing.

Jim
--
Photography should be fun

http://www.pbase.com/jcollins