User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 6:35:50 PM EDT
Long story short, I'm at an impasse on this and could use some help. I'm already running as low of an ISO as I can (400-600) and floating between 4-6" exposures. Yet even using methods to reduce noice in the final shot, they are still too noisy to print in a 100 or even 75% size.
I've tried high pass sharpening and Nik Dfine, both with minimal effect, so I'm wondering what the hell I'm doing wrong. This was last night with both methods. Other nights with just Dfine are similar end results. (it's the only 300dpi image I have at the moment) I'm currently booting up LR to see if their noise reduction (since has a chromatic and luminance slider) does anything differently. Yes, I do realize that moving to a faster lens would let me run a lower ISO, but I don't have the $ for that. Same goes for moving to a full frame.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 6:55:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Some camera gear places will let you rent higher end glass.
Can you get to a higher elevation? By pure luck I managed to capture a great photo in the late 90's/early 2000's when I was backpacking in New Mexico and the solar flare activity was high. We were at an altitude of about 9,500 feet, in true wilderness with no real signs of civilization with the exception of a few small residences way off on the distance spread far apart. There was an circle opening with a radius of about 50 yards that we set camp in and at that elevation the trees were short. With no clouds in the sky we could satellites tracking by as it started to get dark. I grabbed my camera and started snapping some photos and it was worth the effort. Still haven't converted those negatives to digital format. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 7:05:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Are you using the in-camera long exposure noise reduction?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 7:06:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some camera gear places will let you rent higher end glass. Can you get to a higher elevation? By pure luck I managed to capture a great photo in the late 90's/early 2000's when I was backpacking in New Mexico and the solar flare activity was high. We were at an altitude of about 9,500 feet, in true wilderness with no real signs of civilization with the exception of a few small residences way off on the distance spread far apart. There was an circle opening with a radius of about 50 yards that we set camp in and at that elevation the trees were short. With no clouds in the sky we could satellites tracking by as it started to get dark. I grabbed my camera and started snapping some photos and it was worth the effort. Still haven't converted those negatives to digital format. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some camera gear places will let you rent higher end glass. Can you get to a higher elevation? By pure luck I managed to capture a great photo in the late 90's/early 2000's when I was backpacking in New Mexico and the solar flare activity was high. We were at an altitude of about 9,500 feet, in true wilderness with no real signs of civilization with the exception of a few small residences way off on the distance spread far apart. There was an circle opening with a radius of about 50 yards that we set camp in and at that elevation the trees were short. With no clouds in the sky we could satellites tracking by as it started to get dark. I grabbed my camera and started snapping some photos and it was worth the effort. Still haven't converted those negatives to digital format. 
Higher elevation yes, this was just taken off my deck last night as I've been under the weather. Within a reasonable driving distance, not so much. I can get about canopy/treetop height in 10 minutes, but higher than that is an hour plus minimum. Still, that 50' or so does make a big difference, like below. That said, that wouldn't really fix the noise issues. I'm currently wondering if it is a mix of my post processing or display issues, so I'm screwing up post. This shot here was simply +25 contrast and +50 clarity (I think) and Dfine to reduce noise. 
Quoted:
Are you using the in-camera long exposure noise reduction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 7:40:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Okay, here's a cropped version of one of the long exposure noise reduction shots when I was goofing around. Full version is here in case anyone wants to pixel peep and give thoughts. This was my usual post process as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 7:41:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll admit I haven't seriously tried it. I thought it was the 'blurring' noise reduction, not a black frame reduction. Will try it tonight and see if there is a difference. Tried it the other night, but haven't really compared the shots yet. Will pop over in PS and check them out. It was more of a 'what does this button do?' train of thought than anything. Edit: That third picture looks pretty good on my computer screen, but honestly, I can't see much noise on the first one, either. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 7:52:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I turn it on, and never turn it off. I haven't really done any long exposure, low-light photography, but it's not uncommon for me to use a tripod and ambient light for longer exposures during "product" shots, and I've never had any noise issues. Not exactly the same as what you are doing, but hopefully it will help. Edit: That third picture looks pretty good on my computer screen, but honestly, I can't see much noise on the first one, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 8:49:36 PM EDT
[#7]
The in-camera is dark frame subtraction, and I think it works pretty damn good for long-exposure night shots.
This is a 366 second exposure with no noise reduction other than the in-camera "long exposure" (i.e. dark frame subtraction). f/1.8, 35mm prime, ISO100  ISS Transit 20170401 by FredMan, on Flickr
Here's one with the 24-120, 24mm, f/5.6, ISO100, 231 seconds. Absolutely no post processing.  ISS Transit 20170220 Partial by FredMan, on Flickr
And one with the 11-16, 11mm, f/4, ISO100, 310 seconds. No noise reduction other than in-camera dark frame subtraction.  Big Island ISS Transit 20170227 by FredMan, on Flickr
I guess my point is that the in-camera long-exposure NR works very well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 8:55:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Final example. 11mm, f/2.8, 20 seconds, ISO2500. In-camera long-exposure NR and LR NR (luminance +10, color +32, smoothness +63).
Just for a high ISO example.  Mauna Kea Milky Way by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 9:26:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Okay, so other than not using the long exposure NR, what am I doing wrong here? They look completely different, yet you guys are running way higher ISO than I am.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 10:05:51 PM EDT
[#10]
I'm thinking it might have something to do with your TV. If you mashed down those (assumed) 1080p pixels in your TV into a 15" laptop screen your noise won't seem as bad.
ETA, how do my samples look on your TV? Noise-free? I see some noise on my laptop, but nothing that makes me cringe. What are you doing with post contrast/saturation/sharpening? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2017 10:10:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm thinking it might have something to do with your TV. If you mashed down those (assumed) 1080p pixels in your TV into a 15" laptop screen your noise won't seem as bad. ETA, how do my samples look on your TV? Noise-free? I see some noise on my laptop, but nothing that makes me cringe. What are you doing with post contrast/saturation/sharpening? Post on these is +25 contrast +50 clarity and that's pretty much it. Just tried another one using a mix of luminance noise reduction, high pass for global and local detail, clarity, and defog. Will post it momentarily. Marginally better IMO. Maybe I'm just being overly critical. I'll take some on a thumb drive with me into town tomorrow and spit em out for a buck or two at the photo shop as a test. The only noise that is really bothering me is the dither/color chunkyness in the aurora itself. Full size here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 12:30:58 AM EDT
[#12]
High pass sharpening should only be applied to areas that will benefit from it.
Sharp edges and fine texture and such. If you're applying it to the whole image, that's where a lot of your noise is coming from. Also, it should be dialed in to a specific amount per image. I usually use between 0.8 and 3, rarely above that. I mask it in only to the area where it will actually help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 1:00:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
High pass sharpening should only be applied to areas that will benefit from it. Sharp edges and fine texture and such. If you're applying it to the whole image, that's where a lot of your noise is coming from. Also, it should be dialed in to a specific amount per image. I usually use between 0.8 and 3, rarely above that. I mask it in only to the area where it will actually help. Here's one without any of that. +contrast and clarity in RAW and dfine was pretty much it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:08:42 AM EDT
[#14]
Curious what camera you are shooting with first off.
Second, the settings you are talking about, the "contrast" and "clarity", have the potential to really exaggerate noise. Any chance we could get a full res camera original to experiment with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 2:19:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Curious what camera you are shooting with first off. Second, the settings you are talking about, the "contrast" and "clarity", have the potential to really exaggerate noise. Any chance we could get a full res camera original to experiment with? Honestly, I'm all self taught in photoshop, so some days it feels like I'm just flailing around on settings. Stick to what I know and try to watch videos for what I don't. A lot of that doesn't stick because of my medical though, as I forget a ton of stuff.
Uploading one .nef file to dropbox now. It's a random one from the 20th. Will add a link when it's done. dropbox |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:03:34 AM EDT
[#16]
I see almost no noise in that raw file. Out of curiosity I ran Noiseware on it, the plug in said there essentially wasn't any noise there and the resulting image was almost unchanged.
It must be the sharpening settings that you are using. Auroras will look fuzzy and blocky at long exposures. I think some of the effects you are seeing may just be due to your exposure settings. A little more ISO and faster shutter might be something to experiment with. I have the same lens for a superwide, it seems like it does a decent job. How large are you wanting to print? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:11:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Another thought... the dynamic range can be quite high, and you're looking for detail in the very highlights of the photo. With brightening it up overall, you may be seeing some limits of the brightness gradation that is available.
Have you ever experimented with HDR? Just a 2 frame bracket set, with one at that exposure and one at maybe 1 1/3 stop down might be something to try. Set the bracket to use shutter speed, might help pickup a little more detail in the aurora. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:43:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see almost no noise in that raw file. Out of curiosity I ran Noiseware on it, the plug in said there essentially wasn't any noise there and the resulting image was almost unchanged. It must be the sharpening settings that you are using. Auroras will look fuzzy and blocky at long exposures. I think some of the effects you are seeing may just be due to your exposure settings. A little more ISO and faster shutter might be something to experiment with. I have the same lens for a superwide, it seems like it does a decent job. How large are you wanting to print? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see almost no noise in that raw file. Out of curiosity I ran Noiseware on it, the plug in said there essentially wasn't any noise there and the resulting image was almost unchanged. It must be the sharpening settings that you are using. Auroras will look fuzzy and blocky at long exposures. I think some of the effects you are seeing may just be due to your exposure settings. A little more ISO and faster shutter might be something to experiment with. I have the same lens for a superwide, it seems like it does a decent job. How large are you wanting to print? Quoted:
Another thought... the dynamic range can be quite high, and you're looking for detail in the very highlights of the photo. With brightening it up overall, you may be seeing some limits of the brightness gradation that is available. Have you ever experimented with HDR? Just a 2 frame bracket set, with one at that exposure and one at maybe 1 1/3 stop down might be something to try. Set the bracket to use shutter speed, might help pickup a little more detail in the aurora. If it clears out tonight, I'll see what going up to 2" ISO 1000 does though. Other than +clarity I don't really do sharpening on my images. I was dicking around with high pass since I just read an article about it, but it's not a regular use item for me. I try to do as minimal editing as possible, so it's usually just Adobe RAW tweaks, some color balancing if it needs it, dfine if I go higher ISO, and slapping a watermark on the image. I'd like to go as large as possible. There are a couple folks that would like 11x14 or similar if it is doable. That's what brought on this thread, as (at least on my screen) some areas of the images look chunky. Lately the aurora has been too active to try bracketing, as it would (likely) end up with HDR trees and the rest being a weird mess. Hadn't thought of it though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:45:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Honestly the last post got me thinking. I went back to my older aurora photos from the D7200 and there's the same sort of stuff I'm seeing. So I'm likely just being overly critical about it. For a guy that doesn't know what the hell he's doing half the time, I have a perfectionist streak.
I've got to go into town tomorrow anyhow, so I'll stick a couple finalized photos on a SD card and swing by the camera shop to print them out at 11x14 or similar. Need to figure out the crop I'd need for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:46:58 AM EDT
[#20]
 DSC_3787-Edit by Zack, on Flickr
Here's my shot at editing it. Never done one of these before, so I've got no idea whether this is good or not
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 3:57:49 AM EDT
[#21]
For a first time, it looks good Zack
Thanks for giving it a crack. Not sure what I was expecting to be honest. Just that the final image would be 'smoother' I guess? I look at the professional photos, and am just wondering what they are doing differently as the end result is so much 'better.' Considering I have several people that want prints of my stuff, I don't want to ever put out something subpar with my name on it. It just comes across that my photos are a hot mess in comparison.
Again, it sounds like I am likely being incredibly overly critical about the aurora photos, but they are the first prints I've ever sold, and I don't want to fuck it up. Thanks for all the help guys, even if I was being clinically retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:29:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For a first time, it looks good Zack Thanks for giving it a crack. Not sure what I was expecting to be honest. Just that the final image would be 'smoother' I guess? I look at the professional photos, and am just wondering what they are doing differently as the end result is so much 'better.' Considering I have several people that want prints of my stuff, I don't want to ever put out something subpar with my name on it. It just comes across that my photos are a hot mess in comparison.
Again, it sounds like I am likely being incredibly overly critical about the aurora photos, but they are the first prints I've ever sold, and I don't want to fuck it up. Thanks for all the help guys, even if I was being clinically retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:43:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show me what you think a good one looks like, and I'll see if I can get this raw to compare in some way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For a first time, it looks good Zack Thanks for giving it a crack. Not sure what I was expecting to be honest. Just that the final image would be 'smoother' I guess? I look at the professional photos, and am just wondering what they are doing differently as the end result is so much 'better.' Considering I have several people that want prints of my stuff, I don't want to ever put out something subpar with my name on it. It just comes across that my photos are a hot mess in comparison.
Again, it sounds like I am likely being incredibly overly critical about the aurora photos, but they are the first prints I've ever sold, and I don't want to fuck it up. Thanks for all the help guys, even if I was being clinically retarded. Granted, a faster lens so I could run a lower ISO or faster shutter would be useful. It may entirely be that the slower shutter was letting the sensor pick up haze from when the aurora moved. Still doesn't explain the dithering in places though. That, or honestly if I'm being an idiot, feel free to say so as well. Been running on little to no sleep this past week so I'm a little 
Ronn's page is a great example of some fantastic ones as well. Can't link photos from there though. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:46:42 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How in mine, there is almost a dithering effect in places, vs this one is sharp and smooth across the whole image. Granted I am competing with a full frame camera, so I can only push a crop sensor so far. I'm just not sure how to go from my photos to, well, this. Granted, a faster lens so I could run a lower ISO or faster shutter would be useful. It may entirely be that the slower shutter was letting the sensor pick up haze from when the aurora moved. Still doesn't explain the dithering in places though. That, or honestly if I'm being an idiot, feel free to say so as well. Been running on little to no sleep this past week so I'm a little
http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/aurora-boreal-wallpaper-2.jpg I'm really not seeing much wrong with yours, either before or after I edited it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:53:04 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That looks like a combination of FF sensor, faster glass (and/or higher iso) and a better quality aurora display. I'm really not seeing much wrong with yours, either before or after I edited it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How in mine, there is almost a dithering effect in places, vs this one is sharp and smooth across the whole image. Granted I am competing with a full frame camera, so I can only push a crop sensor so far. I'm just not sure how to go from my photos to, well, this. Granted, a faster lens so I could run a lower ISO or faster shutter would be useful. It may entirely be that the slower shutter was letting the sensor pick up haze from when the aurora moved. Still doesn't explain the dithering in places though. That, or honestly if I'm being an idiot, feel free to say so as well. Been running on little to no sleep this past week so I'm a little
http://cdn.pcwallart.com/images/aurora-boreal-wallpaper-2.jpg I'm really not seeing much wrong with yours, either before or after I edited it. With a little luck, I can report that I'm just stupid tomorrow. Seriously though, thanks for the help guys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 4:58:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough, and thank you Zack. I've got a carefully edited (no sharpening, etc) version of the one getting printed that I'll take to the shop tomorrow and see what happens. I'd rather pay $2 to print it on paper and find out it's good/bad then drop $60+ on the aluminum ones requested. With a little luck, I can report that I'm just stupid tomorrow. Seriously though, thanks for the help guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:04:16 AM EDT
[#27]
this is a case for local (pixel level) dodge and burn
and for what it's worth, I'd fix the barrel distortion too. That distracts me before I even consider noise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 9:53:35 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm not a big fan of LR's clarity. It always seems to introduce "fakeness" for lack of a better word.
LR's contrast also seems to be heavy handed; I used it all the time in Capture NX/D but don't use it often (or much) in LR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:39:07 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not a big fan of LR's clarity. It always seems to introduce "fakeness" for lack of a better word. LR's contrast also seems to be heavy handed; I used it all the time in Capture NX/D but don't use it often (or much) in LR. Tiny bits are ok, overuse can eventually run right up into abuse levels. Contrast slider works the same way. The highlights, shadows, white clip, black clip sliders are a way to manually define the contrast, or to tweak what you've applied with the other slider. As with all things, moderation is key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:05:19 AM EDT
[#30]
I'm thinking the long exposure NR and a faster shutter speed/higher ISO were the trick. 2.5" ISO 1000 f/4
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
