Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

minimum noise exporting to jpeg
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:40 am    Post subject: minimum noise exporting to jpeg Reply with quote

can anyone tell me they way to get the highest quality jpg? I took this for istock photo and it was rejected for being to noisy
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=536608509&size=o

It was shot with the super tak 50 1.4 at f2 at iso 200 I opened it in photoshop then did a slight levels and colour correction then exported to max jpeg quality with the export to web option my camera is set to adobe rgb and so is photoshop, is there any way I can improve on this?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:37 am    Post subject: Re: minimum noise exporting to jpeg Reply with quote

hacksawbob wrote:
can anyone tell me they way to get the highest quality jpg? I took this for istock photo and it was rejected for being to noisy
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=536608509&size=o

It was shot with the super tak 50 1.4 at f2 at iso 200 I opened it in photoshop then did a slight levels and colour correction then exported to max jpeg quality with the export to web option my camera is set to adobe rgb and so is photoshop, is there any way I can improve on this?


'Noise' is nothing to do with it being a JPG. Noise is the quality of your image. Digital noise is caused by one or any of the following.
1. A poor camera sensor
2. Camera sensor gain (iso) being too high
3. Bad workflow. Particularly with an 8 bit image.
Eg 'Colour correction' to an 8 bit image will result in noise and the image quality being degraded. All just adjustments should only be done in RAW.

Noise reduction software can often help recover an image but not if adjustments have lost to many levels and also with noise reduction you would most likely be rejected for the image being too soft. Basically you just can't produce real quality work in 8 bit.

Stock photography is a good market and very easy. A little known way into it is through Flickr. More publication are now doing a search of pictures there. The secret is 'Tags' the more tags the more likely they are to find your photo. I have sold five from there too date. they have only been 'Once only' repro rights but have paid for a few drinks. The bigger stock agencies usually have a very high standard of quality and more inportantly content. Photographers supplying them usually high models and carefully set up shots even for a subject like Fairs, Street markets and what may seem to be just Tourist shots.

My advice would to submit photos to PhotoSig to get a real idea of the standard of your work.

The image in question does have noise, a lot and it also seems to lack any shadow deatail. This is a nice shot and one that a lot of time and care could be spend in setting it up. I am at a loss to how you have so much noise with only 200asa. It looks like the 10 million DSLR sensor?


Last edited by Rob Leslie on Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The stock photography sites are quite picky. Don't even think about shooting beyond iso 200. And whatever is in focus must be tack sharp.
Quote:
is there any way I can improve on this?

Yep, easy. Use noise ninja, it's a photoshop plugin. It really does wonders removing noise.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is noisy indeed. My guess is that you have:

- photographed original in JPG (am I correct?)
- opened up the shadows with curves/levels (best way to make noise)

Rob is right, you have to change your workflow. Try this:

1- Always shoot RAW

2- If you have any chance to do so, try to adjust lighting on the scene, this is always the best way (e.g. in this case use a reflector to brighten up the shadow part a bit)

3- if you are not sure of your light metering, do an exposure bracketing

4- Always edit your files in the RAW developing application, and never use Photoshop editing tools (such as curves levels saturation etc) on the developed image unless absolutely unavoidable

5- If your exposure was good, you should be able to open up shadows a bit inside the RAW program without causing any excessive noise. If the dynamic range was too large for the camera, use two different exposures (one for the highlight the other for the shadows) and combine them together using a tool like Fred Miranda's DRI plugin


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The original was RAW I opened it in PS then did levels for dark light and mid point, maybe a hint of curve for contrast and then did a colour balance. I have never really understood about the 8 bit thing, Is the RAW file 8 bit?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hacksawbob wrote:
The original was RAW I opened it in PS then did levels for dark light and mid point, maybe a hint of curve for contrast and then did a colour balance. I have never really understood about the 8 bit thing, Is the RAW file 8 bit?


Bit depth is a setting that you decide when you convert the raw file. You can decide to convert it to 8 bit or 16 bit.
I don't know how you open the RAW in photoshop, but you should never use photoshop's instruments to edit your image. You should always use the RAW converter's instruments, because it can access the full dynamic range of the RAW image, whereas Photoshop can only act on the converted image and whatever of the dynamic range is left out of the converted image, is unuseable.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's good advice but I think the image must have been already a bit noisy in raw. Maybe it was a bit dark and you had to adjust the brightness? What camera (or film/scanner if not dslr) are you using?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is a 350D
Quote:
the RAW converter's instruments
I can open the RAW file with PS or canons DPP and transfer to PS I would have thought it was better to directly open with PS as there is one less process.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob, try Rawshooter Essentials - it's got a lot more control than DPP at the RAW stage.

http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shooter-essentials.php


PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hacksawbob wrote:
it is a 350D
Quote:
the RAW converter's instruments
I can open the RAW file with PS or canons DPP and transfer to PS I would have thought it was better to directly open with PS as there is one less process.


There is a common misconception that RAW is just a high quality file format. Although it is a file format it contains much more. It is the Raw information from your sensor. To do nothing with it in Raw conversion or leave the converter set to defaults is doing little, or no more than the camera would have done before saving the result as a JPG. Assuming you have a good image to start with doing the adjustments you did in PS in normal 8 bit mode is then doing worse than the camera would have managed. Im sure you have seen posts on forums from people stating that their camera can do better JPEGs than Raw and it is just a waste of space!

To write I opened it in Photoshop may be an error on your part or shows more? A Raw file is not Opened it is converted. That conversion means applying and adjusting ALL the settings and not leaving it as it is, which just results in a camera default file. You may as well just shot in camera JPEG.

Because your 200 iso image has so much noise it does like your Canon default setting (Raw converter) isnt as it should be and the normal Canon noise default settings have changed. (All RAW files have some noise reduction applied as default)

Using any Raw converter that does not give you full access to Blanket and individual control of levels colour balance Hues and saturations. Control of Luminance and colour noise and also lens CA and vignetting. Isnt doing the job. You should also set colour space in a Raw conversion to suit the subject matter and exposure. A Space such as ProPhotoRGB has almost twice the room as sRGB and 30+% more than Adobe RGB. Colour settings in Photoshop should be set to your normal working space and after everything is done you can convert your image to that space. Both your converter AND Photoshop should be set to 16bit. It is pointless doing a Raw conversion in 16 bit then opening it to 8 bit Photoshop, one simple adjustment will kill it.

Self teaching and inexperienced trail and error seldom work. One of the best ways is an introduction short college course or being a member of a good photo clubs that organises Photoshop and Workflow practice courses. Many clubs do block bookings for weekend courses, (Same with other topics) or if they have sufficient qualified members they do their own introduction courses. Good photo societies (In England Royal Society ones) are also the best places to begin gaining a better standard. Membership of a Photo Society gives you a level to be attained and built on.

As most will never Want to bother then start reading the Tutorials on Luminous landscape. One can always ignore information or prefer to believe it in a way you wish too but IMO the articles, tutorials and understanding series at Luminous landscape are the only web based information you should take any notice of. I and many others here will without doubt make mistakes and give you wrong information. We and any other forum are to be IGNORED. Find the facts try and test them and follow a good workflow. It is the only way to begin producing work of an acceptable professional standard

As well as Luminous Landsacape I would also recommend submitting your best work to PhotoSig. The noise and lack of shadow detail and other details would have been pointed out to you straight away.

It is fun just to enjoy your hobby and do some good snaps that friends and family think are 'Great' It is also fun to try and learn how to do it properly and get better. It is or should be a processes that will never stop which explains the popularity of a criticism sites like PhotoSig


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You should also set colour space in a Raw conversion to suit the subject matter



Thanks Rob, So is there a quick way of putting all my settings right without going delving through endless manuals and websites.
Like Set camera to Adobe RGB, Set photoshop with preferences/options etc, I am not sure where to make the changes in the software to achieve what you are saying. I cant find the bit rate setting for example.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob, there was one excellent suggestion: download and try Rawshooter.
It is of intuitive use, and you will find all the parameters that you need, including the bitrate setting option.
Get used to Rawshooter, and you will notice improvements immediately.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have to read up on it or just use JPEG from the camera and try not to change your images too much. Using RAW without learning about it isnt going to do any better than the software developed by the experts for your camera. In fact without doubt given the right exposure the camera will do better. Would you go into the darkroom to do a colour print without learning about it first? No Difference, No sorry there is. Digital is actually harder as there are far more parameters (Comparatively) to chemical work, but its cleaner and you dont have to hide away for hours on end. Repeat RAW isn't just anothe file format.
Using Adobe RGB isnt going to do much except mess a few other things up. Most user friendly stuff, Printers, labs, monitors and the whole web use sRGB, Adobe colour is wrong for web posting. If you still use RAW then no colour space is applied until conversion anyway. If your going to use the camera JPEG then the difference will be unnoticeable. You will get no benefit from colour spaces till you work in 16bit.
As for the other stuff there is just so much of it. As our friends say try X or Y Raw converter it is Intuitive All a bit pointless if your monitor isnt calibrated or you dont know why to use 16bit instead of 8bit or the difference, what settings you should be changing and how one affects another, what colour spaces and profiles do, where the tones you want are etc, etc. Somebody will explain the difference between 8 and 16 bit to you, but again it has to related to all the other things, and be explained properly which takes a full page and a couple of diagrams. Do it without and it is pointless. Using without the know how is also pointless.
So 16bit contains 65,000 + levels of information while 8bit contains only 254, but your camera sensor is only 12 bit and Photoshop CS only works to 33,000+ anyway. See what I mean Bob? You have to read the manuals.
Those great big thick books down the library about Photoshop arent full of rubbish. Introduction courses arent a whole long weekend or 12 nights because those there havent a clue and have never seen a computer or image settings before.
All programmes are simple and intuitive at the lowest level and they all work well at that level. You can have a ?500 copy of Photoshop and use the brightness and contrast controls just as easy as your free Printer or Camera bundles software. It is a fact that the majority of home PS uses never get beyond Image-Adjustments followed by the first seven controls and of course have a play with the Filters. We can all do that they are the same on our Television! Moving beyond an adjustment of very basics requires a bit of thought and a big climb of the learning curve. And IMO some proper lessons to save all the hassle of doing something wrong for years and getting into the habit of it.
If your firm wanted to you do the simplest job with a programme like Photoshop they would rush you away on a weeks course before they let you look at it.
If you want Intuitive and instant improvements then simply let the camera do it. Most others do. It also has the added advantage that you wont tear your hair out because you know you can do better. Or worse the camera can do better!
Finally. Some of the Intuitive simple RAW converters will at their basic level just use your camera default conversion setting. The bundled Canon software does. This is doing nothing more than your camera would have done with the shot anyway. You do your shot save it as RAW slow the camera down take up space and then you do your Raw conversion (Open the Raw file) and unless you have changed settings you are back to a bog standard best quality camera JPEG.They are real easy and intuitive.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I be really naughty and try and put things into perspective.

At the lowest basic level there are thousands of small local photo clubs, maybe just friends, perhaps a workplace or a school. Taking part may be people who are just starting or have been in the club for many years or have been or perhaps still are in a number of clubs. They are all exchanging advice, learning hands on together and improving their standard while enjoy the evenings socially.
Then there are the officially recognised clubs in the UK that is the Royal Photographic Society. Again there members are from beginners to professionals who earn their living from photography The club also has its own levels up to FRPS and ARPS. Letters you can if you wish use after your name in the same way as Phd. MD. MBE. Etc.
Then there is all the photographic education available, starting with a few Introduction college night course and some weekend ones. Then the next level is the one year full time or three year part time City of Guilds in Photography and then the full time 3 year BTEC photography course and finally a full university photography study. As well as those there are loads of private and company tutorial courses the only ones of them I feel worth mentioning are the official Adobe courses and NCTJ ) National council for Training of Journalists) photography course which are only open to photographers employed by the industry.
Many other Art and Media schools include photography as part of their other full time courses.
My local college (Swindon) have cut their 'Introduction to digital photography' 'Evening Chats' from 12 to 10 weeks. They are still booked solid for 2 years.
In the UK there are thousands (Worldwide Millions) of enthusiastic amateurs who spend time at their clubs with fellow enthusiasts there are thousands of taught and trained people.
All these people obviously must have a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for the subject as they wouldnt bother would they?
Still want to submit work to a stock agency? Or even PhotoSig?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for taking the time to write all that Rob, yes I would still like to try my hand at stock, I think I have a good eye for an image, getting that onto the final medium with an acceptable degree of quality seems to be holding me back somewhat. Of course I can go on courses and join clubs.... and join forums like this one to get the information!

There are two ways to get to the top of Snowdon hike it or catch the train, is the view any different from the top? Maybe. I may be wanting to fly before I crawl but there is also merit in starting from the finish and working backwards to understand how to get there. (All right enough of the metaphors!) I have a friend of a friend who hopefully will be coming around to calibrate my monitor soon, he also does Photoshop courses so I may get onto one.

One of the the beauties of computers processing your image over wet chemistry is that we can reproduce the work flow of another developer to the letter by remote instruction. I would have thought that setting up photoshop to get the maximum out of it was one of these things that could be done remotely. Hopefully that is something some one can fill me in on.

Not the why, but the how. I am interested in the why but I don't have time for it just now. I appreciate that you maybe don't have the time to write pages on RAW in theory and practice, however if you did you would be benefiting at least a hundred people (maybe the thousands to come!) seeking knowledge. And maybe this could be saved in a technical archive away from the forum (hint hint Attila! wiki! Smile )so when inevitably someone else pops there head in and asks the same question you can point he/she to the relevant page.

Actually, I have been trying the jpg straight out of the camera again and I have been getting some pretty good images, and a far better hit rate than shooting RAW with an MF lens. I do have a rudimentary understanding colour spaces and bitrates but I need to get my software to the right presets!

I will take a look at rawshooter, thanks for the suggestion


PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hacksawbob wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to write all that Rob, Not the why, but the how. I am interested in the why but I don't have time for it just now. I appreciate that you maybe don't have the time to write pages on RAW in theory and practice, however if you did you would be benefiting at least a hundred people (maybe the thousands to come!) seeking knowledge. And maybe this could be saved in a technical archive away from the forum (hint hint Attila! wiki! Smile )so when inevitably someone else pops there head in and asks the same question you can point he/she to the relevant page.

Actually, I have been trying the jpg straight out of the camera again and I have been getting some pretty good images, and a far better hit rate than shooting RAW with an MF lens. I do have a rudimentary understanding colour spaces and bitrates but I need to get my software to the right presets!

I will take a look at rawshooter, thanks for the suggestion


Good to hear some of that Bob.
I believe you will get there. I would not write such information because I admit I don't know enough. I have been doing photoshop for over ten years almost everyday, inc a lot of commercial retouching restoration, as well as my camera work. I have also been fortunate enough for many years to be able to follow images right through to the printing presses and see how those boys work. So I saw digital workflow come in before we even had a PS digital camera. I wonder how many 'Film purists' realise that virtually everything printed since the beginning of eighties has been digitised. I might add the Printing boys always said film and prints were the weak link in their own high standard of work. Which is why they had to spend silly money on drum scanners. A scanner that costs 10 times or more than the photo equipment used to take the photo and more than some of the printing plant! Just to produce a computer file good enough to match the quality of the rest of the workflow.
My answer to any reference is still the same Luminous Landscape. I send everybody to Luminous landscape. The stuff on there is what you want. There is an 'Understanding series' on most topics and
tutorials on many subjects. Workflow, RAW, Bit rate, Colour etc etc is all dealt with. The site is the best on the internet, nothing compares to it. Some goes well above me but there is also plenty that starts at the beginning. there is also plenty of creative theory stuff that is great.
Sometimes a jump backwards to camera JPEG can put you back on the right track. I have done it myself a few times and still have no real objections to shooting a few JPEGS when I need the camera to speed up. Used it today to do a flying Heron if I hadn't the camera would have froze after three shots but JPEG will shoot till the card fills. now I just have to be extra carefull picking the frames and applying any adjustments.