minimum noise exporting to jpeg

[hacksawbob]

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?

[Rob Leslie]

[naplam]

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.

[Orio]

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

[hacksawbob]

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?

[Orio]

[naplam]

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?

[hacksawbob]

it is a 350D

[bob955i]

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

[Rob Leslie]

[hacksawbob]

[Orio]

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.

[Rob Leslie]

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 isn’t 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 don’t have to hide away for hours on end. Repeat RAW isn't just anothe file format.
Using Adobe RGB isn’t 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 isn’t calibrated or you don’t 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 aren’t full of rubbish. ‘Introduction’ courses aren’t a whole long weekend or 12 nights because those there haven’t 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 Ł500 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 won’t 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.

[Rob Leslie]

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 wouldn’t bother would they?
Still want to submit work to a stock agency? Or even PhotoSig?

[hacksawbob]

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! )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

[Rob Leslie]