Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT ping Gregory & Photoshoppers?
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Dallas
May 14, 2012, 5:54:41 PM5/14/12
to
I don't know if you can help me because you use PSP and I use Photoshop
8... but we had a discussion about photo noise a while back and I've
got a batch of first night photos at a wedding that I had to shoot with
the ISO cranked up to max. The result are some really grainy, noisy
photos.
http://tinyurl.com/d5vmlm4
Do you or anyone have some ideas how to blend in/melt the noise with
destroying the photos?
--
Dallas
Randy L AT DOT
May 14, 2012, 7:04:41 PM5/14/12
to
Hi Dallas,
I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
used - Filter - Noise - Median. You can adjust the median strength, but I
have always used a Radius of only 1 or 2 pixels. You can use this filter
several times in a row to get the desired effect. After using Median, then
use Unsharp Mask once or twice to sharpen up the image.
You can also play around with the Filter - Dust & Scratches, and Reduce
Noise to see if you can get thenoise out without harming the image. I hope
this is helpful...
Randy L.
--
If you are not part of the solution
Then you are part of the precipitate.
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:zo6dnSfBpaS84izS...@earthlink.com...
I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
used - Filter - Noise - Median. You can adjust the median strength, but I
have always used a Radius of only 1 or 2 pixels. You can use this filter
several times in a row to get the desired effect. After using Median, then
use Unsharp Mask once or twice to sharpen up the image.
You can also play around with the Filter - Dust & Scratches, and Reduce
Noise to see if you can get thenoise out without harming the image. I hope
this is helpful...
Randy L.
--
If you are not part of the solution
Then you are part of the precipitate.
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:zo6dnSfBpaS84izS...@earthlink.com...
Gregory
May 14, 2012, 8:02:27 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:54:41 -0500, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following:
Have tried a few PSP14 filters on the image and it's not going in the
direction where I'd want to post results. Running the trial version of
Adobe Lightroom and will see what that can do.
-G
p.s. remember when the Canon SX230 HS was on sale for 299? Well
now the newer version SX260 is on the market for 299!!
p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following:
direction where I'd want to post results. Running the trial version of
Adobe Lightroom and will see what that can do.
-G
p.s. remember when the Canon SX230 HS was on sale for 299? Well
now the newer version SX260 is on the market for 299!!
p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
Gregory
May 14, 2012, 8:38:08 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:04:41 -0600, "Randy L"
<rlink(AT)cableone(DOT)net> brought the following to our attention:
>Hi Dallas,
> I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
>used - Filter - Noise - Median. You can adjust the median strength, but I
>have always used a Radius of only 1 or 2 pixels. You can use this filter
>several times in a row to get the desired effect. After using Median, then
>use Unsharp Mask once or twice to sharpen up the image.
> You can also play around with the Filter - Dust & Scratches, and Reduce
>Noise to see if you can get thenoise out without harming the image. I hope
>this is helpful...
>
Adobe noise filters work much better that Corel's. Being a Lightroom
newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
Now it's OVER exposed. (:-o
-G
<rlink(AT)cableone(DOT)net> brought the following to our attention:
>Hi Dallas,
> I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
>used - Filter - Noise - Median. You can adjust the median strength, but I
>have always used a Radius of only 1 or 2 pixels. You can use this filter
>several times in a row to get the desired effect. After using Median, then
>use Unsharp Mask once or twice to sharpen up the image.
> You can also play around with the Filter - Dust & Scratches, and Reduce
>Noise to see if you can get thenoise out without harming the image. I hope
>this is helpful...
>
newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
Now it's OVER exposed. (:-o
-G
Ibby
May 15, 2012, 11:10:43 AM5/15/12
to
noise?
I had a great plugin for CS5 by Nik Software (Dfine) which allowed
either full noise reduction and various ones based on colour. You
could also paint to apply selective noise reduction which was great if
you didnt want to lose detail. Unfortunately it doesnt work on CS6.
I always shoot my pictures in Camera Raw then I can up the exposure
and recover whites and shadows etc without destroying the contrasts of
the picture
Ibby
Gregory
May 15, 2012, 1:03:43 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), Ibby <ibb...@tiscali.co.uk>
I'm hearing about incompatibility with different versions of Adobe
products forcing the user to upgrade, i.e. more revenue for Adobe?
The elavuation version of Lightroom has what could be a show-stopper
flaw.. it doesn't support PNG format, and I have >11,000 working images
stored as PNG.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
PNG is a good lossless format for in-progress file edits that don't have
multiple layers. One work-around would be to convert all PNGs to TIFF,
as long as the date and time stamps don't change.
-G
brought the following to our attention:
>
>
>Am I missing something as thats not a night shot and I don't see any
>noise?
>I had a great plugin for CS5 by Nik Software (Dfine) which allowed
>either full noise reduction and various ones based on colour. You
>could also paint to apply selective noise reduction which was great if
>you didnt want to lose detail. Unfortunately it doesnt work on CS6.
>I always shoot my pictures in Camera Raw then I can up the exposure
>and recover whites and shadows etc without destroying the contrasts of
>the picture
>
Ibby,
>noise?
>I had a great plugin for CS5 by Nik Software (Dfine) which allowed
>either full noise reduction and various ones based on colour. You
>could also paint to apply selective noise reduction which was great if
>you didnt want to lose detail. Unfortunately it doesnt work on CS6.
>I always shoot my pictures in Camera Raw then I can up the exposure
>and recover whites and shadows etc without destroying the contrasts of
>the picture
>
I'm hearing about incompatibility with different versions of Adobe
products forcing the user to upgrade, i.e. more revenue for Adobe?
The elavuation version of Lightroom has what could be a show-stopper
flaw.. it doesn't support PNG format, and I have >11,000 working images
stored as PNG.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
PNG is a good lossless format for in-progress file edits that don't have
multiple layers. One work-around would be to convert all PNGs to TIFF,
as long as the date and time stamps don't change.
-G
mdavis
May 15, 2012, 2:51:55 PM5/15/12
to
.PNG was an attempt by Adobe to offer all camera manufacturers a common
"digital negative" format rather than proprietary RAW image files that
constantly change with new camera models thus necessitating continual
upgrades to any program trying to read RAW files from any camera. It
hasn't gone over very well. However you can download a free converter
from Adobe - the Digital Negative Converter - which is kept up to date
with major brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) Since you are using the
beta (demo) version of LR, I wouldn't get too excited until the regular
release comes out, as that may have been a deliberate limitation
designed to prevent people from using it beyond the evaluation period
for regular work.
.DNG is a very slightly modified .TIFF format, both of which are
lossless. The problem with both .DNG and .TIFF is that they are larger
files than RAW files.
There are excellent digital noise reduction controls in both ACR and
CS6. You don't need a plug-in unless you prefer the different
interface. It is really debatable whether the plug-ins are any more
effective than the ACR/Photoshop controls, IMHO.
"digital negative" format rather than proprietary RAW image files that
constantly change with new camera models thus necessitating continual
upgrades to any program trying to read RAW files from any camera. It
hasn't gone over very well. However you can download a free converter
from Adobe - the Digital Negative Converter - which is kept up to date
with major brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) Since you are using the
beta (demo) version of LR, I wouldn't get too excited until the regular
release comes out, as that may have been a deliberate limitation
designed to prevent people from using it beyond the evaluation period
for regular work.
.DNG is a very slightly modified .TIFF format, both of which are
lossless. The problem with both .DNG and .TIFF is that they are larger
files than RAW files.
There are excellent digital noise reduction controls in both ACR and
CS6. You don't need a plug-in unless you prefer the different
interface. It is really debatable whether the plug-ins are any more
effective than the ACR/Photoshop controls, IMHO.
Mad Mike
May 15, 2012, 4:13:48 PM5/15/12
to
Dallas
May 15, 2012, 11:37:16 PM5/15/12
to
Gregory <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
> p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
Never!!!!
> p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
Flash ruins portraits.
--
Dallas
Gregory
May 16, 2012, 11:04:44 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:37:16 -0500, Dallas
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.hotmail.com> brought the following to our
attention:
>Gregory <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
>
>Never!!!! Flash ruins portraits.
Do tell why you had to take the photo with ISO cranked up again?
It's outdoors in daylight with beach sand and water, etc. That shot
should have been pristine and magnificent.
Did you run Photoshop noise filters on it? Which camera? not your
2,500 dollar Nikon?
Notice the pinko' overcast on the processed photo (of yours) that
I posted. Hmm that's got to be very strange coincidence. :)))
-G
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.hotmail.com> brought the following to our
attention:
>Gregory <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> p.p.s a flash probably would have made that one a keeper.
>
>Never!!!! Flash ruins portraits.
It's outdoors in daylight with beach sand and water, etc. That shot
should have been pristine and magnificent.
Did you run Photoshop noise filters on it? Which camera? not your
2,500 dollar Nikon?
Notice the pinko' overcast on the processed photo (of yours) that
I posted. Hmm that's got to be very strange coincidence. :)))
-G
Gregory
May 16, 2012, 11:28:42 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 13:51:55 -0500, mdavis <mlda...@sbcglobal.net>
A very good reply.
I always though of PNG as a fancy GIF format that could do 16M colors.
It supports EXIF (metadata or tags) and has a transparency layer like
GIF. The compression is also very good, and it's lossless!!
The eval version of Lightroom is 3.6 and it's unbelievable that LR
doesn't support PNG!! The story in the Adobe LR forum is that "it's for
professional photographers." Just one more barrier of entry for me!!
along with the HIGH price tag for Photoshop. Adobe is offering a student
and academic version at a greatly reduced price, which invites fraud and
is another slap in the face for serious raster editor people that want
to use it.
What is ACR? afraid I'm having a vapor lock on that one.
A quick report on LR 3.6 -- this program keeps an extensive Preview
Catalog on your C-drive (in My Docs IIRC) which created >10,000 folders
and even more tiny preview files with LONG filenames like this:
9A305829-811E-44C4-B8A9-55EBA89CFE3D-07cc63f155500a902b21fef7be6585b5.lrprev
and it's a major defrag issue!! It was so bad, that I move whole mess
to the E-drive which is bigger and faster, and can be defragged
independent of the OS drive. That bit of work took some four days to
comprehend and remedy.
You also have to Synchronize if any new photos are added, even to My
Pictures and that is a massive, CPU intensive, update the preview files
operation. I run Task Manager (start with Ctrl+Shift+Esc) the watch it
gobble resources and draw an additional 100 watts from the AC line, just
to update the catalog.
-G
brought the following to our attention:
I always though of PNG as a fancy GIF format that could do 16M colors.
It supports EXIF (metadata or tags) and has a transparency layer like
GIF. The compression is also very good, and it's lossless!!
The eval version of Lightroom is 3.6 and it's unbelievable that LR
doesn't support PNG!! The story in the Adobe LR forum is that "it's for
professional photographers." Just one more barrier of entry for me!!
along with the HIGH price tag for Photoshop. Adobe is offering a student
and academic version at a greatly reduced price, which invites fraud and
is another slap in the face for serious raster editor people that want
to use it.
What is ACR? afraid I'm having a vapor lock on that one.
A quick report on LR 3.6 -- this program keeps an extensive Preview
Catalog on your C-drive (in My Docs IIRC) which created >10,000 folders
and even more tiny preview files with LONG filenames like this:
9A305829-811E-44C4-B8A9-55EBA89CFE3D-07cc63f155500a902b21fef7be6585b5.lrprev
and it's a major defrag issue!! It was so bad, that I move whole mess
to the E-drive which is bigger and faster, and can be defragged
independent of the OS drive. That bit of work took some four days to
comprehend and remedy.
You also have to Synchronize if any new photos are added, even to My
Pictures and that is a massive, CPU intensive, update the preview files
operation. I run Task Manager (start with Ctrl+Shift+Esc) the watch it
gobble resources and draw an additional 100 watts from the AC line, just
to update the catalog.
-G
mdavis
May 16, 2012, 6:26:05 PM5/16/12
to
ACR is Adobe Camera Raw which is included with the full version of
Photoshop. It uses almost exactly the same editing features as LR, thus
eliminating the need for LR in addition to Photoshop. It will read
virtually any camera format and is updated as new cameras come out.
I think we may be having problems distinguishing between two formats,
Portable Network Graphics (PNG) and Digital NeGative (DNG). Both are
'public domain' although Adobe developed DNG in the hopes that camera
manufacturers would default to DNG as the RAW image format output by
their camera. The idea is that DNG would remain a 'standard' and
obviate the need to continually upgrade and/or purchase new conversion
programs to keep up with new camera formats.
The fear with the camera RAW format is that the format may become
obsolete with time, and you may not be able to retrieve older images in
the future.
PNG is more of a web-based image format designed for display on web
pages. It is not a native camera format and it is not commonly used for
storage of images, which is best done with either DNG, TIFF or your
camera's default RAW format (i.e. CR2 for a Canon, etc.) DNG, TIFF and
the relatively obscure JPEG2000 are all lossless. Photoshop will open
all of these file formats. If you have PNG files and you don't have
Photoshop, you can probably open them with a free editor such as Picasa
which can be used to convert to JPEG or whatever you need. I don't use
Photoshop Elements, but copies of this program are often bundled with
scanners and printers for free and you may have friends with copies of
these that they will give away.
Photoshop. It uses almost exactly the same editing features as LR, thus
eliminating the need for LR in addition to Photoshop. It will read
virtually any camera format and is updated as new cameras come out.
I think we may be having problems distinguishing between two formats,
Portable Network Graphics (PNG) and Digital NeGative (DNG). Both are
'public domain' although Adobe developed DNG in the hopes that camera
manufacturers would default to DNG as the RAW image format output by
their camera. The idea is that DNG would remain a 'standard' and
obviate the need to continually upgrade and/or purchase new conversion
programs to keep up with new camera formats.
The fear with the camera RAW format is that the format may become
obsolete with time, and you may not be able to retrieve older images in
the future.
PNG is more of a web-based image format designed for display on web
pages. It is not a native camera format and it is not commonly used for
storage of images, which is best done with either DNG, TIFF or your
camera's default RAW format (i.e. CR2 for a Canon, etc.) DNG, TIFF and
the relatively obscure JPEG2000 are all lossless. Photoshop will open
all of these file formats. If you have PNG files and you don't have
Photoshop, you can probably open them with a free editor such as Picasa
which can be used to convert to JPEG or whatever you need. I don't use
Photoshop Elements, but copies of this program are often bundled with
scanners and printers for free and you may have friends with copies of
these that they will give away.
Dallas
May 16, 2012, 8:06:26 PM5/16/12
to
Randy L wrote:
> Hi Dallas,
> I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
> used - Filter - Noise - Median.
(Sorry for the late replies, a one week vacation takes a half week to
> Hi Dallas,
> I use Photoshop a lot. Whenever I have had noise in an image, I have
> used - Filter - Noise - Median.
put your life back together when you get back.)
Yeah, it helps a little, but this is clearly a very tough case...
about 5 times with median and it's still pretty noisy. After a while
it starts to melt everything into a blob.
Hey, I might try that on my pictures to make me look better.
:- )
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 16, 2012, 8:25:20 PM5/16/12
to
Gregory wrote:
> Adobe noise filters work much better that Corel's. Being a Lightroom
> newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
> results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
That's actually very good.... somehow you got rid of his five o'clock
> Adobe noise filters work much better that Corel's. Being a Lightroom
> newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
> results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
shadow. Not sure how you did that?
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 16, 2012, 8:46:19 PM5/16/12
to
Gregory wrote:
> Do tell why you had to take the photo with ISO cranked up again?
'Cause I hate flash units!..
> Do tell why you had to take the photo with ISO cranked up again?
Amateur flatlanders like us just washout and flatten 3D facial features
with a flash. My flash photos almost always wind up in the trash after
I view them. I'd rather have a grainy nice photo, than one that is
downright bad and gets erased.
Now, Pros are a different story... they can fill with flash without
nuking the scene. Maybe someday I can figure out how do that.
> Which camera? not your
> 2,500 dollar Nikon?
:-P
> It's outdoors in daylight with beach sand and water, etc. That shot
Replace the word "outdoors" with "sunset in a shadow" and that will
answer your question.
--
Dallas
Mad Mike
May 16, 2012, 9:27:51 PM5/16/12
to
https://picasaweb.google.com/103434315314666949237/FS_Stuff#5743306832388542562
MM
Gregory
May 16, 2012, 9:53:54 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:25:20 -0500, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following to our
attention:
The filters interpreted it as noise apparently. It wasn't possible to go
up with sharpness, clarity or even saturation else it would start to
fall apart quickly.
There's another version where the sand was normalized to white, which
removed the pick overcast. These images look different on different
monitors, and they look different in Lightroom vs PSP. Not sure how the
photo below will look to you, but in my browser on the 22" SyncMaster
screen, the clouds look grey (not pink) and the skin tones are still ok.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_030.jpg
This image is now yours to do whatever with. Fun stuff!!
-G
Oh.. and part of the sky was cut away at the top, and the left edge
pulled in some. That's about the right composition.
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following to our
attention:
up with sharpness, clarity or even saturation else it would start to
fall apart quickly.
There's another version where the sand was normalized to white, which
removed the pick overcast. These images look different on different
monitors, and they look different in Lightroom vs PSP. Not sure how the
photo below will look to you, but in my browser on the 22" SyncMaster
screen, the clouds look grey (not pink) and the skin tones are still ok.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_030.jpg
This image is now yours to do whatever with. Fun stuff!!
-G
Oh.. and part of the sky was cut away at the top, and the left edge
pulled in some. That's about the right composition.
Gregory
May 16, 2012, 10:50:03 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Mad Mike <mco...@yahoo.com>
-G
brought the following to our attention:
>> Dallas
>
>Well, I tried my hand at it. The sky looks great AND there is no noise on the faces..check it out. They don't call me Mad Mike fer nuthin'
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/103434315314666949237/FS_Stuff#5743306832388542562
>
>MM
Oooh dang it. I missed the fact that it was a night shot!!!
>
>Well, I tried my hand at it. The sky looks great AND there is no noise on the faces..check it out. They don't call me Mad Mike fer nuthin'
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/103434315314666949237/FS_Stuff#5743306832388542562
>
>MM
-G
Dallas
May 16, 2012, 11:46:43 PM5/16/12
to
Mad Mike <mco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> https://picasaweb.google.com/103434315314666949237/FS_Stuff#5743306832388542562
Amazing!... How'd ya do that? Ya even changed their race..
Woob, woob, woob...
--
Dallas
> https://picasaweb.google.com/103434315314666949237/FS_Stuff#5743306832388542562
Amazing!... How'd ya do that? Ya even changed their race..
Woob, woob, woob...
--
Dallas
Ibby
May 17, 2012, 7:07:54 AM5/17/12
to
> I'm hearing about incompatibility with different versions of Adobe
> products forcing the user to upgrade, i.e. more revenue for Adobe?
>
> The elavuation version of Lightroom has what could be a show-stopper
> flaw.. it doesn't support PNG format, and I have >11,000 working images
> stored as PNG.
>
> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
>
> PNG is a good lossless format for in-progress file edits that don't have
> multiple layers. One work-around would be to convert all PNGs to TIFF,
> as long as the date and time stamps don't change.
>
> -G
I never work on this format so can't comment how they work. I'm sure
CS6 can do the same
Ibby
Dallas
May 21, 2012, 7:28:29 PM5/21/12
to
Mad Mike wrote:
> Maybe Topaz Denoise??
> http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/
Very nice I think... but geez.. $79 bucks. :- (
Maybe I'll try the free trial.
--
Dallas
> Maybe Topaz Denoise??
> http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/
Very nice I think... but geez.. $79 bucks. :- (
Maybe I'll try the free trial.
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 21, 2012, 7:33:07 PM5/21/12
to
Ibby wrote:
> I always shoot my pictures in Camera Raw then I can up the exposure
> and recover whites and shadows etc without destroying the contrasts of
> the picture
Yeah, I need to start learning to do that... I've defaulted to
> I always shoot my pictures in Camera Raw then I can up the exposure
> and recover whites and shadows etc without destroying the contrasts of
> the picture
shooting auto exposure bracketing for important shots. I'm guessing
raw would save me from using up my camera life shooting 3 for one.
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 21, 2012, 7:36:06 PM5/21/12
to
Gregory wrote:
> Adobe noise filters work much better that Corel's. Being a Lightroom
> newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
> results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
It's impressive you could do that (get rid of his five o'clock
> Adobe noise filters work much better that Corel's. Being a Lightroom
> newbie I exported as TIFF and finished the processing in PSP14. The
> results are good however the exposure could use more adjustment.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/IMG_8017_03.jpg
shadow)... but I didn't need it done once.. I need to figure out how
to do it a bunch of photos.
So, what tools did you use?
--
Dallas
Gregory
May 21, 2012, 8:27:17 PM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:36:06 -0500, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following:
In Adobe Lightroom, go to the DEVELOP section and use the
Noise Reduction, and possibly Sharpening sliders.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Lightroom_NR.png
-G
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following:
Noise Reduction, and possibly Sharpening sliders.
http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Lightroom_NR.png
-G
copter...@gmail.com
May 22, 2012, 2:00:21 AM5/22/12
to
Copter Bob
Ibby
May 22, 2012, 11:12:05 AM5/22/12
to
> Yeah, I need to start learning to do that... I've defaulted to
> shooting auto exposure bracketing for important shots. I'm guessing
> raw would save me from using up my camera life shooting 3 for one.
>
> --
> Dallas
there's movement which prevents multiple camera shots) but read in
mags best to do as much in camera as you can, I guess having 3 digital
negatives is better than one which you use to export multiple copies.
Saying that I can change the exposure to greater extremes in RAW
rather than on camera as my camera only goes -2 to +2. I've so much
to learn but don't have the time.
Ibby
mdavis
May 22, 2012, 3:00:57 PM5/22/12
to
A lot depends on whether you can use a tripod for bracketed shots. If
not, forget it. As mentioned, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and other
RAW-capable editors can pull about +/- 2 f-stops from an image. This in
turn depends on the capability of your camera, sensor and in-camera
software processing. Some cameras will take HDR multiple exposures by
braketing a single shot which can then be processed in ACR and reworked
using the HDR function in Photoshop or by creating separate images from
each exposure and using layers and masks to merge tonal ranges. This is
pro-sumer or professional level editing but not all that difficult if
you have the equipment and software.
not, forget it. As mentioned, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and other
RAW-capable editors can pull about +/- 2 f-stops from an image. This in
turn depends on the capability of your camera, sensor and in-camera
software processing. Some cameras will take HDR multiple exposures by
braketing a single shot which can then be processed in ACR and reworked
using the HDR function in Photoshop or by creating separate images from
each exposure and using layers and masks to merge tonal ranges. This is
pro-sumer or professional level editing but not all that difficult if
you have the equipment and software.
NM5K
May 22, 2012, 3:41:36 PM5/22/12
to
The main reason I bracket is to increase my odds of getting a image
that is in focus well, more than an exposure reason.
I'm really picky about focus.. I hate mushy looking images.
When I bracket, quite often the first shot is the worst..
I think it's due to my movement clicking the shutter, even if
I've let the camera focus before clicking. But the second and
third shots are usually in pretty good focus.
Sometimes all three will not be in good focus due to a disturbance
in the force. To the trash can they go.. :(
I usually bracket at .3. Sometimes .7 if bright area washouts are
likely. Also have other tricks to adjust the exposure.. IE: I can
watch the LCD and when I see the exposure I want, I can freeze
that setting with a partial hold of the shutter button.. Also freezes
the focus too, so you have to make sure that is right before putting
a hold on things..
My cheap camera has a dinky sensor, so if noise is an issue, the
highest exposure is almost always the best, assuming it's in focus.
Mine is fairly useless over about ISO 400, even though it goes to
ISO 3200.. An image on mine at ISO 3200 looks like speckled caca. :(
Dallas
May 23, 2012, 12:34:08 PM5/23/12
to
mdavis wrote:
> Some cameras will take HDR multiple exposures by braketing a single
> shot which can then be processed in ACR and reworked using the HDR
> function in Photoshop or by creating separate images from each
> exposure and using layers and masks to merge tonal ranges.
HDR is amazing. Here are a few examples of comparisons of 5 exposure
> Some cameras will take HDR multiple exposures by braketing a single
> shot which can then be processed in ACR and reworked using the HDR
> function in Photoshop or by creating separate images from each
> exposure and using layers and masks to merge tonal ranges.
HDR shots compared with the "0" adjusted shot, to lift the detail in
the shadows. (posted in alt.photography)
http://tinyurl.com/7tg4h67
http://tinyurl.com/7csk3mq
http://tinyurl.com/7ohxal7
It's almost cheating!
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 23, 2012, 12:39:14 PM5/23/12
to
Gregory wrote:
> In Adobe Lightroom, go to the DEVELOP section and use the
> Noise Reduction, and possibly Sharpening sliders.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Lightroom_NR.png
The truth is, I thought Photoshop 8 (which I own) was a powerful
> In Adobe Lightroom, go to the DEVELOP section and use the
> Noise Reduction, and possibly Sharpening sliders.
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/Lightroom_NR.png
program... but after I committed to using it, I remembered features in
Paint Shop Pro and Coral Draw that I really missed.
I think the truth is that I bought the hype that Photoshop "was the
best".
Anyhoo... PS8 is very long in the tooth and perhaps time to upgrade.
<sigh>
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 23, 2012, 12:41:16 PM5/23/12
to
NM5K wrote:
> My cheap camera has a dinky sensor, so if noise is an issue, the
> highest exposure is almost always the best, assuming it's in focus.
> Mine is fairly useless over about ISO 400, even though it goes to
> ISO 3200.. An image on mine at ISO 3200 looks like speckled caca. :(
Come on man! You've got the big bucks! Maybe time to upgrade?
> My cheap camera has a dinky sensor, so if noise is an issue, the
> highest exposure is almost always the best, assuming it's in focus.
> Mine is fairly useless over about ISO 400, even though it goes to
> ISO 3200.. An image on mine at ISO 3200 looks like speckled caca. :(
--
Dallas
Gregory
May 23, 2012, 12:46:13 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:39:14 -0500, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following to our
attention:
>The truth is, I thought Photoshop 8 (which I own) was a powerful
>program... but after I committed to using it, I remembered features in
>Paint Shop Pro and Coral Draw that I really missed.
>
>I think the truth is that I bought the hype that Photoshop "was the best".
>
>Anyhoo... PS8 is very long in the tooth and perhaps time to upgrade. <sigh>
Download the trial version of Adobe Lightroom and give it a try for
30 days. If it works for you, get a Reg Code for ~149 $s.
-G
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> brought the following to our
attention:
>The truth is, I thought Photoshop 8 (which I own) was a powerful
>program... but after I committed to using it, I remembered features in
>Paint Shop Pro and Coral Draw that I really missed.
>
>I think the truth is that I bought the hype that Photoshop "was the best".
>
>Anyhoo... PS8 is very long in the tooth and perhaps time to upgrade. <sigh>
30 days. If it works for you, get a Reg Code for ~149 $s.
-G
sambodidley
May 23, 2012, 4:19:02 PM5/23/12
to
"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message >
> Anyhoo... PS8 is very long in the tooth and perhaps time to upgrade.
> <sigh>
> Dallas
> <sigh>
I'm still on 5.5<g>
Dallas
May 23, 2012, 4:55:36 PM5/23/12
to
sambodidley wrote:
> I'm still on 5.5<g>
I just checked and I'm actually on 6.0.1 not 8.. so it's even worse
> I'm still on 5.5<g>
than I thought.
--
Dallas
ManhattanMan
May 23, 2012, 5:01:13 PM5/23/12
to
everything I want, in fact I barely touch what it's capable of... :)
--
MnM
NM5K
May 23, 2012, 8:01:12 PM5/23/12
to
rather than the body.
And the lower end bodies with kit glass often don't do much better
than what I'm using, except for maybe in real low light.
Fer instance, I think my lowly Sony W290 often takes better
images than the average low end Nikon 3000 with kit glass..
That was the current low end Nikon when my camera was made..
I know a guy on another forum that has one.. Maybe it's cockpit
error on his part, but that thing takes some of the mushiest looking
images I've ever seen from a DSLR.. I honestly think my Sony smokes
that thing when it comes to sharpness.. But mine does have a fairly
decent Zeiss lens.. Which is exactly what I think makes it half
usable.. If it were not for the Zeiss lens, it would probably be
fairly lame. To me, it's all in the glass, and most of the *good*
DSLR lass gives me sticker shock. :(
What I have is capable of taking a fairly decent image, but I'm
much more limited in what I can do with it, vs a camera that is good
in low light. If the light is good, it does alright.. If not.. :(
So I just live with it for now. I've got two of those just alike..
One is still in the box basically unused. I've intended to make a
trail camera from it, but never get off my rear long enough to get
it done. Still need to order a controller board, etc..
But I need to do it, as my commercial trail cam bit the dust not
long ago.
I take a lot of video too, so if I were to go to a DSLR, I'm sure
I'd go for one that did full 1080 HD. The Sony I have now does 720p.
Gregory
May 23, 2012, 8:22:26 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 19:01:12 -0500, NM5K <no...@invalid.net> brought the
following to our attention:
>On 5/23/2012 11:41 AM, Dallas wrote:
>> NM5K wrote:
>>
>>> My cheap camera has a dinky sensor, so if noise is an issue, the
>>> highest exposure is almost always the best, assuming it's in focus.
>>> Mine is fairly useless over about ISO 400, even though it goes to
>>> ISO 3200.. An image on mine at ISO 3200 looks like speckled caca. :(
>>
>> Come on man! You've got the big bucks! Maybe time to upgrade?
This may of may not fit into the general topic, but the Canon pocket
superzoom takes quite good pics, especially in low light due to the CMOS
image sensor, but high-zoom shots seem to have poor resolution.
That is to say the image isn't clear.. i.e. blotchy. I'd image it would
be asking too much from a small, inexpensive lens at 20x. It could also
be high ISO but that wouldn't be the case for outdoor zoom shots on
sunny days (would it?)
-G
following to our attention:
>On 5/23/2012 11:41 AM, Dallas wrote:
>> NM5K wrote:
>>
>>> My cheap camera has a dinky sensor, so if noise is an issue, the
>>> highest exposure is almost always the best, assuming it's in focus.
>>> Mine is fairly useless over about ISO 400, even though it goes to
>>> ISO 3200.. An image on mine at ISO 3200 looks like speckled caca. :(
>>
>> Come on man! You've got the big bucks! Maybe time to upgrade?
superzoom takes quite good pics, especially in low light due to the CMOS
image sensor, but high-zoom shots seem to have poor resolution.
That is to say the image isn't clear.. i.e. blotchy. I'd image it would
be asking too much from a small, inexpensive lens at 20x. It could also
be high ISO but that wouldn't be the case for outdoor zoom shots on
sunny days (would it?)
-G
Gregory
May 24, 2012, 9:20:50 AM5/24/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:01:13 -0500, ManhattanMan <fly...@usa.gov>
-G
brought the following to our attention:
>On 5/23/2012 3:55 PM, Dallas wrote:
>> sambodidley wrote:
>>
>>> I'm still on 5.5<g>
>>
>> I just checked and I'm actually on 6.0.1 not 8.. so it's even worse
>> than I thought.
>>
>
>> sambodidley wrote:
>>
>>> I'm still on 5.5<g>
>>
>> I just checked and I'm actually on 6.0.1 not 8.. so it's even worse
>> than I thought.
>>
>
> I'm on PhotoImpact ver. 6, circa 2000........ And it does
>everything I want, in fact I barely touch what it's capable of... :)
Capable of this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5XTsQ-9vvo
>everything I want, in fact I barely touch what it's capable of... :)
-G
mdavis
May 24, 2012, 9:24:23 AM5/24/12
to
For many shots, the glass might not be all that important. In recent
years, optics are much better due to computer design and testing which
is way faster than grinding a lens and trying it out hundreds of times.
The expensive glass is not glass, it's calcium fluorite which has much
better optical qualities in rejecting light scattering. They are also
multiple lenses with expensive coatings that minimize chromatic
abberation (CA) which is that red/blue/green fringe you get especially
at the edges of wide-angle shots which also accounts for the
off-sharpness. Cheap lenses are also mass produced and not individually
tuned so their focal plane may be off slightly.
To be fair, realize that digital images do not look 'sharp' when they
are taken. Some cameras perform an in-camera sharpening, others do not,
so to compare a native image from one with another is not always 'fair'
comparison. You need to get the image into a digital editor to see how
sharp it really is. Lighter cameras are harder to hold steady and may
have some lack of sharpness due to camera shake and/or movement that
comes from the shutter lag on cheaper point-n-shoot cameras where you
press the shutter and then don't wait long enough for the click. The
better SLRs are essentially instantaneous with no discernible lag.
years, optics are much better due to computer design and testing which
is way faster than grinding a lens and trying it out hundreds of times.
The expensive glass is not glass, it's calcium fluorite which has much
better optical qualities in rejecting light scattering. They are also
multiple lenses with expensive coatings that minimize chromatic
abberation (CA) which is that red/blue/green fringe you get especially
at the edges of wide-angle shots which also accounts for the
off-sharpness. Cheap lenses are also mass produced and not individually
tuned so their focal plane may be off slightly.
To be fair, realize that digital images do not look 'sharp' when they
are taken. Some cameras perform an in-camera sharpening, others do not,
so to compare a native image from one with another is not always 'fair'
comparison. You need to get the image into a digital editor to see how
sharp it really is. Lighter cameras are harder to hold steady and may
have some lack of sharpness due to camera shake and/or movement that
comes from the shutter lag on cheaper point-n-shoot cameras where you
press the shutter and then don't wait long enough for the click. The
better SLRs are essentially instantaneous with no discernible lag.
ManhattanMan
May 24, 2012, 10:01:20 AM5/24/12
to
--
MnM
Ibby
May 29, 2012, 8:01:29 AM5/29/12
to
> HDR is amazing. Here are a few examples of comparisons of 5 exposure
> HDR shots compared with the "0" adjusted shot, to lift the detail in
> the shadows. (posted in alt.photography)
>
which you can see was done in HDR using a min of 5 shots with ev
settings of -2. -1, 0, +1, +2 or may even have been 10 using 0.5
variables. Certainly a good way of getting an evenly exposed photo.
I'm thinking of investing a bit on ND Graduated filters by Lee or
Cokin though the former lot more expensive
Ibby
Dallas
May 29, 2012, 4:31:22 PM5/29/12
to
Ibby wrote:
>
> Dallas, the Barbican Gate, Glenarm pic in my photography album on FB
> which you can see was done in HDR using a min of 5 shots
Nice... I'm not at HDR levels get... I'm at the Photoshopping
>
> Dallas, the Barbican Gate, Glenarm pic in my photography album on FB
> which you can see was done in HDR using a min of 5 shots
wrinkles level... :- )
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 29, 2012, 5:06:54 PM5/29/12
to
NM5K wrote:
> I wish... It's mainly the price of good glass that scares me off,
> rather than the body.
I bought a full frame camera because I wanted to continue to use my
> I wish... It's mainly the price of good glass that scares me off,
> rather than the body.
existing (consumer quality $400) 28-300 mm lens.
According to Ken Rockwell, "Having bigger pixels on a larger format
means you can use cheaper lenses and usually get better results than
the best lenses on a smaller format."
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 29, 2012, 5:13:38 PM5/29/12
to
mdavis wrote:
> The expensive glass is not glass, it's calcium fluorite which has
> much better optical qualities in rejecting light scattering.
Hey Mike, if you're still on the frequency.... how is it you know so
> The expensive glass is not glass, it's calcium fluorite which has
> much better optical qualities in rejecting light scattering.
much about photography?
--
Dallas
Dallas
May 29, 2012, 5:17:42 PM5/29/12
to
Gregory wrote:
> This may of may not fit into the general topic, but the Canon pocket
> superzoom takes quite good pics, especially in low light due to the
> CMOS image sensor, but high-zoom shots seem to have poor resolution.
I forgot which camera Ibby has, but he's got a shot of the moon and
> This may of may not fit into the general topic, but the Canon pocket
> superzoom takes quite good pics, especially in low light due to the
> CMOS image sensor, but high-zoom shots seem to have poor resolution.
Venus that is crystal clear. I tried a shot like that in the recent
"super moon" in May and my results sucked.
What I'm saying is, if Ibby didn't Photoshop the crap out of that
photo, his super zoom camera's glass is very impressive
--
Dallas
Ibby
May 29, 2012, 6:23:00 PM5/29/12
to
detail I had to take 2 Nr. shots at (30x) as the space between the
moon and venus meant I could have one or the other at any one time or
zoom out so it a composite. I didnt even need to use a star filter on
venus it amazingly just came out like that. Camera is a Fujifilm
HS20EXR
Ibby
mdavis
May 29, 2012, 7:08:53 PM5/29/12
to
Hi Dallas, yeah, I'm lurking. There's more here than you want to know,
I'm sure, but bandwidth for text is cheap, so here you go:
I began photography as a hobby back in '68 when I bought my first SLR -
a Pentax Spotmatic - while in Viet Nam at the PX. I bought several
prime lenses at cheap prices while in Japan (35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4,
100mm f/2.8, 150mm f/4.0 and 200mm f/4.0) and learned how to use it. I
had access to a military darkroom and taught myself darkroom chemistry
techniques (I'm a chemist by education).
When I returned to the states (Missouri), I used the camera for fun and
shooting early family pics but then moved into a house with no good room
for a darkroom and did little for several years.
A few years later I was hired as a forensic chemist in a crime lab which
morphed into being also a crime scene investigator which in turn
demanded the use of their old clunky Nikon F1. I used their darkroom
until the digital quality caught up with 35mm film and bought my first
digital pocket camera followed by a Canon 20D and later a 7D. My job
sent me to the FBI training facility in Quantico, VA to learn crime
scene photography techniques and macro photography for fingerprints and
trace evidence, so that is the extent of my formal training.
Other than that, I am just a hobbyist, retired now from the crime lab
but still keeping up on technology. I use both current versions of
Photoshop which I upgrade faithfully (CS6 now) and also Corel Painter
which I dabble with on occasion when making things like engine soot on
wings and fuselages.
I am traveling a bit now that I am retired and filled out my camera
backpack with some good glass for shooting wildlife and landscapes. My
lenses include a Sigma 50mm f/2.0 macro, Canon 15-85mm EF-S f/3.5, Canon
70-200mm f/2.8L and a 100-400mm f/4.0L. I did a lot of research before
spending that kind of money. Canon won at the time because in the
leapfrog between Nikon and Canon, Canon was slightly ahead at the time
and now my investment is in big Canon glass. Between good cameras like
those, it's a matter of what you think has the best feel and features
and then you stick with it. I really have no preferences.
I'm sure, but bandwidth for text is cheap, so here you go:
I began photography as a hobby back in '68 when I bought my first SLR -
a Pentax Spotmatic - while in Viet Nam at the PX. I bought several
prime lenses at cheap prices while in Japan (35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4,
100mm f/2.8, 150mm f/4.0 and 200mm f/4.0) and learned how to use it. I
had access to a military darkroom and taught myself darkroom chemistry
techniques (I'm a chemist by education).
When I returned to the states (Missouri), I used the camera for fun and
shooting early family pics but then moved into a house with no good room
for a darkroom and did little for several years.
A few years later I was hired as a forensic chemist in a crime lab which
morphed into being also a crime scene investigator which in turn
demanded the use of their old clunky Nikon F1. I used their darkroom
until the digital quality caught up with 35mm film and bought my first
digital pocket camera followed by a Canon 20D and later a 7D. My job
sent me to the FBI training facility in Quantico, VA to learn crime
scene photography techniques and macro photography for fingerprints and
trace evidence, so that is the extent of my formal training.
Other than that, I am just a hobbyist, retired now from the crime lab
but still keeping up on technology. I use both current versions of
Photoshop which I upgrade faithfully (CS6 now) and also Corel Painter
which I dabble with on occasion when making things like engine soot on
wings and fuselages.
I am traveling a bit now that I am retired and filled out my camera
backpack with some good glass for shooting wildlife and landscapes. My
lenses include a Sigma 50mm f/2.0 macro, Canon 15-85mm EF-S f/3.5, Canon
70-200mm f/2.8L and a 100-400mm f/4.0L. I did a lot of research before
spending that kind of money. Canon won at the time because in the
leapfrog between Nikon and Canon, Canon was slightly ahead at the time
and now my investment is in big Canon glass. Between good cameras like
those, it's a matter of what you think has the best feel and features
and then you stick with it. I really have no preferences.
0 new messages