RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Image Help
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Image Help Got a problem image? Don't know where to begin? Upload images and ask our users what they think or if they can help

raw - AHHH

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:35 PM
mistermonday's Avatar
mistermonday mistermonday is offline
Moderator
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,028
Re: raw - AHHH

Airdale,
Your "out of the camera" unadjusted RAW image looks like attachment 1. Your camera took the shot at iso 400 in a dark setting with flash. Many digital cameras produce noisy images at high iso especially when the ambient light is low. I would recommend you try lowering the iso to 200 or 100. Also check your camera's setting for Noise Reduction. FYI, if you had taken a jpg under the exact same conditions, you would have seen the exact same noise, or worse, in the resulting jpg.
The good news is that this color noise can be eliminated effectively and in about 5 seconds by running a noise filter. many will work but you will find that Noiseware in auto mode has been finely tuned to eliminate this noise with no additional fiddling or adjusting (95% of the time). You can download a free trial version. Atttachment 2 is the result of running it on your image with no other adjustments.
Regards, Muray
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CRW_1689 ORIG.jpg (92.6 KB, 26 views)
File Type: jpg CRW_1689 Noiseware.jpg (89.2 KB, 25 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #12  
Old 11-08-2006, 10:49 PM
mistermonday's Avatar
mistermonday mistermonday is offline
Moderator
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,028
Re: raw - AHHH

Airdale,
RAW files on most cameras take way longer than jpg to process. My D100 Nikon takes 45 secs!! Newer cameras like the D200 and D70 /80 have a coprocessor that does the work in parallel so the camera processes RAWs almost as quickly as jpgs
As for the noise filtering, please note: the file you orig attached was saved on jpg 4 (very highly compressed and pixelated). In future you would be better to downsize the image to 6x8 @ 72 DPI and save on a higher jpg setting like 8 or 9 (less compression as the number increases ---> higher quality. When you run a noise filter on what is basically a bunch of blocks (the pixelation), you end up really blurring the image. To add to the problem, some noise filters don't work well on some image types. Noise filters are best run on your high res images and very early in your workflow.
Regards, Murray
Reply With Quote top
  #13  
Old 11-12-2006, 09:58 AM
Airdale Airdale is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 22
Re: raw - AHHH

Just wanted to post a big thank you to you all (especially Murray!) for your help with this and wanted to let you know the final impact you guys had. I went from thinking I'd have to toss out a day's worth of shooting to coming up with an image I really really like. Once you all convinced me that it IS possible to get rid of the noise, I started playing around with neat image controls (which I had used in "default" on this image previously - without a good result) - and that did it! I tried Noiseware, which was even better, but you have to buy it so I am holding off for now.

I also put Flora's "remove photopaper texture from old photos" tutorial to work, and it helped bring more dimension to the face.

And I am also going to continue raw shooting now:-)

You rule! Thank you
I am attaching my final version
Airdale
Attached Images
File Type: jpg monya-final.jpg (53.0 KB, 22 views)
Reply With Quote top
  #14  
Old 11-12-2006, 01:10 PM
mistermonday's Avatar
mistermonday mistermonday is offline
Moderator
Patron
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,028
Re: raw - AHHH

...and a very fine job you did on it, Airdale!
Regards, Murray
Reply With Quote top
  #15  
Old 11-12-2006, 06:49 PM
Mike Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Junction CO USA
Posts: 683
Re: raw - AHHH

So what steps are you going to take so that you do not produce such images in the future?
Reply With Quote top
  #16  
Old 11-12-2006, 08:39 PM
Airdale Airdale is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 22
Re: raw - AHHH

Hi Mike...

<<So what steps are you going to take so that you do not produce such images in the future?>>

<Airdale looks around is if caught with undone homework> Erm... Yeah... that would be even better than learning to correct screwed up photos wouldn't it...

Mike, I'm embarrassed to say that I had to wait until YOU asked the question to think about this. And I don't know. The pictures all looked just fine on the camera LCD display, so I had no idea they were not getting enough light. And I cannot think of a way of checking it. Maybe I'll try to look closer at the LCD pic and see if I can spot something? I am also getting a new camera (digital rebel xt) as opposed to my current Power Shot S50, and I was hoping that the Rebel will be smarter than I am. I will also make sure to check that my ISO is not set at 400. And I will see whether the Rebel has a metering mode like my old 35mm used to have - a little scale that says whether the current f stop and shutter speed will give proper exposure. Ummm.. That's all I can think of... How is that? I know it's not an A answer, but maybe a C+...?

Someone, quick, pass me a note with the answer before I fail photo lighting 101!

:-)
-Airdale
Reply With Quote top
  #17  
Old 11-12-2006, 10:41 PM
Mike Mike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Grand Junction CO USA
Posts: 683
Re: raw - AHHH

I like an honest person!

May I suggest a few things?

Shoot some very carefully documented tests. Try to set up a "scene" and use a light meter to measure the light when you take the photos. Change the ISO settings to see if the effect you got goes away. If you do not have a lite meter, is their a friend with a digital camera that captures in RAW that can help you so you have something to compare too? Make sure that the thing is a test and not a job that you are trying to do for someone!

I have an older model of the Rebel that has the histogram on the back, I find that it can be a useful tool for watching your exposures. You do need to know what they are showing you however. So if you get your new camera soon, please sit down with the instruction book and read through it. I know that is easy to say, and a worthwhile project, but I do not always follow my own advise in that matter

So test, with documentation, so if you need to ask questions about the results, you will be able to tell us exactly what you did.......
Reply With Quote top
  #18  
Old 11-13-2006, 09:53 AM
CJ Swartz's Avatar
CJ Swartz CJ Swartz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Metro Phoenix area, Arizona
Posts: 3,345
Blog Entries: 19
Re: raw - AHHH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airdale
...The pictures all looked just fine on the camera LCD display, so I had no idea they were not getting enough light. And I cannot think of a way of checking it. Maybe I'll try to look closer at the LCD pic and see if I can spot something? I am also getting a new camera (digital rebel xt) as opposed to my current Power Shot S50, and I was hoping that the Rebel will be smarter than I am. I will also make sure to check that my ISO is not set at 400. And I will see whether the Rebel has a metering mode like my old 35mm used to have - a little scale that says whether the current f stop and shutter speed will give proper exposure. ...
-Airdale
Airdale, Good news! With your new Canon 350d XT (or are you getting the new 400d XTi?), you will have a histogram to use to check your recorded shots after you have shot them -- OVERexposed highlights will blink, and you can get some idea from the histogram of whether your shot is underexposed -- NOT an absolute answer because you may be shooting a lot of dark toned items that show up on the histogram on the left side, but it will give you another tool to help. Also you can shoot at 400ISO and generally get noise free images -- if exposure is correct.
Here are the reviews for the XT and XTi from DPreview - you could get used to the new camera before you even get your hands on it...

DPreview review of 350d XT
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/

DPreview review of 400d XTi
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

As far as exposure, here's some useful info from Luminous Landscape -- your new camera will probably have a wider contrast range (handling highlights and shadows) than your current camera, but it still won't be anywhere as good as a human eye, so you still have to make adjustments at times. One thing you can do right away is to start bracketing -- giving you three choices of the image to choose from -- more exposure, less exposure, and what the camera thinks is "perfect" exposure. When shooting jpegs, this can be very helpful; when shooting raw, it may not necessary because your raw conversion software will let you add or subtract exposure.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...exposure.shtml

Last edited by CJ Swartz; 11-13-2006 at 10:43 AM. Reason: added links
Reply With Quote top
  #19  
Old 11-13-2006, 01:40 PM
Craig Walters's Avatar
Craig Walters Craig Walters is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 8,786
Blog Entries: 4
Re: raw - AHHH

and just as a point of information on all this, a high ISO (or back when it was still called ASA), in film cameras, this was called 'high speed film'. it was often used for motion photography where you wanted to NOT have the motion showing, but wanted to get a better, clearer image when something was in motion. the higher the ASA rating, the more it could 'stop the motion'.

i dont know if this translates the same way in digital, but i'm guessing it's similar. normally, in film cameras, you didnt need anything over an 80 or 100 ASA... for most shots. i used to use 400 and even 800 film speed film for motion and for black and whites where i wanted more detail. i seem to also recall using it for very long night exposures as well. but for everyday, color shooting, i used ASA 100 or 80. oh, and i think i used higher film speeds for macro (very close up) photography as well.
Reply With Quote top
  #20  
Old 11-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Airdale Airdale is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 22
Re: raw - AHHH

Well, my digital rebel xt came today!!! And, man, is it A LOT of camera. Mike, I am happy to report that I have found the rebel's light metering feature and WILL be using it. That is about the only thing I found. It took me about 10 minutes to figure out that there is no "zoom" button, it's done by turning the lens. (Ok, all you professional photographer - don't laugh! ... how was I to know?...)

Anyone know if there is a way to look at the LCD while taking a picture instead of the view finder? Or am I asking about some taboo thing to do?
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Image Help


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Camera Raw dialog box appears Tony Gander Photoshop Elements Help 5 10-26-2007 11:21 AM
Raw format Tony Gander Input/Output/Workflow 4 10-19-2007 08:21 AM
Make adjustments in Camera RAW first before PS? dianajenna Input/Output/Workflow 2 07-05-2007 08:07 AM
Dodge and Burn Problems on a Camera RAW Image dianajenna Photo Retouching 22 06-30-2007 06:37 PM
Raw test target Doug Nelson Software 0 10-31-2005 03:24 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved