Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
New body or new lens.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spb_stan" data-source="post: 667166" data-attributes="member: 43545"><p>These images are not too bad, the blur of motion on the back and foreground give the sense of motion without the cars being in motion blur. The I downloaded both and the top one had subject blur and the track/grass has a little noise. I think part of the problem is using two different processes that conflict with each other and reduce data to resolve details. You do not need noise reduction on bright area, but adding it, decreases detail data and dark areas that need luminance noise reduction has little detail information to start with so can accept more NR without losing perceived detail. Sharpening after that only increases noise again in the dark areas and causes halos in the high contrast areas. So a better approach would be to selectively introduce noise reduction in areas that needed it and not add it in bright areas that have more detail and less noise. </p><p>You can do that with selections and masks in Photoshop but that might be complicated at first....very easy once you get used to how Photoshop works. Or you could try a Nr program that sample the light and dark areas for noise separately and for color noise. A very good program for that is dFine 2 from Nic Software. Nic was purchased by Google who offered it for free and recently DxO took control of the IP of the Nic software and is integrating it into their Lab editing suite. But it is still available for free from DxO. Get it. I tried it by automatic NR and it fully left the brighter car alone and then lowered noise and detail of the track and infield. I then tried in Photoshop and it did a fine job but took a number of steps. I added a layer of unsharp mask and sharpened just the car but it was on the very of halos before I started on the top photo. I sharpened only the brighter car and left the infield and track alone. There might be too much since you already did add edge sharpening but I used it to show that you could sharpen only the brighter detailed parts and leave the low contrast low detail dark area alone.</p><p></p><p>Also, the death of good images is the same for good paintings, pixel peeping. If an image looks good from normal viewing distance and size, it IS good, and zooming in 100% just reveals junk that bothers you but has no negative impact on the value and perception of the image. Every photographer and every painter has an intended viewing distance and size where the whole message and meaning can be taken in with one view without scanning side to side to take it all it. Detail is optimized for that viewing distance and scale and the message is last if view further away or too close. Look how sharp a billboard conveys its massage from 40 feet away but get close and you see the detail that detracts and masks the meaning. If you are worried about noise when viewing at 100% magnifcation do not buy a higher res camera. It will be worse. View the image as a whole. If you can't see the whole image you are zoomed in too far for the meaning of the photo to come through. It is a prime failing by newbies, to zoom in to see if something is sharp and then worry that does not looks as detailed at great magnification. More well-framed, well-exposed and well-conceived photos have been deleted because of how it looks blown way up than any other fault of photographers. If you want art to mean something, focus on the scale of view, not zooming into a tiny portion. Otherwise just get a macro lens or microscope and forget about human scale and human perception.</p><p>[ATTACH]286243[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spb_stan, post: 667166, member: 43545"] These images are not too bad, the blur of motion on the back and foreground give the sense of motion without the cars being in motion blur. The I downloaded both and the top one had subject blur and the track/grass has a little noise. I think part of the problem is using two different processes that conflict with each other and reduce data to resolve details. You do not need noise reduction on bright area, but adding it, decreases detail data and dark areas that need luminance noise reduction has little detail information to start with so can accept more NR without losing perceived detail. Sharpening after that only increases noise again in the dark areas and causes halos in the high contrast areas. So a better approach would be to selectively introduce noise reduction in areas that needed it and not add it in bright areas that have more detail and less noise. You can do that with selections and masks in Photoshop but that might be complicated at first....very easy once you get used to how Photoshop works. Or you could try a Nr program that sample the light and dark areas for noise separately and for color noise. A very good program for that is dFine 2 from Nic Software. Nic was purchased by Google who offered it for free and recently DxO took control of the IP of the Nic software and is integrating it into their Lab editing suite. But it is still available for free from DxO. Get it. I tried it by automatic NR and it fully left the brighter car alone and then lowered noise and detail of the track and infield. I then tried in Photoshop and it did a fine job but took a number of steps. I added a layer of unsharp mask and sharpened just the car but it was on the very of halos before I started on the top photo. I sharpened only the brighter car and left the infield and track alone. There might be too much since you already did add edge sharpening but I used it to show that you could sharpen only the brighter detailed parts and leave the low contrast low detail dark area alone. Also, the death of good images is the same for good paintings, pixel peeping. If an image looks good from normal viewing distance and size, it IS good, and zooming in 100% just reveals junk that bothers you but has no negative impact on the value and perception of the image. Every photographer and every painter has an intended viewing distance and size where the whole message and meaning can be taken in with one view without scanning side to side to take it all it. Detail is optimized for that viewing distance and scale and the message is last if view further away or too close. Look how sharp a billboard conveys its massage from 40 feet away but get close and you see the detail that detracts and masks the meaning. If you are worried about noise when viewing at 100% magnifcation do not buy a higher res camera. It will be worse. View the image as a whole. If you can't see the whole image you are zoomed in too far for the meaning of the photo to come through. It is a prime failing by newbies, to zoom in to see if something is sharp and then worry that does not looks as detailed at great magnification. More well-framed, well-exposed and well-conceived photos have been deleted because of how it looks blown way up than any other fault of photographers. If you want art to mean something, focus on the scale of view, not zooming into a tiny portion. Otherwise just get a macro lens or microscope and forget about human scale and human perception. [ATTACH=CONFIG]286243[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
New body or new lens.
Top