Noise Reduction

[MarkBarbieri]

Looking at your EXIF, it looks like you told the camera to underexpose by two stops. That would explain why everything is so dark.

If you underexpose a shot and then boost the exposure in post production, you generally get a lot of noise. Noise is always higher in darker parts of a picture. That's why some people recommend exposing as bright as possible without clipping and then adjusting the exposure downward in post production.

There is nothing wrong with using P mode. The camera should pick the same exposure level as it would in AV or TV (or even M if you judge by the meter). The downside to P is that the camera will select both the shutter speed and aperture and may give you values that, while exposing properly, aren't appropriate for the scene (low shutter speed for motion, high f-stop for a portrait, low f-stop for a landscape, etc). Even then, you can shoot in P and shift the exposure that it picks. I sometimes shoot in P when I'm not really paying attention and am going into a lot of different situations requiring a lot of different camera settings.

BTW, the EXIF also says ISO 800, not 1600.

 

[SharonLowe]

As Mark said, your biggest problem was underexposing. But, to answer the second part of your question, how to fix better afterwards, here's a pretty simple solution.

First, your white balance is off. If you are using a progam that allows curves, make a curves adjustment layer, click on the gray eyedropper, and then click on the chrome trim of the car to set a nice neutral bit. If you don't like it, click somewhere else until you get what looks like a nicer white on the car. (Still too dark though).

Then, merge the layers and make a duplicate of the merged layer. Change the layer mode to screen, and viola, your image will be much lighter. If not light enough, duplicate that layer. You will still get some noise but much less than what you currently have. A good noise removal program would take care of it for you.

If you are using CS3 or Lightroom, you can make adjustments to jpegs (and tifs) just like you can to raw images - white balance, exposure, etc.

Oh, and of course, you should not be working on jpegs. Even if you shoot jpeg, you should make tif copies of all the ones you want to keep before doing any work on them.

 

[AndrewWG]

If you are using CS3 or Lightroom, you can make adjustments to jpegs (and tifs) just like you can to raw images - white balance, exposure, etc.

Oh, and of course, you should not be working on jpegs. Even if you shoot jpeg, you should make tif copies of all the ones you want to keep before doing any work on them.

Wow, I didn't know that. Of course, I'm not using Lightroom or CS3. That is good info. Someday I will have to upgrade from PSE5.

 

[SharonLowe]

Spent about 5 minutes with the original you uploaded. Here is a screen shot of my layers. The curves set the gray point, then I created a merge of the background and curves layer (control-alt-e on a pc; command-alt-e on a Mac) and set the layer mode to screen. Thought it was still too dark so copied the screen layer. Then, I duplicated all the layers (control-alt-shift-e on pc; command-alt-shift-e on mac) and applied noise ninja to it.

Looks pretty good, I think for working with such a small file:

 

[madhttr]

Spent about 5 minutes with the original you uploaded. Here is a screen shot of my layers. The curves set the gray point, then I created a merge of the background and curves layer (control-alt-e on a pc; command-alt-e on a Mac) and set the layer mode to screen. Thought it was still too dark so copied the screen layer. Then, I duplicated all the layers (control-alt-shift-e on pc; command-alt-shift-e on mac) and applied noise ninja to it.

Looks pretty good, I think for working with such a small file:

Beautiful Sharon. I will have to try this with others. I am new to a dslr and i cant figure out the settings yet. I figure a couple classes might help which I am signing up for next month.

Thanks for the tips everyone!

 

[Groucho]

I can't say that I 100% disagree with the idea of using a little negative exposure compensation in some night shots - for a couple reasons.

1. This can give you a more accurate representation of how the scene actually looked - at 0%, the camera may give you a much brighter photo than you expect. I've found this to be especially true at a vehicle show from a few months ago, some of the photos taken when it was pretty dark out look like they were taken when it was bright out. In this case it worked out fine, but the danger is...

2. The camera, in trying to give you a nice bright photo, may be forced to slow down the shutter too much, leaving you with a blurry photo. You can fit exposure and (to a point) noise issues in PP, but there's little you can do to fix a blurry photo!

When I was in California, we stopped by the Friday cruise light at Bob's Big Boy (the original Big Boy) and when we were done eating and I went out to get a few more photos, it was pretty dark. I set the camera to -1.0 exposure and this is what it looked like - which is pretty close to what the eye saw, and more "correct" for this particular environment IMHO.

This one is -0.7. This car is probably a replica but who knows - if it's a true Ferrari 250 GTO, the value is probably $10 million or more. In LA, you never really know, it's not impossible that it's real! More likely though, it's a similar-vintage Ferrari rebodied to look like a GTO. Unfortunately, we were on our way out as he was pulling in and it didn't occur to me that it may have been a GTO until later.

As for making TIF copies, not to question Sharon's expertise (she's certainly lightyears ahead of me in terms of Photoshop skills ), I think that's kind of a waste of space. A PNG file will hold all the data that a JPG will and will be losslessly compressed - uncompressed image formats should have gone the way of the dodo years ago. (OK, you can sort-of do TIF compression but most apps don't.) The TIF standard hasn't been updated in 15 years. Actually, making any copies in another format is probably unnecessary IMHO - just treat the JPG like you would a RAW file, and leave the original unmodified and save any changes to a new version.

 

[SharonLowe]

Actually, making any copies in another format is probably unnecessary IMHO - just treat the JPG like you would a RAW file, and leave the original unmodified and save any changes to a new version.

The only problem with using a jpeg, even if you leave the original unmodified is that each time you open and then close/save it, you lose information. I certainly don't think every file needs to be saved as a tif (or other format; lately I've been using psd with my layered files due to CS3 frequently crashing when I try to save in other formats) but if you are working on an image, don't save it as a jpeg; save it as some lossless file.

And, yes, underexposing at times can be your friend but it is usually your enemy, especially if -2 stops.

 

[AndrewWG]

Looks pretty good, I think for working with such a small file:

I just gotta say ! Your photoshop skills are so much more than I could ever expect to do. Did you take classes to be able to do this?

 

[SharonLowe]

I just gotta say ! Your photoshop skills are so much more than I could ever expect to do. Did you take classes to be able to do this?

Thanks Andrew. I'm mostly self-taught but I've learned a lot by going to as many of the Photoshop/NAPP events that come to the Boston area as possible plus I have done some of the training DVDs out there. Julieanne Kost if my favorite - her DVDs are from softwareCinema. I've come a long way from my initial attempts at using PS and when I finally understood curves, it made a huge difference! Just don't ask me to explain them

The next Photoshop World (http://www.photoshopworld.com/2008/) is April 2-4, 2008 in Orlando. I'm hoping to be able to come. Would be great to see some other DISers there.

 

[AndrewWG]

The next Photoshop World (http://www.photoshopworld.com/2008/) is April 2-4, 2008 in Orlando. I'm hoping to be able to come. Would be great to see some other DISers there.

Hmmm.... Seems like a GREAT place to visit!

I need to learn so much about this. I would rather have every photo come out perfect everytime, but that just isn't realistic. I have to really sit down and learn PSE5 first. Then, if it can't do what I want it to, move on to CS3 or, by the time I learn PSE5, CS10 will probably be out.

 

[Code]

If you are using CS3 or Lightroom, you can make adjustments to jpegs (and tifs) just like you can to raw images - white balance, exposure, etc.

While you can adjust white balance on a JPG, it should be a last resort and only for small adjustments as it will really degrade overall picture quality (make artifacts visible, increase noise, create/accentuate banding, etc). This is a pretty extreme example, but say, for instance, you have a shot under regular tungsten light ~2800K but the camera is set to shade/overcast ~9000K (or auto white balance gets it very wrong for whatever reason, etc). The relative intensity of the red and violet wavelengths are opposite between these 2 white balances, so the process of changing the WB is going to really "stretch out" the reds/oranges and really compress the violets/blues. On an 8-bit JPG, this is a real problem.

All technicalities aside, the bottom line: adjusting WB on a JPG will always degrade the photo. For a small adjustment, the degredation may not be visible, but will never match having a RAW to produce a new JPG from.

 

[iluvmickeytown]

Hi,

I think i've come to the conclusion that I really need a noise reduction program and I need to do some serious studying on the subject. Anyway if it's not too much trouble could someone tell me or show me what a program would do for this photo

I had good seats and a did get a few good shots but if I new what I was doing I could've gotten a lot of good shots. Anyway thanks for advice and help.

 

[Anewman]

NR will do the obvious but the photo looks a bit blurry and wont improve with NR.

 

[iluvmickeytown]

Ok so noise has nothing to do with blurry. It's not like the sharpin tool on the program that came with my Nikon. Even though I used my Canon powershot. Hym. Is there any program that focuses a picture more? Thanks for your help. Mayby I should save money and take a photo class .

 

[iluvmickeytown]

Oh bye the way your picture looks much better. What noise program do you have and is it hard to understand?

 

[7echo]

Noise Ninja is popular is on some of the photography boards-check Fred Miranda and Photo Net. I have never used a noise reduction program. Sometimes the noise reminds me of grain in film, I look at it as a feature : )

 

[klmall]

I played a little with it using NoiseWare Standard and managed to sharpen her arm etc. but her head is still blurry and lots of noise showing.

NoiseWare version:

Original:

 

[klmall]

I don't know how you use your pictures but sometimes I just salvage mine by using PSE (Photoshop Elements) to 'posterize' or apply special effects or filters. The first picture actually uses some of the noise as an advantage. Here's a couple examples.

 

[iluvmickeytown]

Oh I like the photoshop pictures. I never thought of that. I don't have photoshop but I'm sure there's something I could do around the same lines with something I have. The pictures with the noise reduction are much better. Is it a hard program to understand? I was thinking if I used a normal kodax throw away camera would the picture have come out good ? And is their noise on film.

 

[klmall]

Oh I like the photoshop pictures. I never thought of that. I don't have photoshop but I'm sure there's something I could do around the same lines with something I have.

Good; it's an easy way to save some unsatisfactory pictures and it's extremely easy to do in Photoshop Elements with lots of flexibility

The pictures with the noise reduction are much better. Is it a hard program to understand?

NoiseWare (Community edition available free online) is very simple to use and can do wonders with some pictures. It is pretty much a no-brainer.

I was thinking if I used a normal kodax throw away camera would the picture have come out good ? And is their noise on film.

I have used disposables quite a bit on camping and whitewater rafting trips. In normal daylight situations I have gotten good results but I doubt that disposables would have gotten you a better result in your example.

A lot depends upon your camera. My suggestion would be to try using a tripod to reduce the blur and experiment more with your camera settings. I am not an expert by any means so others may have more helpful answers for you.