What am I doing wrong/right?

[DisneySuiteFreak]

First of all, do you use Photoshop to remove noise or another program? I have some photos I was messing around with. I noticed photos processed w/ Noiseware community strips the exif info. But it seems like it does a better job of reducing noise in most photos. I also noticed that when I use Noiseware after PS CS3, I sometimes get weird stripe looking things on one side of the photo. It seems okay if I use Noiseware first and then PS. But again, the Exif info is stripped.
I am currently attempting to mess around w/ PS for editing. I had some spots from my dirty lens I was trying to remove and noticed these issues. Can anyone help or give me some constructive criticism? I know nothing about PS CS3. I'm just starting out trying to figure it all out. I don't even know if I'm doing anything right/wrong, etc. I think I used the healing tool to take out the ugly parts of the photos. (I'm not even sure if I did that right!
I'm not sure if photobucket is making it appear worse than the actual photos in my computer. It seems ike it may be since it compresses the photos more.

Here's the original:

Here's one filtered before PS - do you see the banding things on the left side of the picture and to the right of the Tower?:

Here's one with Default filtering in NC applied after PS again I see some banding on the left and right. (Not sre if this is the correct name for it):

Here's one processed just in PS I see more noise in this photo to the left of the tower and some areas that I missed with the healing tool thing, but no banding/stripe things:

Thanks everybody! Be gentle please; I am a total novice and am still learning the art of photography and know nothing about editing/processing.

ETA: I don't know...I just noticed that the color seems off on all the photos where I used the healing tool thing. I dont know how to fix that. I think Photobucket is adding some compression and causing it to appear more prominently. I don't see that much of it on the originals.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Here's another set of photos:
Before/unprocessed:

Filtered -- color is less saturated:

Filtered and then edited in PS:

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

And one more set...
Original:

Filtered:

Filtered, then PS:

 

[jann1033]

are you using the community noiseware? if so it is either messed up or changed somehow..it desaturates everything i use it on and i've gotten a few weird things added as well. i haven't been using it. if you have lightroom i downloaded some of matt's presets for noise from the lightroom help site and they seem to work well enough for moderately noisy photos
i only have elements which i rarely use so can't comment on the other stuff. i'm not sure what you are talking about in the photos but if you mean the actual sides have a kind of halo around them it could be you are over sharpening...the noise ware preset for landscape( and maybe the default as well, you'd have to check in the help) sharpens so if you are sharpening already it might be oversharpening

 

[Groucho]

I actually don't notice much noise in any of the photos. Are you using an LCD monitor? Sometimes that can emphasize noise as the pixels can be extremely sharp, which is not really ideal for photos. I always notice noise a little more on an LCD than my usual CRT monitors.

I do see a bit of flare, especially in the first shot, but it looks like you cleaned that up with the healing tool.

 

[wenrob]

First the originals don't look noisy to me. I'm not zoomed in but I guess that's my point, regular size pics aren't going to look bad. I am zero help at noise reduction but if you're looking to darken the sky and 'smooth' it out try duplicating your layer and setting the top layer to burn then play w/the opacity. It works for moon shots anyway.

I have a question about your settings. Did you use a high ISO? I only ask because you're concerned about noise though I don't see it. I have no clue how to access your EXIF but judging by the last shot you are doing a longer exposer which leads me to believe you're using a tripod so then you could be using the lowest ISO. No need to for a high ISO if you're giving the camera plenty of time to gather light, kwim?

 

[annnewjerz]

First the originals don't look noisy to me. I'm not zoomed in but I guess that's my point, regular size pics aren't going to look bad. I am zero help at noise reduction but if you're looking to darken the sky and 'smooth' it out try duplicating your layer and setting the top layer to burn then play w/the opacity. It works for moon shots anyway.

I have a question about your settings. Did you use a high ISO? I only ask because you're concerned about noise though I don't see it. I have no clue how to access your EXIF but judging by the last shot you are doing a longer exposer which leads me to believe you're using a tripod so then you could be using the lowest ISO. No need to for a high ISO if you're giving the camera plenty of time to gather light, kwim?

I agree with this, I don't think your shots look noisy (especially not at the size we are all viewing them at). Same thing with the use of the tripod---I noticed the smooth water from the fountains and figured you had used a tripod---if so, you should have the camera set for the lowest ISO possible.

It may take 10 seconds for an exposure at ISO100 as opposed to a 1 second shot at a higher ISO---but think about it, 9 extra seconds to ensure my night photos are free of noise seems worth it to me It's a lot less time spent than I would ripping out my hair in post processing.

 

[NostalgicDad]

I'm going to go along with the noise discussion here. Using your D90 at ISO 200, there should be virtually no noise issues. I would not worry about using any NR on these. Something else to keep in mind regarding noise is long exposure noise. Your first shot is exposed at 14 seconds. I have a very similar shot of that same subject and it is 3 seconds. Your D90 has built-in long exposure NR so I'm not sure how you have it set. I always keep it off in my cameras since I'll deal with any noise issues in PP. But, if you do see noise in some of your other nights shots, remember that the longer the exposure, the more noise is introduced as well.

Another note regarding the EXIF I see on your original.......you were shooting at f/22. I wouldn't go that high as most lenses will start experiencing diffraction above f/16......some lower some higher. This will cause images to not look as sharp. I like to go no higher than f/11 as a general rule unless needed for something else in my night shots or I know my particular lens is good at f/13-f/16 tops.

I'm also not an expert with PS although I use CS2 for a few things here and there. My primary NEF conversion and PP tool is Capture NX2.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I actually don't notice much noise in any of the photos. Are you using an LCD monitor? Sometimes that can emphasize noise as the pixels can be extremely sharp, which is not really ideal for photos. I always notice noise a little more on an LCD than my usual CRT monitors.

I do see a bit of flare, especially in the first shot, but it looks like you cleaned that up with the healing tool.

Groucho, I am using my laptop which has an LCD monitor. My regular computer has an LCD screen as well. What to do?...CRT monitors are the older hulking heavy ones, right? What do you recommend? I actually gave my big monitor to my son for his computer so I could use a smaller LCD.
Glad you are not seeing much noise in the photos! YAY!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

are you using the community noiseware? if so it is either messed up or changed somehow..it desaturates everything i use it on and i've gotten a few weird things added as well. i haven't been using it. if you have lightroom i downloaded some of matt's presets for noise from the lightroom help site and they seem to work well enough for moderately noisy photos
i only have elements which i rarely use so can't comment on the other stuff. i'm not sure what you are talking about in the photos but if you mean the actual sides have a kind of halo around them it could be you are over sharpening...the noise ware preset for landscape( and maybe the default as well, you'd have to check in the help) sharpens so if you are sharpening already it might be oversharpening

Hi Jann, when you say you downloaded Matt's presets, where are they located? I don't have LR. How much is it? Is it worth it? I have Capture NX for RAW conversion (which I still don't know how to use) and PSCS3 which I am cautiously attempting to learn. And I was using Noiseware community free version because I thought it reduced noise better that PS. Maybe not?

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

First the originals don't look noisy to me. I'm not zoomed in but I guess that's my point, regular size pics aren't going to look bad. I am zero help at noise reduction but if you're looking to darken the sky and 'smooth' it out try duplicating your layer and setting the top layer to burn then play w/the opacity. It works for moon shots anyway.

I have a question about your settings. Did you use a high ISO? I only ask because you're concerned about noise though I don't see it. I have no clue how to access your EXIF but judging by the last shot you are doing a longer exposer which leads me to believe you're using a tripod so then you could be using the lowest ISO. No need to for a high ISO if you're giving the camera plenty of time to gather light, kwim?

I used ISO 200. Thanks for the PS tips. Lord knows I need it! I had noise in there from long exposures, I thought. Good to know you didn't see it. Unfortunately on my last trip, I kept forgetting to reset my ISO , so I do have a few night shots and , yes, even day shots, in which the ISO was set to 3200 when it didn't need to be. Some of them weren't shot RAW, so I need to see if they are salvagable. None in this group was set that way. They were all ISO 200 and f22, manually exposed from 5 seconds to 14seconds.

I agree with this, I don't think your shots look noisy (especially not at the size we are all viewing them at). Same thing with the use of the tripod---I noticed the smooth water from the fountains and figured you had used a tripod---if so, you should have the camera set for the lowest ISO possible.

It may take 10 seconds for an exposure at ISO100 as opposed to a 1 second shot at a higher ISO---but think about it, 9 extra seconds to ensure my night photos are free of noise seems worth it to me It's a lot less time spent than I would ripping out my hair in post processing.

Hi Anne, yes, I was using ISO 200, f22 manually exposed from 4-14 seconds. Used a tripod. Thought there was noise from long exposure. Glad to know you don't see it. Yay!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I'm going to go along with the noise discussion here. Using your D90 at ISO 200, there should be virtually no noise issues. I would not worry about using any NR on these. Something else to keep in mind regarding noise is long exposure noise. Your first shot is exposed at 14 seconds. I have a very similar shot of that same subject and it is 3 seconds. Your D90 has built-in long exposure NR so I'm not sure how you have it set. I always keep it off in my cameras since I'll deal with any noise issues in PP. But, if you do see noise in some of your other nights shots, remember that the longer the exposure, the more noise is introduced as well.

Thanks Danny. I have the long exposure Noise reduction set to off.

Another note regarding the EXIF I see on your original.......you were shooting at f/22. I wouldn't go that high as most lenses will start experiencing diffraction above f/16......some lower some higher. This will cause images to not look as sharp. I like to go no higher than f/11 as a general rule unless needed for something else in my night shots or I know my particular lens is good at f/13-f/16 tops.

I'm also not an expert with PS although I use CS2 for a few things here and there. My primary NEF conversion and PP tool is Capture NX2.

Thanks for the info about f22 and diffraction above f16. I didn't know about it at the time. I actually just read something about this in another thread on the Dis and thought, "great, just great -- there's the problem!" At the time, I just really liked the way the lights came out when it was set at f22 and I guess I didn't pay much attention to anything else! What kind of lenses do people use for their long 30 second plus exposures? I've seen some photos with really long exposures that just scream wow! I was trying to experiment with long exposures and I guess I didn't know enough about it.
What do you use to remove noise from your photos? As I mentioned in another post, I have quite a few photos that were taken with high ISO by mistake. WHen I was shooting in Program mode, the camera automatically adjusted for the ISO, so I didn't realize it at first. I just know that I will have to learn PP because of those stupid mistakes for some photos and the issue with the spots on my lenses for other photos.
Do you use PS or CaptureNX2 for noise removal? Some of the photos were not shot in RAW so I need to be able to process the ones that weren't shot in RAW. That's why I tried out Noiseware and the PS noise removal. Which software do you prefer for noise removal?
Thanks Danny!

 

[VVFF]

I have a calibrated LCD and I can see what you are talking about. The original does not display this as you stated. It looks like to me you are either compressing the resultant image too much(check jpeg compression settings) or you are working in a lower color depth than the original. Check both of these.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I have a calibrated LCD and I can see what you are talking about. The original does not display this as you stated. It looks like to me you are either compressing the resultant image too much(check jpeg compression settings) or you are working in a lower color depth than the original. Check both of these.

Hi Thanks for your response. Total novice here...Can you tell me how I am compressing it too much, in which software, and how do I check compression settings? And if I am working in a lower color depth than the original, how would i fix that? Is that done in PS? Sorry, you'll have to explain it to me in baby steps. Or perhaps you could point me toward a tutorial of some sort?
How did you calibrate your LCD monitor? Can laptop monitors be calibrated?
Thanks!

 

[NostalgicDad]

At the time, I just really liked the way the lights came out when it was set at f22 and I guess I didn't pay much attention to anything else!

You'll still be able to get that effect with a much lower aperture as well.

What kind of lenses do people use for their long 30 second plus exposures? I've seen some photos with really long exposures that just scream wow! I was trying to experiment with long exposures and I guess I didn't know enough about it.

Really any lens can be used in this situation, although I'm typically using 18-50mm most of the time. Just keep in mind that if you are shooting an exposure that long say at 200-300mm, any vibration will be much more noticeable vs. shooting at shorter lengths.

What do you use to remove noise from your photos? Do you use PS or CaptureNX2 for noise removal? Some of the photos were not shot in RAW so I need to be able to process the ones that weren't shot in RAW. That's why I tried out Noiseware and the PS noise removal. Which software do you prefer for noise removal?
Thanks Danny!

On night time tripod shots, I rarely will need to use any NR since noise generally isn't a factor. But, when I do use it, I have used NR in Capture NX2 but really prefer using the standalone Noise Ninja. It just depends at what step I need to perform the NR in PP. I think any of the NR apps out there will perform equal to each other based on what I've heard from other users, though.

 

[jann1033]

Hi Jann, when you say you downloaded Matt's presets, where are they located? I don't have LR. How much is it? Is it worth it? I have Capture NX for RAW conversion (which I still don't know how to use) and PSCS3 which I am cautiously attempting to learn. And I was using Noiseware community free version because I thought it reduced noise better that PS. Maybe not?

the presets are under the help in lightroom 2. if you have a student( can even be grade school, doesn't have to be college) or teacher in your family you can get lightroom2 at the educational discount software places for around $99. i think it's worth it, it does pretty much everything photoshops elements did and then some for only $20 more. not sure how it stacks up to nikon software or how redundant it is with photoshop c ( don't think much since adobe makes both). mark b. was questioning if the desat issue i have with noiseware is a color profile issue http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2068378 which would make sense but as of yet no idea how to get around it without just not using it

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

the presets are under the help in lightroom 2. if you have a student( can even be grade school, doesn't have to be college) or teacher in your family you can get lightroom2 at the educational discount software places for around $99. i think it's worth it, it does pretty much everything photoshops elements did and then some for only $20 more. not sure how it stacks up to nikon software or how redundant it is with photoshop c ( don't think much since adobe makes both). mark b. was questioning if the desat issue i have with noiseware is a color profile issue http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2068378 which would make sense but as of yet no idea how to get around it without just not using it

Hi Jann,
Thanks again. I did see Mark's post in that thread. I think he's probably correct about that issue. So, not much I can do except try a different noise reduction software or get LR or upgrade my Capture NX. I had the trial version and now it's expired. Will need to decide soon. I was trying to avoid having to buy more software, but I guess it's unavoidable.
Thanks!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

You'll still be able to get that effect with a much lower aperture as well.
Really any lens can be used in this situation, although I'm typically using 18-50mm most of the time. Just keep in mind that if you are shooting an exposure that long say at 200-300mm, any vibration will be much more noticeable vs. shooting at shorter lengths.
On night time tripod shots, I rarely will need to use any NR since noise generally isn't a factor. But, when I do use it, I have used NR in Capture NX2 but really prefer using the standalone Noise Ninja. It just depends at what step I need to perform the NR in PP. I think any of the NR apps out there will perform equal to each other based on what I've heard from other users, though.

So if I had taken the photo with an aperture of say f14, it would be okay to do a 30 second exposure? (Depending on lighting conditions, of course)
Do you do Noise reduction first and then PP in Capture NX2 or do you do the reverse? I think that's part of what I'm confused about - what order do you do the processing?

Do you use a calibrated monitor? I'm amazed that no one else is seeing/saw what I saw. I guess I need to calibrate my monitor...

ETA: I just reread your earlier post where you said you wouldn't go past f11. So if I use f11 depending on lighting I could do a longer exposure and wouldn't have to worry about diffraction issues?

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Do any of you calibrate your monitors? If so what software are you using? Is it possible to calibrate my laptop monitor?
Thanks all!

 

[VVFF]

Do any of you calibrate your monitors? If so what software are you using? Is it possible to calibrate my laptop monitor?
Thanks all!

Here is what happens when you save a JPEG of a fine gradient in photoshop with a medium level of compression:

Look familiar?

Here's with maximum jpeg quality:

and here is a .png image

You should notice that the "banding" problem gets better in each picture. You may see some banding as monitors are not perfect and sometimes will show their own...but this is typically much different looking than the one cause by JPEG compression.

And to answer your question I use a spyder2 with Coloreyes Display Pro software to calibrate my monitor. Yes, it will work on a laptop screen. How worth it it would be with a laptop screen is not up for me to decide...just know that they are often poor in quality.