Wedding Image Noise Update
Sep 17, 2017 11:04:19 #
Sep 17, 2017 11:16:04 #
The camera and lens settings indicate a shooter who lacks experience with these exposure variables: ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.
This camera no doubt has an ISO setting of ISO 50 in the extended ISO range. This lower ISO equates to a stop and a half of exposure -- not trivial in diffuse lighting as here combined with the shading effect from a street scene with tall buildings and with an overcast sky. This lower ISO would have produced an exposure free of noise.
Yet even a setting of ISO 160 should have rendered a noise-free exposure with this superior camera.
The shutter speed of 1/2000th of a second indicates the same thing: an inexperienced shooter.
After all, a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second would almost certainly have frozen all motion in the scene. This setting would have gained another 3 stops of exposure, also not trivial under the conditions.
The rationale for the wide-open aperture setting of f/1.4 may or may not have reflected a conscious choice by the shooter. This setting will tend to blur the background while the main subject remains largely in focus. An aperture of f/5.6 or f/8 might have produced a slightly more interesting picture of a couple walking a city street by bringing more detail into focus. The gains overall in exposure discussed here would have allowed this smaller aperture opening.
The upshot here: Before hiring a wedding photographer, check the shooter’s Web-site for three things: (1) credentials documenting any formal training in doing photography in general; (2) experience in the field of wedding photography; and, (3) samples from previous successful wedding shoots.
Number 3 will tell the most because despite higher-end gear and training, experience and results count the most.
In fact, a self-taught photographer may produce better and more interesting photographs for having followed his bent and his eye instead of relying on formulas, convention, and hackneyed approaches in his photography.
This camera no doubt has an ISO setting of ISO 50 in the extended ISO range. This lower ISO equates to a stop and a half of exposure -- not trivial in diffuse lighting as here combined with the shading effect from a street scene with tall buildings and with an overcast sky. This lower ISO would have produced an exposure free of noise.
Yet even a setting of ISO 160 should have rendered a noise-free exposure with this superior camera.
The shutter speed of 1/2000th of a second indicates the same thing: an inexperienced shooter.
After all, a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second would almost certainly have frozen all motion in the scene. This setting would have gained another 3 stops of exposure, also not trivial under the conditions.
The rationale for the wide-open aperture setting of f/1.4 may or may not have reflected a conscious choice by the shooter. This setting will tend to blur the background while the main subject remains largely in focus. An aperture of f/5.6 or f/8 might have produced a slightly more interesting picture of a couple walking a city street by bringing more detail into focus. The gains overall in exposure discussed here would have allowed this smaller aperture opening.
The upshot here: Before hiring a wedding photographer, check the shooter’s Web-site for three things: (1) credentials documenting any formal training in doing photography in general; (2) experience in the field of wedding photography; and, (3) samples from previous successful wedding shoots.
Number 3 will tell the most because despite higher-end gear and training, experience and results count the most.
In fact, a self-taught photographer may produce better and more interesting photographs for having followed his bent and his eye instead of relying on formulas, convention, and hackneyed approaches in his photography.
tinplater wrote:
Here is a typical example...I have uploaded the entire large file, when viewed full size in download you will see the problem! ISO 160 f1.4 1/2000 with Canon 5DMIII and 35mm 1.4 Canon lens.
Sep 17, 2017 11:28:17 #
rehess wrote:
A wedding and reception do not take ten hours.
You have not been to many Bridezilla Weddings, have you?
Sep 17, 2017 11:33:25 #
scheline wrote:
Perhaps a bit off-topic (the photo and post-processing issues have been expertly addressed), but I am immediately and negatively impacted by the relative positions of the couple: The gentleman should always walk to the street side of the lady. Sorry for this curmudgeonly interlude; now back to the photography discussion.
A bit of trivia. The gentleman walks to the street side, in the event that someone in a window above would throw something out ,like water or garbage .
Tradition of throwing the bouquet. It was believed by women in days past that touching the brides gown was a good luck omen. However having several hopefuls rushing the bride at the same time the bride would toss the bouquet.
Best man. His job in the past was so named because he was chosen to consummate the marriage in the event the groom was drunk and couldn't perform.
Brides vail. intended to ward off evil spirits.
Garter toss. the groom would toss the garter to the single men in order to prove the consummation.
Wedding. this is ancient. but it actually means "wager", where the father of the bride had a contract with the groom.
Flower girls. In the past they represented "fertility" the baskets were filled with wheat or garlic etc.
Sep 17, 2017 11:48:36 #
tinplater wrote:
Here is a typical example...I have uploaded the entire large file, when viewed full size in download you will see the problem! ISO 160 f1.4 1/2000 with Canon 5DMIII and 35mm 1.4 Canon lens.
Looks like no noise reduction and too much sharpening were applied in post processing. If the photographer shot RAW, then you can try to get the original files and do your own processing. That is a sensitive issue with wedding photographers; the PPA blog is filled with posts by wedding photographers complaining that the clients want (1) all of the pictures and (2) the RAW unedited files. This is an example of why those requests are not always unfounded. You can be a good photographer while still being a lousy editor.
I do not advise that you step into the fray; it can get really heated. Just have your son ask why this photo has so much "grain", and if there is anything that can be done to clean it and others up. Even that is enough to set a sensitive wedding photographer off, but really, that picture is crap, and they deserve better.
Sep 17, 2017 12:50:18 #
canon Lee wrote:
Hi Daddio. I use LR cc which cuts down on editin... (show quote)
<This response probably should be in the Wedding section so if you are looking to continue the noise discussion, skip this one :-) >
Coming from a background in the Engineering profession, I get the concept of charging the market rates as to not undercut professionals trying to make a living.
I did do 2 free weddings when I started but only after confirming that the clients were going to a) use "uncle Bob" and b) were broke. This was my gift to them. (both brides and grooms were Pastor Kids going into ministry)
It's still part time for me but I did not enter the business until I creeped enough photo websites to know my results were at least in the mid to upper range....even for the 1st 2 weddings I shot that were for free, spent 2 yrs researching, practicing, planning, and both of those weddings turned out great. After the tech and art related practicing was in the bag, then, it was leadership, coounselling, program mangament, expectation setting, risk management, contingency planning, and good luck that takes over....only thing I was lacking was experience (where the good luck turns into widsom)....only 1 way to get that....do it (preferably as a 2nd not a primary) :-)
I am still (and always will be) learning from each shoot. I have had a 2nd shooter for every wedding and get between 2500 and 5000 photos. Many of those are reception and dance...Clients gets usually between 500-1000 finals. I know...dumpster of files that overwhelms the clients decision making process about photos for the book....working on that too.... I also try to flag the good ones and only process those. I also try to pay attention to my WB/exposure so all the RAWs are close enough from a starting point using the embedded jpeg so I can bulk apply settings. I use LR CC also but probably need to research more of the workflow tips so I can improve my efficiency.
As I gain more experience, more time spent getting a great photo and less time spent taking 5-10 of the same, execpt for that 20 person family shot....you just gotta take extras so you can cut and paste eyes, or 7 frames of the same aisle walk so I can select the best cropped side by side for the photobook shot of each of teh bridesmaids....will still do those extras....
...as soon as you lower the price, you lower the expectation and the results are either not valued by the client or give the photographer an "out" on the quality ("well, they were only paying xyz, they shouldn't expect more")
Jason Lanier has some good video on the photography industry. If you demand quality from yourself, you can expect clients to pay for it, and they will....
Sep 17, 2017 12:58:59 #
scheline wrote:
Perhaps a bit off-topic (the photo and post-processing issues have been expertly addressed), but I am immediately and negatively impacted by the relative positions of the couple: The gentleman should always walk to the street side of the lady. Sorry for this curmudgeonly interlude; now back to the photography discussion.
EXACTLY! I didn't know what it was that bothered me, but that's it! Thank you.
Sep 17, 2017 13:42:15 #
Once again, thanks to all the folks lending a helping hand. Particularly "blackest" who privately provided me a couple of presets that have worked wonders on several of the images. I have arrived at the conclusion the photographer must have added post processing that markedly amplified the noise. If I can tactfully find out if raw files are available I'll give you nice hogs an opportunity to look at a raw image or two.
Sep 17, 2017 13:44:07 #
rpavich wrote:
I don't think that's noise. I think that's oversharpening. That's what happens when you crank the sharpening slider in LR too far, it highlights each little grainy bit.
I tend to agree that it is not noise but over sharpening. See the attached examples where I over sharpened the image. This is an image I use for my PhotoShop Class so the quality is so-so. The class has to try to fix it.
You will probably need to download and view to see the effects of the over sharpening.
Sharpening at 0
(Download)
Sharpening at 50
(Download)
Sharpening at 100
(Download)
Sharpening at 150
(Download)
Sep 17, 2017 13:55:54 #
Great example, Harold! Although, the speckle effect here is less pronounced (see the out of focus color in either eye @ 150) than any of the "speckling" in the wedding photos. I didn't even know there was a despeckle tool. While the speckles are there from Toronto, the corresponding "over detailed" result of the sharpening doesn't seem to be. I'm developing a genuine curiosity at the root cause...
Sep 17, 2017 14:07:14 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Tin, that's not noise, at least not noise that I'v... (show quote)
Agree. That is not natural noise. It looks like an effect added in PP. Probably a third party preset.
Sep 17, 2017 14:14:23 #
tinplater wrote:
Here is a typical example...I have uploaded the entire large file, when viewed full size in download you will see the problem! ISO 160 f1.4 1/2000 with Canon 5DMIII and 35mm 1.4 Canon lens.
I definitely see your point.
Sep 17, 2017 14:56:06 #
I decided to try to duplicate this so.....
Using my Canon 6D which supposedly has very slightly better noise characteristics than the 5D III I took a shot of my car. ISO 160, 1/1600, f/4, 24mm, did an EXTREME crop and set sharpening to 100 in LR.
I end up with the same "wormy" looking kind of noise.
A 35mm lens on a FF gives a fairly wide angle of view. The Photographer may have been some distance back and just took a shot when he saw them walking together holding hands.
He did a severe crop and tried to improve the image with some additional sharpening.
I think that this is normal noise tremendously enlarged.
Using my Canon 6D which supposedly has very slightly better noise characteristics than the 5D III I took a shot of my car. ISO 160, 1/1600, f/4, 24mm, did an EXTREME crop and set sharpening to 100 in LR.
I end up with the same "wormy" looking kind of noise.
A 35mm lens on a FF gives a fairly wide angle of view. The Photographer may have been some distance back and just took a shot when he saw them walking together holding hands.
He did a severe crop and tried to improve the image with some additional sharpening.
I think that this is normal noise tremendously enlarged.
Sep 17, 2017 15:07:29 #
I dont see any detail in the dress, Noise I can live with but the women all want to see the dress detail
Sep 17, 2017 15:44:11 #
Doing the preliminary sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw gives the user plenty of control in selective sharping via sliders and a mask. The use of the mask shows the user exactly where the sharpening will apply. This way, the user can exclude noise from the sharpening effect.
In the full Photoshop, the user can apply the Camera Shake Reduction filter by judiciously using its sliders.
Note that CSR achieves its result by minimizing the blurring effect of camera motion, at the pixel level. CSR offsets this motion which then restores the natural sharpness of the lens optics.
After most photo-editing in Photoshop, the user can then apply the High Pass Filter to sharpen only edges, excluding small shapes like noise artifacts.
Since I started doing sharpening this way, I have eliminated virtually all unwanted artifacts when sharpening the image. Note that I have stopped using third-party sharpening tools. Photoshop does a better job of image sharpening in my experience.
The remaining problem comes from the result of over-sharpening, which calls attention to itself.
I am discovering how to moderate sharpening in ACR so as to minimize the effect of too much sharpening.
In the full Photoshop, the user can apply the Camera Shake Reduction filter by judiciously using its sliders.
Note that CSR achieves its result by minimizing the blurring effect of camera motion, at the pixel level. CSR offsets this motion which then restores the natural sharpness of the lens optics.
After most photo-editing in Photoshop, the user can then apply the High Pass Filter to sharpen only edges, excluding small shapes like noise artifacts.
Since I started doing sharpening this way, I have eliminated virtually all unwanted artifacts when sharpening the image. Note that I have stopped using third-party sharpening tools. Photoshop does a better job of image sharpening in my experience.
The remaining problem comes from the result of over-sharpening, which calls attention to itself.
I am discovering how to moderate sharpening in ACR so as to minimize the effect of too much sharpening.
Psergel wrote:
I decided to try to duplicate this so..... br br ... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.