Does Historical Signifcance trump Excessive Noise?
Nov 8, 2013 06:35:22 #
Panasonic DMC FZ50
f/5.6, 1/320 sec., ISO 200, Center-weighted Average
.jpg file (no RAW capability), handheld
So here's my dilemma. By all accounts, the excessive noise in this photograph renders it almost unusable. But to counter that, it was taken at "the very moment" of this statue's unveiling during a city's Bicentennial celebration. It was a case of being at the right place, at the right time, with the wrong equipment.
At what point can we live with the noise?
I invite anyone who wishes to improve this photo to give it their best shot (up to and including altering to appear as a drawing or painting ...... anything to mask the noise). The one caveat: I wish to preserve as much detail as possible.
f/5.6, 1/320 sec., ISO 200, Center-weighted Average
.jpg file (no RAW capability), handheld
So here's my dilemma. By all accounts, the excessive noise in this photograph renders it almost unusable. But to counter that, it was taken at "the very moment" of this statue's unveiling during a city's Bicentennial celebration. It was a case of being at the right place, at the right time, with the wrong equipment.
At what point can we live with the noise?
I invite anyone who wishes to improve this photo to give it their best shot (up to and including altering to appear as a drawing or painting ...... anything to mask the noise). The one caveat: I wish to preserve as much detail as possible.
Unveiling of Nathanael Greene Statue, Greensboro Bicentennial, 2008
Nov 8, 2013 06:56:03 #
Nov 8, 2013 07:27:04 #
docjoque
Loc: SoCal
I'm on my phone, so can't give it a whirl, but how about turning it into BW and actually ADDING some noise/grain?
Nov 8, 2013 07:45:30 #
Bob Yankle wrote:
Panasonic DMC FZ50 br f/5.6, 1/320 sec., ISO 200, ... (show quote)
My view is that the noise doesn't matter at all. Better a noisy picture than none at all. I haven't zoomed in on it, but the posted picture looks ok to me. I think the 'catch' is much more important.
Nov 8, 2013 08:13:59 #
Better a photo with some noise than no photo at all. I think RTR has demonstrated that the noise can be reduced, though I think he has lost an unacceptable amount of detail. This would be a good one to take over to the post processing section.
Nov 8, 2013 09:55:58 #
Bob Yankle wrote:
So here's my dilemma. By all accounts, the excessive noise in this photograph renders it almost unusable. But to counter that, it was taken at "the very moment" of this statue's unveiling during a city's Bicentennial celebration. It was a case of being at the right place, at the right time, with the wrong equipment.
At what point can we live with the noise?
At what point can we live with the noise?
My subjective take on it is that, generally, we can live with any amount of noise (which I persist in thinking of as grain). I think the picture is wonderful. The opening shroud looks like a cloak blowing in the breeze. To be sure it's noisy, but it is not the first thing I see. All photographs are made up of grain of some kind, be it halides of silver or pixels. PSE-11 has filters for pixelization and film grain to deliberately add it. Of course, if it drives you nuts then you want to reduce or eliminate it, but for me it's a great picture as it stands. :thumbup:
Nov 8, 2013 10:12:11 #
Chuck_893 wrote:
My subjective take on it is that, generally, we ca... (show quote)
In point of fact, I am one of those who can live with the noise. It wasn't for me that I asked the question, but some of my fussy friends who have complained about it. Like you, I was enthralled with the billowing shroud at that precise (and fleeting) moment. Not only that, but the strong backlit sun threw a green patina over the sculpture, momentarily affording it look that only many years of standing out in weather will accomplish.
Nov 8, 2013 11:02:42 #
Nov 8, 2013 11:54:45 #
Heck yeah! This is kinda fun because of the billowing 'cape' Superhero like on the statue. Talk about being in the right place, at the exact moment when a gust of wind brought him to life - to heck with worrying about noise in a shot like this, you captured a fun 2 seconds of history that will never be repeated.
So, just a thought, have you considered removing the corner of the building in the lower left hand corner of the photo, for some reason I find it distracting.
So, just a thought, have you considered removing the corner of the building in the lower left hand corner of the photo, for some reason I find it distracting.
Nov 8, 2013 12:24:11 #
I gave it a shot but what was gained in smoothness was more than lost in detail, so no good. RTR's edit was better than mine. There aren't a lot of pixels to work with. As others have said so well, better a noisy photo than none at all.
Nov 8, 2013 12:39:26 #
Chuck_893 wrote:
My subjective take on it is that, generally, we ca... (show quote)
To me, Chuck, noise and grain are two different beasts. With film the grain is more evident in the lighter areas whereas with digital noise is more evident in the darker areas. Grain can add to a picture, noise, in my view, can only detract. But noise can be acceptable dependant on the images worth. In this image it is acceptable because the moment is not repeatable. It would benefit from noise reduction with the inevitable loss of sharpness but only Bob can decide where that acceptability point lies.
Graham, who is often wrong :-)
Nov 8, 2013 18:51:00 #
Bob Yankle wrote:
Panasonic DMC FZ50 br f/5.6, 1/320 sec., ISO 200, ... (show quote)
I think that something weird is happening on UHH. Does anyone else have the problem?
When I download this image it is only 280K...much too coarse to do denoise on. It happened to another pic a bit ago as well.
Can you confirm the image size you uploaded? I'm pretty sure you used "store original" because the download link is there.
I was going to try Topaz denoise on it but it is too pixelated.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.