Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Last game of the season on March 11, 2023 and possibly my 43rd and last season to shoot.
Page 1 of 2 next>
Feb 23, 2023 22:11:20   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
For the last three years, the Wings have played indoor soccer at an indoor Arena that has very poor lighting that always requires me to set my camera on a high ISO to get proper exposure and not clip highlights. My question to you is how do I get less "noise" with my Sony ILCE-7RM4 which supports a Sony, 70-200mm, F2.8, GM OSS II lens? The enclosed image was taken at 1/1600 of a second rather than my usual 1/2000 to try to reduce noise; usual F2.8 aperture; ISO 4000 rather than 5000 to try to reduce noise. The action seems to be stopped without blurring. The histogram shows that I didn't clip the highlights despite going from 1/2000 to 1/1600 second shutter speed and from ISO 5000 to ISO 4000. Is there anything else I can do to reduce "noise" and still maintain the beauty of my image. Shooter41


(Download)

Reply
Feb 23, 2023 22:42:19   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
The image posted shows no noise visible and appears to have had excessive PP work undertaken, it may even be a severe crop. It may be that you have removed what noise was there and in the process reduced detail significantly.

Without seeing the original, non PPd and un-cropped image it's difficult to advise. But, a well exposed image shot at 1/1600s, f/2.8 and ISO4000 should not be a problem with respect to dealing with noise from a decent modern camera.

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 04:42:10   #
paulrnzpn Loc: New Zealand
 
Shooter41 wrote:
For the last three years, the Wings have played indoor soccer at an indoor Arena that has very poor lighting that always requires me to set my camera on a high ISO to get proper exposure and not clip highlights. My question to you is how do I get less "noise" with my Sony ILCE-7RM4 which supports a Sony, 70-200mm, F2.8, GM OSS II lens? The enclosed image was taken at 1/1600 of a second rather than my usual 1/2000 to try to reduce noise; usual F2.8 aperture; ISO 4000 rather than 5000 to try to reduce noise. The action seems to be stopped without blurring. The histogram shows that I didn't clip the highlights despite going from 1/2000 to 1/1600 second shutter speed and from ISO 5000 to ISO 4000. Is there anything else I can do to reduce "noise" and still maintain the beauty of my image. Shooter41
For the last three years, the Wings have played in... (show quote)


The action captured is very good. The processing is terrible and it ruins what may well be a very good photo otherwise.

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2023 08:40:02   #
lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama
 
The action cannot be shot with a lower shutter speed? I’m a novice at sports photography and my first attempt at 1/800 was a disaster.

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 10:50:44   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Grahame wrote:
The image posted shows no noise visible and appears to have had excessive PP work undertaken, it may even be a severe crop. It may be that you have removed what noise was there and in the process reduced detail significantly.

Without seeing the original, non PPd and un-cropped image it's difficult to advise. But, a well exposed image shot at 1/1600s, f/2.8 and ISO4000 should not be a problem with respect to dealing with noise from a decent modern camera.


Dear Grahame...

Thank you for taking the time to study my image and share your excellent comments. I am attaching the original image so that you can see the amount of original "noise" before I cropped the image and ran it through Topaz De-noise and see what the detail looked like before my post editing so that you can judge for yourself how much the detail was reduced.


(Download)

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 10:53:22   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
paulrnzpn wrote:
The action captured is very good. The processing is terrible and it ruins what may well be a very good photo otherwise.


Dear paulrnzpn... Thank you for complimenting my capture of high action. Any comments on how to improve my processing? Shooter41

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 10:59:59   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
lwerthe1mer wrote:
The action cannot be shot with a lower shutter speed? I’m a novice at sports photography and my first attempt at 1/800 was a disaster.


Dear lwerthe1mer...

Thank you for taking the time to view my image and make an intelligent suggestion. Actually I need to go back to my faster 1/2000 second shutter speed to completely freeze the action and capture more detail, rather than go to a lower shutter speed than 1/1600. I may just have to live with noise in the dark areas of the image to avoid "over cooking it" in post-production.

Perhaps you haven't attended a professional indoor soccer game and observed how the ball is kicked at 80 miles per hour and things start to get blurry when one sets their shutter speed slower then 1/2000 second. Shooter41

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2023 11:08:31   #
lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Dear lwerthe1mer...

Thank you for taking the time to view my image and make an intelligent suggestion. Actually I need to go back to my faster 1/2000 second shutter speed to completely freeze the action and capture more detail, rather than go to a lower shutter speed than 1/1600. I may just have to live with noise in the dark areas of the image to avoid "over cooking it" in post-production.

Perhaps you haven't attended a professional indoor soccer game and observed how the ball is kicked at 80 miles per hour and things start to get blurry when one sets their shutter speed slower then 1/2000 second. Shooter41
Dear lwerthe1mer... br br Thank you for taking th... (show quote)


Shooter, I appreciate your response. I am learning how to shoot action and was disappointed with my first attempt at a lacrosse game.

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 13:11:36   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
lwerthe1mer wrote:
Shooter, I appreciate your response. I am learning how to shoot action and was disappointed with my first attempt at a lacrosse game.


Dear lwerthe1mer...
The number one thing that helped me improve my percentage of excellent pictures was to define for myself exactly what criteria an excellent indoor soccer picture has to meet. (That got rid of 2/3 of the pictures I was taking, that I never should have taken in the first place.) Example: An excellent indoor soccer picture should always include: (a) the ball, because that is what the opposing players are fighting over the entire game. (2) at least one home team player and one opposing team player's face toward the camera and not their back side to allow viewers of your image to "feel" the clash between them and understand the story your image tells without words. (3) enough surroundings to let viewers know the location and context. (4) high intensity action because no one wants to look at someone just standing around. (5) Proper exposure and tack sharpness with no blur or noise making it a pleasure to view.
Hope that helps. Shooter41


(Download)

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 14:32:36   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Grahame wrote:
The image posted shows no noise visible and appears to have had excessive PP work undertaken, it may even be a severe crop. It may be that you have removed what noise was there and in the process reduced detail significantly.

Without seeing the original, non PPd and un-cropped image it's difficult to advise. But, a well exposed image shot at 1/1600s, f/2.8 and ISO4000 should not be a problem with respect to dealing with noise from a decent modern camera.


Dear Grahame...I am enclosing an image that I have not edited and then a second version where I cropped; added vibrance, used Topaz de-noise, but did not do Topaz Sharpening. Do you feel like the sharpness of this image is better than the former image, when I avoid Topaz SHARPENING in post?


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 14:52:29   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Dear Grahame...

Thank you for taking the time to study my image and share your excellent comments. I am attaching the original image so that you can see the amount of original "noise" before I cropped the image and ran it through Topaz De-noise and see what the detail looked like before my post editing so that you can judge for yourself how much the detail was reduced.

Thank you for posting the original.

From what you have posted there has been some detail lost, although small, by putting the image through Topaz and this would be expected.

But, what is evident is the very poor quality of the 'original' and it raises the question as to what is happening. If this is the original why are we seeing such noticeable halos, blotchy skin and crushed blacks? The camera or you are doing something to downgrade the capture and could it be that that is also adding noise?

Are you shooting jpeg only, have you got in camera picture controls set for max contrast, max sharpening e.t.c? How and with what are you converting the camera images for display.

Below I post an example of one of many images shot at ISO4000, the original and a heavy crop at the same pixel width as the 'original' image from your Sony. There has been no PP or noise removal. Note the skin quality, the sharpness and absence of any sharpening halos.

Downsized from Original, no PP.
Downsized from Original, no PP....
(Download)

A 2048px wide crop from the original, no PP.
A 2048px wide crop from the original, no PP....
(Download)

Reply
 
 
Feb 24, 2023 15:01:35   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Grahame wrote:
The image posted shows no noise visible and appears to have had excessive PP work undertaken, it may even be a severe crop. It may be that you have removed what noise was there and in the process reduced detail significantly.

Without seeing the original, non PPd and un-cropped image it's difficult to advise. But, a well exposed image shot at 1/1600s, f/2.8 and ISO4000 should not be a problem with respect to dealing with noise from a decent modern camera.


Dear Grahame... I am enclosing another image first without post processing and second with Topaz denoise processing. Neither one got Topaz sharpening. Do you think I kept my detail by totaly getting rid of Topaz sharpening? Thank you again. Shooter41


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 15:14:57   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Grahame wrote:
Thank you for posting the original.

From what you have posted there has been some detail lost, although small, by putting the image through Topaz and this would be expected.

But, what is evident is the very poor quality of the 'original' and it raises the question as to what is happening. If this is the original why are we seeing such noticeable halos, blotchy skin and crushed blacks? The camera or you are doing something to downgrade the capture and could it be that that is also adding noise?

Are you shooting jpeg only, have you got in camera picture controls set for max contrast, max sharpening e.t.c? How and with what are you converting the camera images for display.

Below I post an example of one of many images shot at ISO4000, the original and a heavy crop at the same pixel width as the 'original' image from your Sony. There has been no PP or noise removal. Note the skin quality, the sharpness and absence of any sharpening halos.
Thank you for posting the original. br br From wh... (show quote)


Dear Grahame...To answer two of your excellent questions. Yes, I am shooting JPEG only and yes I am converting the images for display first in EXPOSURE 7 where I crop and add "clarity" and "vibrance." Then I send them to PhotoshopCS4 where I add my logo and a digital frame and save. Is that what is causing me to lose my sharpness and create blotchy skin? Should I shoot RAW and JPEG and eliminate either EXPOSURE 7 or PhotoghopCS4? Shooter41

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 15:28:42   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
Shooter41 wrote:
Dear Grahame...To answer two of your excellent questions. Yes, I am shooting JPEG only and yes I am converting the images for display first in EXPOSURE 7 where I crop and add "clarity" and "vibrance." Then I send them to PhotoshopCS4 where I add my logo and a digital frame and save. Is that what is causing me to lose my sharpness and create blotchy skin? Should I shoot RAW and JPEG and eliminate either EXPOSURE 7 or PhotoghopCS4? Shooter41

I think the first thing you need to do is explain why, or find out why, in the supposed 'Original' that you posted above it had the blotchy skin and massive halos prior to being put through Topaz.

If you are not able to do that, there is little point in expecting others to spend their time on comparisons between different images using this or that process when each have a multitude of variations available.

Reply
Feb 24, 2023 16:27:29   #
Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS
 
Grahame wrote:
I think the first thing you need to do is explain why, or find out why, in the supposed 'Original' that you posted above it had the blotchy skin and massive halos prior to being put through Topaz.

If you are not able to do that, there is little point in expecting others to spend their time on comparisons between different images using this or that process when each have a multitude of variations available.


Grahame...As I explained earlier, I am only shooting JPEG and post edit my images first in Exposure 7 where I crop them; clarify them and add vibrance before sending them over to PhotoshopCS4 which I have used for 10 years to add my logo and a digital frame before saving them to be shown. Perhaps one of those steps causes the blotchy skin and massive halos that I need to illuminate. I don't know which step is degrading my images and that is why I asked for help. I'm 81 years-old now and just had a heart attack; open heart surgery and loss of short-term memory after six hours of general anesthetic, so I am not functioning very well at the moment. I apologize for not being as quick mentally as I used to be. Shooter41

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.