|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 3, 2006 23:38:40 GMT -5
So what do you do when you're out just after sunset and a dark cloud cover (remnants of Ernesto) forces you to shoot a little digicam at iso800? You just take the pic anyway, noisy or not, and see what you can do to turn the noise into an asset (with a little help from Photoshop)  Canon S3 IS Gene |
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Sept 4, 2006 7:16:47 GMT -5
That's beautiful Gene! Man! What a photo!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Sept 4, 2006 13:48:39 GMT -5
Dear, dear....
Sun's gone down and the flag's still up - what's the world coming to? LOL
Nice composition. As you say, the grain's become a feature. Excuse my ignorance of digitals - if you'd dropped the speed, would the lighthouse have dropped into silhouette with lower grain (or would it be trying harder and become noisy)?
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Sept 4, 2006 14:22:31 GMT -5
Gene, that's a fine picture with great moodiness. I think it could illustrate the word "gloomy" perfectly!
Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 4, 2006 14:59:57 GMT -5
Randy, John, Walker, thanks! John, the sensor on a digicam is cleanest at the lowest iso speed, in this case 80. It would be the same picture but much smoother. The catch is that, like film, I'd have a long exposure and would need a tripod. Each bump in sensitivity increases the noise, somewhat like the higher the iso the more grain in film. So to get enough speed to handhold this, I had to shoot at the max, which is also the noisiest. I've heard it explained this way, that what you're actually doing in digital is amplifying the sensor to be more sensitive. With each increase of amplification, more noise (i.e. distortion) is introduced. Digital noise is similar to film grain, but not as attractive. To help mask the effects I used a 'film grain' feature and added pseudo grain to the image, making it more attractive in the process. Don't know if that makes it clearer or, well, noisier  but as Walker says, it elicits gloominess... Gene |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Sept 4, 2006 15:34:40 GMT -5
Like film then really - doesn't get grainy till you force it!
A monopod? I've seen some that look like a walking cane until you extend them.
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 4, 2006 20:43:44 GMT -5
Like pushing film, indeed. As with film photography, everything's a trade-off. You never get something without giving up something else... I use a monopod sometimes but at night they're not as useful. I like using a tripod -- I just don't like carrying them around Gene |
|
|
|
Post by Microdad on Sept 4, 2006 23:23:51 GMT -5
That's a cool shot Gene, almost looks like you shot it with tri-x.
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Sept 5, 2006 8:35:17 GMT -5
Interesting how it is predominantly B&W...except for the orange glow around the lights! Is that part of the PS help? If so, it's very nicely done!  |
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 5, 2006 9:49:07 GMT -5
Steve, Ron, thanks.
Here's how I processed this shot:
1. passed the image through Neat Image to reduce some of the noise
2. converted to greyscale with Channel Mixer (on a duplicate layer)
3. painted back some of the incadescent light colour and the flag with a soft brush (50% opacity)
4. added some grain with the Film Grain filter
5. added a touch of glow with the 'Diffuse Glow' filter, and increased the grain slightly
6. vignetted the top corners of the image -- the glow made them too bright
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Sept 5, 2006 14:59:11 GMT -5
Interesting. I had not heard of it until your comment (which, by itself doesn't mean much...not much gets under my rock).  Should I assume the safe bet is to download the "pro" version of Neat Image? Did you download one of the profiles, too? |
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 5, 2006 16:10:22 GMT -5
Ron, I've been using the free demo version of Neat Image. Was just about to step up to a licensed version when I learned that its chief competitor, Noise Ninja, is available for Linux, as well as Mac and Windows. I think Noise Ninja has a better interface, though both products are excellent at what they do. Now that I'm dual booting between Linux and Windows, it makes NN a better choice for me.
These programs are good for scanned negatives too. When I scan Tri-X or Neopan 400, the scanner introduces a grain-like noise of its own that makes the image look grainier than it actually is. A light touch of Neat Image or Noise Ninja trims that back a bit and makes it look more like the grain you'd see in a darkroom print.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Sept 5, 2006 22:33:50 GMT -5
Guess I'll have to check out Noise Ninja, too! I'm running XP, so perhaps it doesn't matter. MY nephew installed Linus for me a while back...and I found it so distracting to use (so VERY used to Windows) that I dumped it from the system. "Old dogs," and all.  Used to use a Mac (and loved it) but that was back in my truly "creative" days...not my administrative ones...which now almost demand Windows. Let me rephrase that...'cause there's nothing "almost" about it. Our work system is Windows...period. And if I want my home PC compatible (which helps enormously when I'm working from home)....well, you know the rest.  |
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Sept 6, 2006 9:03:16 GMT -5
Ron, I'd love to use a Mac. But all my corporate jobs required Windows so I used Windows at home too, and now have a substantial investment in software that I can't afford to throw out. Linux allows me to experiment with free software, and besides, I love Unix and feel at home there. But I swear if I get another portable it'll be a Mac. OS X appeals to me -- underlying BSD Unix base with a refined user interface. It's very sweet.
Gene
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 6, 2006 18:40:44 GMT -5
I have been trying to find the right words for this picture bu all I can think of is "CLASSIC".
Mickey
|
|
but as Walker says, it elicits gloominess...
