 - Susan Jane Allen  Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Positive Use of Noise Hi! As I begin to look at how to prepare images for stock sales, I note that noise seems to be the biggest no-no in getting one's work accepted. Now, I'm speaking in great ignorance, but just noting that there are provisions in PS, for example, for increasing noise, I take it that sometimes it's not forbidden... The reason I ask is that sometimes I find that I can use noise to great effect. Perhaps I'm kidding myself and it doesn't look as good to others--or perhaps in actual print it doesn't look that good...? (I haven't really gotten in to printing anything serious.) Anyway, this photo is an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.php?photoID=4673422&catID=&style=&rowNumber=60&memberID=130891 I find that the noise in it, in contrast to the blurred background, increases it's effect, so that it seems more real and lifelike. Would really like some comments on this and also whether stock people really would reject anything like it offhand.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Noise can be added later if somebody wants to use a picture with some in it, so one with noise already in it would get rejected.
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
Noise does look great at times. Don't doubt yourself or your tastes!!! However, Gregory is right about people being able to add noise after purchasing a photograph. It is easy enough to add noise, but removing it can be tough.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Thanks so much for answering, Gregory and Cherylann! Okay, I understand. But I also wonder... Can the same quality of noise--be reproduced after all noise has been removed? Okay, I think I know the answer to that one. One reason I kept the noise in the photo that I put the link to above is because I guess the photo was not up to snuff. I mean, I guess my settings were such that it was too noisy to begin with and there was perhaps no way that I could have preserved the detail on the focused subject and removed the noise at the same time. A photo that stock companies would consider acceptable would be one that is tack sharp without noise. But, I would also (perhaps erroneously) think that how one uses noise is part of the art of editing and can be an "effect". For example, I once introduced noise to the focused subject of one photo by extreme sharpening several times--it produced a silvery frost-like effect on the leaves. Or is it that the professionals who buy are able to create their own effects and don't want us to do it? Feeling discouraged because I have so many very sharp bird images with my Canon 100-400, but most were shot at a shaded feeder, not in direct sunlight and to avoid motion blur, most are shot in ISO 400, and that always seems to mean a certain amount of noise. I can get it out of the background, but if I take it out of the birds, then the sharpness is usually reduced. (I have to confess that when I shoot birds I shoot in automatic sports mode because after so many failures, I'm not confident of my ability to capture motion in the manual modes. Guess I'll have to learn... BUT...I see so many of the pros recommend shooting in 400 or higher when capturing motion in low light, so they must have noise too, right? How do they sell thier pictures?
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
better cameras can shoot higher iso with less noise! I have the Canon Digital Rebel 300D and can't go above 400 iso -- and that is even after using noise removal software. I've seen photos from the Canon 40D taken at 1600 ISO with no noise removal software used and they look better straight out of the camera than my 400 ISO pictures!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Susan, A word about NOISE: Noise in electronics refers to random deviations that creep into a reproduction system. In sound recordings, we perceive unwanted humming, hissing, swishing, as noise. High-fidelity connoisseurs hate noise. Noise is impossible to eliminate. In photographic reproduction systems noise is unwanted random energy signals that degrade. Since photography is both an art and a science you are free to follow your heart, you can endorse noise for artistic purposes. Most photographers hate noise and its counterpart grain and granularity. To explain noise we fall back on the particle theory i.e. light consists of tiny particles of energy called photons. When the shutter opens the lens focuses oodles of photons onto the surface of the imaging chip. Most are well-behaved particles and hit the chip in correct places. Sorry to report that maybe 10~ 12 % misbehave (due to lens inaccuracy and internal reflections) and fall randomly. Also present is stray radiant energy other than light. These are x-ray, infrared, gamma rays, and heat, to name a few. The chip’s surface has a cover filter that keeps out some stray energy. The circuit (chip logic) also sports an electronic pass through filter that strains out some noise. Sorry not all is rejected. To record light energy the chip’s surface is covered with light sensitive sights. Each generates an electric charge when hit by a photon. More than one photon hit is required. For color imagining, each sight is covered with a deeply colored filter (red – green – blue). The intensity of the filter is such that it blocks a great deal of light energy. To gain this increased sensitivity we amplify the signal. This makes the site more sensitive to light and plus we gain noise. So as you pour on ISO you pour on noise as well. The size of light sensitive chip makes a big difference as to noise. Larger chips have larger sights. Large sights are more likely to be hit by the sought after correct photon. Thus professional cameras with full size sensors have more immunity to noise. Miniature digitals have tiny chips and noise is more prevalent. Some good news: A few months ago Kodak Research Labs announced a breakthrough. New technology allows some of the sights to be unfiltered. This greatly boosts ISO. Further, software is able to differentiate what color the sight would have received based on adjacent sights. Look for new models, the ISO gain is enormous with lowered noise. Also look for smaller and smaller chips. Alan Marcus (marginal and mostly unsolicited technical gobbledygook)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Susan, I know of no microstock company that will tolerate very much noise. Some are more forgiving of it than others but most just simply will not approve photos that have noise for any reason. I am about 99% certain the photo in question would be rejected due to "artifacts". Not all sites operate the same. I strongly encourage you to prepare about three photos and submit them to istockphoto.com. They have a tutorial or test you must review and pass before submitting. It is not a big deal. After submitting you'll get an email whether the photos are accepted or not. If not they give detailed reasons for the rejection. You do not have to wait to begin again either. I think they just make you take the test again and submit three more photos. It's best not to shoot higher than the lowest ISO your camera will go if you want to submit to stock. Try not to be discouraged. It doesn't have to be all or nothing starting out. Just take three new images with good light and exposure, edit them some and submit them. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Susan Fox |
No stock company will take a photo with noise. If you find one that does let me know :-) because that would be a place I'd love to submit to. Plus the photo you linked to also has banding, which is another thing stock companies will reject an image for. You also have to be on the look out for artifacting. I've had images rejected for noise/artifacting and I could only see it when I looked at the image at 300%. So they check the images very throughly. It's unfortunate, but the stock companies want the images 100% noise free. The pros probably either clean up the image in Photoshop or don't sell in stock. Good luck and try not to be discouraged :-)
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Hi and wow! Those were some of the most instructive comments I've every received! Now I understand the purpose for getting a better camera, as opposed to just better lenses---I was wondering about that. And Marcus, your explanation was superb! Sharon, by the way has been my mentor in this and yes, I am going to submit three photos! As to the banding, I don't understand why, I see a lot of that in my photos, even now when I'm doing much less "effects" editing. Now the first thing I do when I edit a photo is remove the noise from the background and then run the blur tool over it---before doing anything else. But I do still often have that banding. Actually, sometimes I like it, but stock companies wouldn't. The most discouraging thing in all this is that, as far as I know, unless your light is superb it is impossible to shoot motion effectively with ISO 100. I mean, you can't use flash with birds and a telephoto lens. Anyway, thanks everyone for these instructive comments!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Susan, save bird photos for your own enjoyment. They don't get many downloads anyway. Banding issues is an editing problem. I actually think removing noise then running the blur tool over a pic causes that. I've seen it in mine too and I've had rejections for it when I didn't catch it myself before submitting.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Susan Fox |
Susan why not shoot new subjects for stock. I agree, it is going to be hard to do birding with 100ISO in darker lighting conditions. I would save the bird images for prints, as they will make great prints for framing. Nature doesn't sell as well in stock as other subjects unfortunately. Also when exposing try not to underexpose. When you lighten an underexposed image in RAW or photoshop it will introduce more noise. As for banding I'm not sure what causes it but I do see it more in blue and green colors for some reason. Funny enough, sometimes you can get rid of it by adding a bit of noise and then re-running it through noise software. It doesn't always work, but it has a few times.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Thanks so much, Sharon and Susan. Wow, I would never have imagined that Sharon, though I did once, to my surprise, notice that when I ran the PS decrease noise function after having run Noise Ninja, it introduced noise! Figure that one. Also, Susan, (did you know that we've both bought lenses from Bob? And I've envied your work with the Sigma 105!) you're right I shoot everything but the birds in RAW, though if I want to lighten an image, I generally use curves and to darken use the RAW exposure settings. I won't do this as freely anymore. Thanks for that tip, and I'll try introducing noise and running it through the software and see what that does. For a while I was using what I thought was a wonderful technique for making some images pop-with a curves adjustment layer and adjustments to the lightness and the a and b channels, but since I've been trying to learn to prepare images for stock, had to throw that technique out because of the noise. All extremely frustrating---everything I used to do to make a pic beautiful in PS--what was such a fun an creative challenge, has to be thrown out for stock. I've always admitted that I'm not a photographer, I'm a photoshopper, and have felt that it was a legitimate aspect of the art. But now I see that for stock, I would have to hunker down and become a photographer. I know that has to happen, but would hate to throw all the fun stuff out... I mean, I've decided not to work any more just for my own enjoyment--but to produce things that could sell too. I've never tried printing, framing and selling---thinking that would be a tough market to get into. Anyway, I do have other options for stock--a strikingly beautiful friend who thinks it would be fun to think up interesting poses to sell in stock--just waiting until I can buy an external flash unit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Is that leaf picture cropped to get it framed that tight?
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
what do you mean Gregory? Are you asking if there is a frame that will fit it? If not, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your question. There are better things I should be doing after midnight (like sleeping). Anyhoo, if your question does have anything to do with that, I say it doesn't matter. Cut the matte to fit the print! I love my matte cutter and will never go back to relying on standard print sizes again (umm, unless I'm doing a ton of 'em). Okay, sorry to get so off topic. Back to discussion of noise. Susan, remember that a different lens could help the noise problem - it's not just the camera. Something that opens up more to let in more light will allow you to shoot in lower iso's. I already mentioned my camera has a tough time at higher iso's. My 50mm 1.8 lens has helped tremendously!!! I can't always open up to 1.8 when I'm worried about all the important stuff being in focus ... but something in the 2-3 range will help a lot compared to your 4 (I think your lens only opens to a 4). There are some great L series zooming lenses that open to 2.8. Anyhoo, just something to think about the next time you're in the market for a new lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
Hi! I've been looking for the original of that photo and I'm usually able to find them right away, but this one seems to have gotten away. But am pretty sure that those are leaves in the garden of my last home where I'd often sit and wait for birds and sometimes amuse myself by shooting this and that in the meantime. If so, it was taken with my Canon 100-400 L and it was probably on set in bird-shooting mode with the ISO 400 and from that tree, it would definitely have had to have been cropped--set at 400mm wouldn't have been able to get in quite that close. Cherylann, been thinking about that lens for portraits after you told me about it--cheap and good!
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
An actual close up with grain or noise for mood is different than a regular picture that was cropped into a close up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Susan Jane Allen Contact Susan Jane Allen Susan Jane Allen's Gallery |
I see! So, the more you magnify a photograph, the more noise appears--and that's the purpose of your question. Okay, got it. Thank you. And actually, I've stopped cropping to magnify now--it's just an exercise in futility and illusion. But one question: What if you have 12 megapixels instead of around 8, like my present camera? Will magnification still present the same noise issues?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||