Photo Critique Club

Post #1784 - Which one do you like best? Please vote and explain why in a reply


  • Total voters
    37
Can you explain to me what ‘noise’ means, and how or when to use ‘noise reduction’ when making basic edits with a phone camera?
Noise is unwanted artifacts in a photo. (grain, hot spots, stuff that detracts from the image.) A number of things can cause it (high ISO, improper exposure settings, light leaks from improperly fitted lenses, the list goes on.

Here's an example. There are a few issues with this on top of the noise, but we'll just cover the noise aspect :) I've gotten better since 2013.

I shot this in the dark at a very high ISO (6400). The sensor on that camera wasn't really happy shooting high ISO in the dark, so it's a noisy image. Note how grainy the mountains at the bottom look, and there's a lot of color noise in the star field. That's harder to spot because it blends in with the actual stars.

DSC_8876.jpg


Here's the same image with some noise correction done in Lightroom. You can see the mountains look far less pixelated and the overall image is smoother and less jaggy.

DSC_8876-2.jpg


More on noise here:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/what-is-noise-in-photography.html
 
Last edited:
Noise is unwanted artifacts in a photo. (grain, hot spots, stuff that detracts from the image.) A number of things can cause it (high ISO, improper exposure settings, light leaks from improperly fitted lenses, the list goes on.

Here's an example. There are a few issues with this on top of the noise, but we'll just cover the noise aspect :) I've gotten better since 2013.

I shot this in the dark at a very high ISO (6400). The sensor on that camera wasn't really happy shooting high ISO in the dark, so it's a noisy image. Note how grainy the mountains at the bottom look, and there's a lot of color noise in the star field. That's harder to spot because it blends in with the actual stars.

View attachment 4261489

Here's the same image with some noise correction done in Lightroom. You can see the mountains look far less pixelated and the overall image is smoother and less jaggy.

View attachment 4261490

More on noise here:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/what-is-noise-in-photography.html
Wow- what a difference
 
The star images in the noise discussion reminded me of my last foray into astrophotography. I seem to get the itch semi-annually. For this photograph here: it was summer and I used a big light to light up the trees nearest to me. I didn't really like the results with lighting the trees up. But I wanted to be able to see the trees in the apple orchard I was in. Otherwise, the tree line looked really dark and blurry (because it was windy). But this tree looked like it was in front of a green screen or as if I photoshopped it in. I do like the little apples on this apple tree framing the milky way.

I'm still after some good summer time results.
We get clearer stars in the winter where I live, but the leafed out trees are an element I'd like to add into my compositions.

Any thoughts about it? Have you all tried astrophotography? If you have, have you tried to include foreground elements?

astro comp5 082025.jpg
 
The star images in the noise discussion reminded me of my last foray into astrophotography. I seem to get the itch semi-annually. For this photograph here: it was summer and I used a big light to light up the trees nearest to me. I didn't really like the results with lighting the trees up. But I wanted to be able to see the trees in the apple orchard I was in. Otherwise, the tree line looked really dark and blurry (because it was windy). But this tree looked like it was in front of a green screen or as if I photoshopped it in. I do like the little apples on this apple tree framing the milky way.

I'm still after some good summer time results.
We get clearer stars in the winter where I live, but the leafed out trees are an element I'd like to add into my compositions.

Any thoughts about it? Have you all tried astrophotography? If you have, have you tried to include foreground elements?

View attachment 4262658
If all you're trying to do is isolate motion blur from the wind, use your light like a flash. Pop it quickly to isolate the leaves and eliminate the motion. It only takes a little bit. You could even hand-hold a flash and just pop it once or twice. Same effect.


I did this one using a red light on the trees. Just a quick pop, and really the reason I did it was because there were these nasty orange sodium lights washing out the ground. I wanted to try and counter them a bit.

Foolish_lores.jpg



Your other option is to take some shots of the trees while it's still light out, and then composite your sky and foreground together. It's pretty common with astro shots.

That's how I did this shot. Foreground is a super long exposure to get enough light into it, and then I composited in the sky using shorter images from the same session. It's like a 1 minute exposure on the foreground and 20 sec on the sky.
elvis_milky_way_loreswm.jpg
 
If all you're trying to do is isolate motion blur from the wind, use your light like a flash. Pop it quickly to isolate the leaves and eliminate the motion. It only takes a little bit. You could even hand-hold a flash and just pop it once or twice. Same effect.


I did this one using a red light on the trees. Just a quick pop, and really the reason I did it was because there were these nasty orange sodium lights washing out the ground. I wanted to try and counter them a bit.

View attachment 4262672


Your other option is to take some shots of the trees while it's still light out, and then composite your sky and foreground together. It's pretty common with astro shots.

That's how I did this shot. Foreground is a super long exposure to get enough light into it, and then I composited in the sky using shorter images from the same session. It's like a 1 minute exposure on the foreground and 20 sec on the sky.
View attachment 4262673
I will give those ideas a shot. Love those two photos. Thanks for the tips!
I did stack the image that I added in my post. That was a stacked sky, with some long exposure shots of the trees. Just didn't quite work out as refined as I had hoped.
 
I love the bokeh in the first one. it's a little montonic and flat for my taste but mechanically it's a great shot.

In the second one, the lighting gives nice contrast, but it's still a little flat on the depth of field. You might also try to remove that grass stem in the foreground.

These are just little nit-picky things, though. You did good. :)
 

I love the bokeh in the first one. it's a little montonic and flat for my taste but mechanically it's a great shot.

In the second one, the lighting gives nice contrast, but it's still a little flat on the depth of field. You might also try to remove that grass stem in the foreground.

These are just little nit-picky things, though. You did good. :)

Yes, I feel the same as azurbanclucker...
you did well.

I like the position of the bunny in the frame compared to the direction it is looking.
:thumbsup

So I would personally just make some colour edits (especially to remore background highlights) in post production to put more focus on the subject matter...

I personally feel that the second image could be cropped in closer, bringing more attention to the bunny's eye? And to straighten out the "lines"? But this is a suggestion and not an issue...

And again, just make a few colour edits...

Edited to add: the blade of grass does not bother me if the image is cropped correctly to make it a feature, which in case I actually like that it is there, and therefore think that it was well captured in contrast to the bunny. Adds texture.
 
Last edited:
SPAM!!!!

We're starting up a new 52-week photography challenge series. Info
here. It will feature a rotating subject and challenge weekly. This is a great chance to learn or improve your photography skills in a number of subjects.

Join us!
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom