wda Posted November 3, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This year I went to a friends halloween party dressed as a 1930's newspaper photographer (vest, fedora, & M8). I took pictures all night with the M8 (50mm f2 lens) and today experimented with processing them as B&W in Lightroom. Still getting used to the B&W workflow, but I'm pretty pleased with the results. Any suggestions on making the noise look better? The first few shots are especially muddy. 2009 Halloween Catwood, as an immediate and no-cost step, why not try Lightroom's noise reduction feature? Did you shoot raw capture? If not, do so in the future for these sorts of pictures. You have much more flexibility in post-processing. If you consider a noise reduction plugin, put Noise Ninja on your list. It analyzes a picture in a series and produces the optimum noise reduction possible. If you like the result, you can apply that same treatment to other identically exposed pictures in the sequence. Other comments are equally valid. It does seem that you have been intent on shooting subjects regardless of how the lighting falls. Often it pays to wait, observe and shoot when subject and lighting are good. You may have fewer pictures, but they will all be worth viewing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Hi wda, Take a look here Halloween with an M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
archi4 Posted November 3, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 3, 2009 Catwood, Contrary to many, I really liked quite a few of your images, and for me they lose exactly what I liked about them when processed with noise reduction. "des gouts et des couleurs......." Maybe it's because they remind me of when I pushed Kodak XX using Dektol paper developer in the 50's maurice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted November 3, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 3, 2009 In my opinion, you would benefit much more from a good photography course than a noise reduction program. You need to work on focus technique, exposure determination, composition, post production and editing before you get into noise reduction. Either put some effort into improving your photography skills or get rid of the M8 and buy a point & shoot. I'm afraid I have to agree... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 3, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 3, 2009 Whilst agreeing with your statement for many parts, there's still no need to be rude. I apologize if that wasn't your intention but at least in my eyes that's the way it got through.. The exposure in the OP's pics was definately way out. Not a pro or "uber photographer" myself, but I'd say even a little "chimping" every now and then would help the OP. At least then you'll know what's going wrong... Other than that it just takes lots of practise and if interested/available then a course or two in photography could be usefull. Still, saying "take some courses" doesn't always help, like fex in my case where there are no courses available.. not in this neck of the woods For the OP: observe your images and other ppls (in this case halloween) images, listen to advices given on forums (even if some come across rude) and shoot a lot! The intent was not to be rude--just honest. Too often people in forums like this get coddled and patted on the back for work that has no redeeming value as art or photography. If people can't handle hearing truthful comments about the work they publicly post, then they shouldn't put it out there for everyone to see in the first place. There is nothing in my original comment that I would retract. On the contrary, in my opinion the ultimate rudeness is giving someone a false sense of the quality of their work in order to spare hurt feelings. Incidentally, there are courses available to both you and Catwood. Do a brief search on-line and you'll find more photography courses than you could complete in a lifetime. ps--Nagui, those are some great images! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjphoto Posted November 3, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 3, 2009 I saw the images and think they are some of the best i've seen on this forum! Thanks, Tim Tim Jones Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlindstrom Posted November 3, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 3, 2009 The intent was not to be rude--just honest. Too often people in forums like this get coddled and patted on the back for work that has no redeeming value as art or photography. If people can't handle hearing truthful comments about the work they publicly post, then they shouldn't put it out there for everyone to see in the first place. There is nothing in my original comment that I would retract. On the contrary, in my opinion the ultimate rudeness is giving someone a false sense of the quality of their work in order to spare hurt feelings. Well, as stated it just got across rude (in my eyes). Nothing wrong with instructing/telling the truth about somebodys pictures. Ultimately, the only way one can develop theirs skills is by learning from their mistakes. That being said, it's definitely one of the problems of these forums that things come out rude, when no actual pun was intended. Still on the subject of art/photography, it's also a matter of ones personal taste. What is worthless to some, is a treasure for others.. Even in this very thread there has been encouraging comments reg. the photos in guestion. Personally I don't like digital noise and can't really compare it to grain.. thus the pictures weren't really to my liking. But that's just me Still as a pure hobbyist and not photog god, I've gotten similar comments at one time or another.. So I tend to feel for the OP in that sense. Constructive critique is the way forwards instead of getting put down (though as stated above, that was not the intention here). Incidentally, there are courses available to both you and Catwood. Do a brief search on-line and you'll find more photography courses than you could complete in a lifetime. There propably are many courses available online. But I'd rather attend a course in person. I reckon I will get more out of an instructor led seminar that online reading.. Unfortunately such courses are quite rare in Finland (where I live), especially outside Helsinki area.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 3, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) There propably are many courses available online. But I'd rather attend a course in person. I reckon I will get more out of an instructor led seminar that online reading.. Unfortunately such courses are quite rare in Finland (where I live), especially outside Helsinki area.. There are more than just online reading type courses. There are several that are interactive with live chat. Anyone with a desire to learn can find what they need. There are also some very good courses available as CD/DVD series. I agree, it's not the same as being in a classroom type situation with a live instructor, but it is still an option when nothing else is available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted November 3, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 3, 2009 That's the work for a 1.4 lens at least. And would not be an easy task as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted November 3, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 3, 2009 This year I went to a friends halloween party dressed as a 1930's newspaper photographer (vest, fedora, & M8). I took pictures all night with the M8 (50mm f2 lens) and today experimented with processing them as B&W in Lightroom. Still getting used to the B&W workflow, but I'm pretty pleased with the results. Any suggestions on making the noise look better? The first few shots are especially muddy. 2009 Halloween Most of the images for me have too much noise, which I expect is due to underexposing at 2500ISO (I am guessing here). If you use 2500ISO set to overexpose by 1/2 or 2/3 EV (unlike the other ISO settings that can stand 0, -1/3 EV or even -2/3 EV). The digital noise as such is not the main issue it is the banding which is the main problem and C1LE or whatever may do somewhat better as the first processing tool. Moreover I would tend to push the contrast to a high value and hide the banding noise in darkness where it belongs, finally you need to mess around with chroma and intensity noise filters. But rule 1 is that photography implies the availability of photons - big apertures, long exposures etc. No light no pics. See here for some examples - I am still not happy with this either but the results are slightly less unacceptable than my earlier attempts (note I used 0EV by accident for most pictures). Anyway instead of doing a course I would keep trying, experimenting and optimising yourself first. There are plenty of people around here that are willing to help (each other). A course only makes sense when you have a clear idea in you mind on what you want to learn. If you go to a course come prepared and with an aim - this is a good general principle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschone Posted November 3, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 3, 2009 Catwood, I think some of your images are very good actually. They show emotion and tell a story. You've been shooting in a pretty much impossible situation , a 1.4 lens or even a noctilux would not have changed anything. The images show character and I am sure if the light was right (and the alcohol would have been a little bit less :-)) you would have come up with some great images. I don't think you need to do a photography course, although it might be a good thing for some other people on this forum, since good photography is really not about aesthetics but much more about content and emotion and a story on which it is based. Technique is just a very, very small part of photography.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk60 Posted November 3, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 3, 2009 HeyHalloween with M8, i like that !!! [ATTACH]171208[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]171209[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]171210[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]171211[/ATTACH] M8 Summilux 35 Asph SF58 Nagui, Awesome shots!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted November 3, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 3, 2009 shootist - you're absolutely right, way underexposed at iso 2500. When you use Neat Image do you color correct & push exposure first in Lightroom, then export a jpg to denoise, or do you do an immediate DNG to jpg conversion, denoise, then play with the jpg in Lightroom? Or is there any denoise software which works directly on the DNG? I never ever convert/process a DNG to JPG unless I'm posting that image to my photo site or to this or other forums. I always make a PSD of the DNG file and work on that, of course that is after I have opened the DNG with ACR and then in PS. I always reduce noise first, that is after I have done some minor edits in ACR (WB contrast and the like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 4, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 4, 2009 Technique is just a very, very small part of photography.... Ansel Adams just rolled over in his grave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted November 4, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 4, 2009 Surly technique is everything? While good kit is a bonus and the 'perfect moment' is luck... or sheer determination (the long wait or the many returns). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted November 4, 2009 Share #35 Posted November 4, 2009 ..... Technique is just a very, very small part of photography.... Actually, it becomes only a very, very small part of photography after one has gained some mastery of technique. ............. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 4, 2009 Share #36 Posted November 4, 2009 I don't think you need to do a photography course, although it might be a good thing for some other people on this forum... Clearly, that was directed at me since you and a couple of others are determined to make me the bad guy here. If that's your opinion, that's fine. You're entitled to it and it makes no difference to me one way or the other. ...since good photography is really not about aesthetics but much more about content and emotion and a story on which it is based. Technique is just a very, very small part of photography.... I don't question your motives because I'm sure you think you're being helpful and encouraging, however, in my opinion this is some of the most destructive advice anyone has ever given on this forum. You have just told Catwood that learning his craft is not important, that it doesn't matter if he knows how to expose properly so as to get the best out of his images, that focusing his camera is only a secondary consideration and that learning post processing techniques is knowledge that will just come along by itself, but if not--no big deal. Your message is don't bother to read or take courses. If your images have emotion, that's all that matters. I'm wondering why someone who feels this way would bother to use Leica equipment. Why spend the money for an M8 and that great glass if image quality is just a "very, very small part of photography." Yes, I know you said "technique," but image quality comes from a combination of technique and equipment. I would never dispute that content and emotion are critical components of good photography, but both are lost when combined with image quality as poor as what was shown to us here. I don't say that to denegrate Catwood, but to motivate him to work on his technique. If that kind of criticism is out of bounds here, then I guess I'm on the wrong forum. In the many years I've been a participant here, it's been my impression that the vast majority of members place a high degree of importance on image quality and technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
catwood Posted November 4, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted November 4, 2009 As do I - which is why I was asking for advice on the best way to salvage the horrible image quality of these very underexposed images. I know that the focus and lighting was poor on many of them too - but I recognize that there is nothing to be done about that after the fact. Noise, brightness, contrast, etc - there are things to be done there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gverdon Posted November 4, 2009 Share #38 Posted November 4, 2009 Please, allow me to second each and every Brent's word. Gérald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted November 5, 2009 Share #39 Posted November 5, 2009 This year I went to a friends halloween party dressed as a 1930's newspaper photographer (vest, fedora, & M8). For both authenticity and lighting you'd have done better to take a 5x4 press camera, six double dark slides and a dozen flashbulbs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted November 6, 2009 Share #40 Posted November 6, 2009 just for a film comparison, these were shot with an m7 on out of date kodak hie stock which is around iso 100 with a b+w 093 ir filter attached. the effect is not that dissimilar and although also quite muddy they have a quality i like. i think the way you have captured some of your images is quite evocative, unfussy and creative but on the other hand, i could also have probably done this on a lomo.. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/102286-halloween-with-an-m8/?do=findComment&comment=1105298'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.