An attempt at Noise Reduction

[Stagecoach]

Hi again,

Sorry, I don't know why a raw unprocessed image would appear pixelated. I looked in drop box and the file size is 33.4 MB so that the image was 1600 pixels doesn't make sense to me, but it could be me.

Hopefully the brains can advise

As for the minor birds they were on my lawn stealing worms.

Grahame

[Richard Lundberg]

The dropbox image was full size, not 1680. Not sure why he saw it small. From the parameters you stated, that's why post processing exists, You couldn't have done much more with the camera settings. After I did my tweaks I thought it looked reasonable. I went back into PS and used the noise reduction but it didn't do anything to improve it that I could see. Remove jpg artifacts seemed to degrade it.

[Brownbear]

Perhaps you downloaded the jpeg? (See Richard's comment below (thanks Richard, good to know)

Worms! What an interesting subject!

Hopefully the brains can advise

As for the minor birds they were on my lawn stealing worms.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

The dropbox image was full size, not 1680. Not sure why he saw it small. From the parameters you stated, that's why post processing exists, You couldn't have done much more with the camera settings. After I did my tweaks I thought it looked reasonable. I went back into PS and used the noise reduction but it didn't do anything to improve it that I could see. Remove jpg artifacts seemed to degrade it.

Richard, the size makes no sense to me especially as it was a 33 meg file. Can we see your version down loaded at 1000 px wide to get an idea of the possibilities with this image?

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Hi again,

Sorry, I don't know why a raw unprocessed image would appear pixelated. I looked in drop box and the file size is 33.4 MB so that the image was 1600 pixels doesn't make sense to me, but it could be me.

Hi Christina,

I know why now, because the version of ViewNX that I opened it with is not compatible with the newer Nikon NEF format and not only shows the wrong data but when you use its converter to work on it in PSE it corrupts the file to look pixelated .

Latest version now downloaded, works, but just have to get used to the appalling colour scheme.

Grahame

[Richard Lundberg]

I suggest reading the tutorial on macro and extender. You said you were using a 1.4. You might be shooting yourself in the foot by using extender for these birds. Setting exposure 2plus isn't enough obviously and focus isn't right. The tutorial explains the pros and cons.

[Shadowman]

Has anyone heard of or tried image stacking to reduce noise?

http://www.ezbackgrounds.com/blog/no...-photoshop.php

[Richard Lundberg]

Here is the cropped, motion blur removed, focussed, and two more stops of exposure image I referred to earlier. Dropbox turned out to be simple, just like me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...of2exp%2B2.tif

Maybe you were using autofocus? Don't do that, the algorithm isn't keeping up. Surely infinity focus is ok. Take off the extender, aperture priority at f/8, see what happens. And yeah, more light.

[Richard Lundberg]

Here is the cropped, motion blur removed, focussed, and two more stops of exposure image I referred to earlier. Dropbox turned out to be simple, just like me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...of2exp%2B2.tif

Maybe you were using autofocus? Don't do that, the algorithm isn't keeping up. Surely infinity focus is ok. Take off the extender, aperture priority at f/8, see what happens. And yeah, more light.

[ajohnw]

I had no problem downloading the full nef.

Anyway. Left exposure as is to try and keep the eagles colours.

I used rawtherapee to crop and reduce the noise as it's the best one I have found - wavelets in fourier space. Then sharpened at double it's default sharpening setting and increased the amount with the sharpening cut off well down the tone range. Then saved as 16bit png. I could have done the curves work here too but am still more comfortable with Fotoxx for some things.

Then spot white balanced on the sky and applied a curves change. Roughly doubled the slope through the region of interest and dragged down the highlight end, reduced size, sharpened slightly and tone mapped. Not much point in the latter really as much of the bird is well under exposed. That gave this



I should probably have made very slight adjustments to the black point really but that wouldn't really bring up any extra detail.

It's worked fairly well were there is detail to bring up but the exposure is well out. I'd guess matrix metering and about + 1 1/2 stops compensation. It's possible to set the camera up like that especially in P mode on the sky before taking a shot. In this case blowing an even sky doesn't matter. If lighting changes a bit P mode will correct when the an actual shot is taken. At some point there might be a need to think about the 1 1/2 stops but back lit like this that is likely to work out on subjects without that much tonal range anyway - subject to the cameras meterin - that is where pre view comes in. Use the camera and find out.

If the shot had been well exposed and I noticed slight haloing I'd probably go back and start again or blend it out a little with a weak blur brush. It often pays to do a quick PP like this one and see what the result is like and then start again. Not an easy task but the back ground could be selected and toned / coloured as required. It's usually best to do this on the full sized images as later reductions should mask selection problems.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all.

Grahame

That is good to know in case I ever use drop box again.

John

Thank you for the link.

Richard & John

Thank you for your edits. It is very helpful for me to see what can be done with an image and to know that it is just not possible to save some images. I've been trying to get some shots of eagles in flight for quite some time now. It was overcast and foggy. I tried my best but I just couldn't manage the exposure (and focusing was hard in the fog, too)

Richard. I did try aperture priority a few times but it kept choosing shutter speeds of 1/60 - 1/200 second which obviously wouldn't do. And I tried spot metering as well. The 2nd image was taken at F4, 300 mm no extendor. Continuous auto focus. I don't have the skills to use manual focus on birds in flight. Eagles fly very high in the sky or sit up in high trees so it is hard to get close. However, all of your feedback will stand me in good stead for my next try.

John... I think your edit is very good. Thank you for showing and explaining the steps. They will serve me well for the day I manage a better shot.

Thank you everyone! PS I did manage a decent shot of the fog.

[Downrigger]

Very useful thread. Thanks for setting it up and pushing it along, Christina. John's solution quite amazing, instructive. Good news for you Christina, you have an excuse for going out to look for better situations for shots that hold up better without extensive PP - have fun!

[ajohnw]

Spot metering is usually best avoided. It's likely to send what you meter to mid grey. Centre weighted average can be better but many cameras don't implement it well - too much average. The fancy metering set ups do attempt to balance the shot rather than average to mid grey - or so it seems to me. Shoot to the right works well where it is demonstrated - usually a shot where something of moderate size in it is white and hasn't much detail. Apart from that it's another rule that often wont work out. It's much better to think in terms of a reliable metering set up and compensation. The most reliable metering is almost bound to be what ever whole frame system the camera offers. Matrix, ESP or etc.

Not that I have any strong opinions on the subject. It's a case of being fed up of reading do it this way and all will be ok automatically. Pundits can be a pain in the neck.

John
-

[Geoff F]

Well I have had a quick go at editing the flying eagle. After realising that I had to convert the file to DNG before I could open it!

And I haven't done anything about the sky; just concentrated on the bird.



My attempt to get a balance between sharpness and noise started with my trick of creating two copies from the original Raw file. One for the OK areas and another slightly darker version with more noise reduction for the noisy areas.

Then combined the two with a mask and some editing with a soft edged 30% opacity brush until I obtained a sharpness/noise balance in the critical areas. Then combined the two images.

When it came to sharpening I created a duplicate image (with Luminosity Blend Mode) to suit the areas which needed most sharpening. Which, of course, introduced some noise back into the problem areas.

So to create some selective sharpening I added a Reveal All Mask and gently painted over those bad areas with a 'black brush' until the sharpening was sufficiently reduced without losing too much detail.

Maybe you could get away with a fraction darker, but I was attempting to retain as much detail as possible.

From the angle of the shot is is impossible to create an absolutely perfect image but it can certainly be improved.

And with regard to shooting birds; what some bird photographers do is to play around with experimental shots beforehand using whatever subjects are available. Then switch to manual settings based on the trial shots.

Which is all very well when you have the opportunity to experiment first; instead of the usual scenario of 'look at that' pick up camera and shoot before that one and only bird has passed!

[Richard Lundberg]

Ok, good, no extender. But why autofocus? Surely you can set the focus at infinity for the distance you have. With a long lens you're going to need the highest shutter speed you can manage. No disrespect to others who used all kinds of tricks , but all it needed was blur removal, focus, and more exposure.

[Stagecoach]

No disrespect to others who used all kinds of tricks , but all it needed was blur removal, focus, and more exposure.

Richard,

Can you explain why all this image required was blur removal and focus? I found it needed a reasonable amount of noise removal.

To me the focus seems pretty good if you look at the head and beak area. Admittedly the extremities are not as sharp which can be caused by either motion blur or DoF which some would say enhances the image, are you attempting to solve these areas?

As a learning site I'm sure others would like to see posted here what you have achieved with your method for a comparison at similar pixel size to enhance our knowledge.

Grahame

[Richard Lundberg]

You can see my result in the dropbox link I posted. Photoshop's noise removal didn't improve it. I used Focus Magic to remove motion blur (4) and oof (2) and increased exposure by +2, as I previously posted. I cropped it just to reduce the size, not for aesthetics.

[Brownbear]

Geoff,

Thank you for taking the time to show me another edit. I did try editing the eagle following your steps as best as I could in Adobe Photoshop. Even though I now have an understanding of layers and selective edits I'm still at the beginner level. I found everything if your guide, except for the blend mode for luminosity. My attempt is not very good so I am not going to post it, but I want you to know that your example was very helpful, as is this one which I will try one day. I always use manual for birds, and when I'm struggling as I was on this day I always check out other modes to help me figure out things.

Richard

With eagles yes it is likely that I could set my focus to infinity, but not for all birds because the goal for me is always to get as close as I can. And you never know where they are going to fly, ie; sky, trees, river...I'm going to post in the general area to see if others use manual focus for birds in flight. I've tried it once and I found it extraordinarily difficult to do, but it may just be that I don't know any better.

Grahame... .thank you.. yes for me there was definitely an unacceptable level of noise in the image.


A question(s) for others....

1. In reviewing my nearly there eagle shots I noticed that the ones that were photographed in a dark scene, ie; with a dark background (forest and river and rocks) had the histogram on the left hand side (all of it) but these shots do not appear to be as badly underexposed as the images I have posted here, for which the histogram is primarily on the right side, except for a small clump on the far left hand side (just missing clipping)... So upping the exposure about 1/2 to 1 stop is all that is needed. Still noisy but not nearly as bad as the rest.

It seems to me that the opposite should be true. ie if most of the histogram is on the left side the image should be more poorly exposed than an image with a histogram with mostly on the right side... Any explanations?

2. For a dark subject in low light, say an eagle or a black bear it seems to me that the only leeway one has with an acceptable exposure is about .5 stops of underexposure and if one can't manage that while trying to photograph the subject best to move onto something else?

Mark... Thank you for sharing. I also think it is an informative thread from which I've learned several new things.

PS If anyone is inclined to share their images of dark subjects shot in low light with high iso's that are just a wee bit underexposed (ie; not to the same extent as mine) that they managed to make a nice image of with with normal post processing please post and share. Thank you.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Richard. I missed your link, and yes there is less noise, (speckles) and it is sharper so that lets me know I need to keep working on my focusing skills. But both images lack quality so that lets me know I need to do better, and I'm hoping better light will help me with that. I have posted about manual focus for birds in flight to see what others say.

Truly appreciated that you took the time to show me. And yes, Drop Box seems simple enough to use.

You can see my result in the dropbox link I posted. Photoshop's noise removal didn't improve it. I used Focus Magic to remove motion blur (4) and oof (2) and increased exposure by +2, as I previously posted. I cropped it just to reduce the size, not for aesthetics.

[Colin Southern]

Maybe you were using autofocus? Don't do that, the algorithm isn't keeping up. Surely infinity focus is ok. Take off the extender, aperture priority at f/8, see what happens. And yeah, more light.

Won't work.

You need to open-up to keep the shutterspeed up, and with a long lens and wide-open aperture the DoF is modest, at best.

Eg

- 200mm lens @ F2.8 - with the bird at 30m, DoF is only 3.8m, and the hyperfocal distance is 471m.

- With a 200mm lens at F8 the hyperfocal distance is still 167m, and a good shutterspeed of, say, 1/2000th @ F2.8 will have dropped to 1/250th (or alternatively you'll end up increasing the ISO from 100 to 800, which will start to eat into required dynamic range considerably.

Look at the difference in the focus between subject and background; no way even at F8 you'll get any significant detail at the working distances you'd need if focusing to infinity.