Digital noise: Horrid or just obnoxious.

[tbob]

I posted this on my facebook page, but only after long agonizing over the hideous noise levels. ( I had to draw a LOT of information from the shadows to make this work) My wife finally persuaded me to post it. She said the vast majority of those viewing it would not even see the noise, and furthermore would care not a whit. She was right. I had to point out the horrid noise to one friend and she then accused me of being a bit anal.

Still think it is a bit much. I regard these as sketches and not finished work to be published. So facebook is as far as this will ever get.

I have learned there is little reward to be had taking shots of the northern light unless they are truly bright to the eye. And not bit of a glow so maybe I can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I welcome any comments and critique.

[Saorsa]

Have you considered painting the barn with light?

[chauncey]

I've never had the pleasure of seeing one of those but...
have you considered taking more than one image and blending them.

[Shadowman]

It's visible only if you pixel peep, from a distance it just looks like atmosphere. Nice capture.

[tbob]

Have you considered painting the barn with light?

There was a gibbous moon,albeit diffused with some thin cloud, so I had some light. Aside from that, would I need to use truck or car headlights? A flashlight just seems a bit feeble for the task. The problem is this barn is quite a bit off the road, I draw the line at driving across peoples fields. I need a full moon and bright northern lights for the plan to work properly.

[tbob]

I've never had the pleasure of seeing one of those but...
have you considered taking more than one image and blending them.

Perhaps possible if I had a program that allows such things. Only have Aperture. HDR is out. These exposures are 25 to 30 seconds long. The barn would cooperate but the aurora would change too much in the time span needed.

[tbob]

It's visible only if you pixel peep, from a distance it just looks like atmosphere. Nice capture.

I am afraid that is the root of the problem. I cannot seem avoid close scrutiny and then I am put off the image.

It is possible to get the best of both worlds in one image, just need brighter northern lights and a bit of a moon in clear skies. There was a bit of cloud over the moon in the first image. This one has a clear half moon. Less moon but more light. Still noise but within acceptable levels to my eyes.

As well like a twit I forgot to use a high ISO. This was shot using 1600, the first was 200.

[Jimr1961]

If you want to play with exposure stacking for other shots, get Hugin and Enfuse GUI. They're free. Hugin does panorama stitching, but there are a couple of programs within Hugin that does alignment and stacking very well. The Enfuse GUI is merely a front-end for these programs. They are command line which is a pain. The GUI allows you to set the sliders for exposure or focus stacking.

If you want to do real HDR, Luminance HDR is open source and free. I don't know how well it does because I haven't played around with it yet. Not much of an HDR guy, but if done light handed, I've seen some pleasing stuff.

[Bobobird]

You might want to take a look at the work and tutorials by Jimmy McIntyre and Dave Morrow (particularly the latter as he does a lot of night sky stuff). I don't do this stuff but try to keep abreast of techniques etc. The former is also on your 500px place.

[DanK]

The second is beautiful.

Re the first: where there isn't much light, there aren't a lot of alternatives, but there are some. I have never used aperture, but I doubt it will give you many options, since most of the options for processing require the ability to combine images by one means or another. If you used Lightroom, you could enfuse with the Lightroom Enfuse plugin. With any software that handles layers, you could blend two exposures manually.

[rtbaum]

Perhaps not the solution in this situation, but this is a procedure that I am itching to try one of these nights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rltg47Q64W0

[Saorsa]

There was a gibbous moon,albeit diffused with some thin cloud, so I had some light. Aside from that, would I need to use truck or car headlights? A flashlight just seems a bit feeble for the task. The problem is this barn is quite a bit off the road, I draw the line at driving across peoples fields. I need a full moon and bright northern lights for the plan to work properly.

If you have a decent large flash, you could just walk up, flash the front then step across the front and put another shot on the side. Must of them will have a button to flash on demand even if it is off the camera.

You might also try one of those very high power hand lights.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Trevor,

These appear to be an excellent example of why we all should use high ISO (e.g. 1600) and correctly expose when shooting and not low ISO (e.g. 200) and try to recover in PP. The second is much better for noise.


Have you tried Neat Image for Noise reduction?
It is available as a plug-in for Aperture.
You should be able to try before you buy.

Disclosure: I have no connection with Neat Image other than as a paying, satisfied customer (using the Windows + Photoshop Plug-in).


Having seen YouTube videos of the Northern Lights - I agree, the HDR idea is a non-starter, unless just applied to the ground and photo-merged.


I also wondered whether Brian's idea of a multi-million candle power torch/hand light was worth a try (they are much brighter than even standard truck/car headlights), although you'd need to keep it moving to avoid odd beam patterns being projected on to the barn.

Cheers, Dave

[Rob Ekins]

Trevor,
For me the noise is not the real issue but the foreground in both are very soft, if that barn and the grasses were sharper the rest would fall away maybe.

What did you focus on?

[John 2]

Trevor,
For me the noise is not the real issue but the foreground in both are very soft, if that barn and the grasses were sharper the rest would fall away maybe.

What did you focus on?

Plus 1 from me. Is the softness the result of noise reduction? I wouldn't want to brighten the barn too much. IMHO, it's FG interest not the main subject of the shot. If you want to lift it a bit you could take an exposure prior to the main event starting at ISO200 (minimum noise) and lighten it in PP. Then layer the final image (obviously taken from the same spot and tripod mounted) onto the first. Then cut through to the brighter barn (or even some of the FG) underneath using a soft brush eraser set at a low opacity until you get the effect that you want. But for me, apart from the softness, it's fine as it is.

[JBW]

I like it. Seeing as it is half way there anyway could you boost the painted feeling?

[Donald]

Lots of comments, but I haven't seen anyone writing that they can't look at the image because of the nasty noise.

I know that as the creator of the image your probably going in close and looking for every blemish. But, honestly, in the real world, if I see this hanging on a wall, I'm going to stand back so that I see the overall effect of the image. In which case, a bit of noise is not going to get in the way, nor is it going to significantly impact on my viewing pleasure ... or not as the case may be.

[Rebel]

Its a great image, the foreground does seem a bit blurry but I think it adds to the supernatural feel of the image.

[tbob]

Hi Trevor,

These appear to be an excellent example of why we all should use high ISO (e.g. 1600) and correctly expose when shooting and not low ISO (e.g. 200) and try to recover in PP. The second is much better for noise.

I said the appropriate words when I got back and saw I had failed to set the ISO properly. I thought I had but obviously did not select 1600 by pressing OK in the menu. Bitter experience had taught me that fumbling in the dark to set the camera up is a non starter. So I set the gear up before I leave the house or car.

I will be more attentive next time.

It is possible to get a decent image at ISO 200, just need more light. This is by a full moon and bright aurora

[tbob]

Trevor,
For me the noise is not the real issue but the foreground in both are very soft, if that barn and the grasses were sharper the rest would fall away maybe.

What did you focus on?

The focus was set at just less than infinity. The foreground softness is due to noise reduction in NIK Define. The program treated the stubble as noise. Tried some selective noise but nothing worked and decide to just let the foreground be a blur and not a weird pixelated mess.

The image I posted in response to Dave has the same focus setting.