Noise reduction software usage

[UrsaMajor]

Hello Don,

Have you had a chance to look at that image to see if you think that there is room for much improvement?

I realize that the large dynamic range between the shadows and the sunset sky probably creates some severe restrictions on what can be done, but I have no feel for whether or not there is much chance for getting significantly more out of the image than I have already done.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Please resend the files as the download link has expired and I have cleaned my drives of temporary files. I must admit that this thread completely slipped my mind and I do apologize. Please do resend the files because I am anxious to see what can be done. If you send the files tonight I will be able to post tonight.

I sent two files to you at your RockRiverFootball address via YouSendIt.com. As is probably obvious, one of them is the original RAW file and the other is a full-sized JPG that is the closest I have been able to come to capturing the scene as it was in person and as I would like it to print. It does bring out the riverboat on the left side of the image, and the boat sheds under the bridge, which are both a standard part of a river scene there. For a print that is for my own consumption, I think that I can live with what I have been able to get out of the file myself, but I would really kick myself if I did not investigate whether a better image can be obtained.

Any help you can provide will be appreciated.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Hi Tom, just a few comments before I post some samples.

1. A very difficult image to NR.
2. Better exposed shadows in the first place would yield a better result.
3. I applied simple NR to your JPG and it makes a big difference but it is not the best result that can be yielded.

. . . .

8. If you want me to remove the raw or full size file links from this forum post just say the word.

Here we go...

The ARW:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/700292.ARW

Tom's Edit:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/700292.JPG

My NR version of Tom's Edit:

http://www.minoltaphotos.com/notme/tom/ ... or-Tom.jpg


It's fairly easy to select out a few elements if you wanted to only apply NR to say the sky, the trees, and the water. If you were to do this you could make the sky and water glassy smooth while leaving a bit more detail in the structures. I tried a few different things on this one but the bottom line on this one is how does it look printed at 30 inches. Well, IMHO I would trade a bit of distant detail and a even a touch of softness to get rid of some of the noise because without eliminating a good portion of the noise in that one you are going to end up with a fairly speckled/mottled 30 inch print.

Again, this is just a single NI NR pass on the your full JPG w/no sharpening applied using almost default NI settings. No other adjustments were made to the image and a touch of contrast adj would help to 'equalize' the filtered results. Reworking the image fom raw, and applying selective (localized) NR and sharpening on specific areas of the image would yield an even smoother and more detailed result. That said, for a couple minute NR job on your JPG NI has done relatively well here.

Hope that gives you a bit of an idea on what areas of the image can be improved relatively easily.

Hi Don,

Thank you very much for your efforts. As I suspected, my own attempt fell well short of what can be done by someone with skill and experience.
In reply to a couple of your points above:

1. I had the feeling that pulling detail out of the image while avoiding noise would be difficult because of the large dynamic range. It was certainly that way for me, but I was not positive that it would be as much of a challenge for someone with experience.

2. I took a half dozen shots at different exposures in an attempt to find the optimum one that would minimize the effects of that large range, and hopefully get some detail in the shadows without losing the highlights. The one that I chose was not great, but it appeared to be the best compromise of all of those. If I had known that this image was going to come along, I would have brought my tripod to allow combining different exposures to get the benefit of HDR software. However this was a completely unplanned image that I saw when I came out of a restaurant after dinner, and I did not have a tripod with me.

3. You may not consider it the best result that could be obtained, but it is visibly better than what I had done. I can see that if I expect to ever deal with an image like this in the future, I need to learn how to use dedicated NR software, and will need to practice with it until I am capable of using it with some degree of competence. I am well aware that results obtained through the use of a tool come from the skill of the user, not just the tool itself, but you have certainly been a good salesman here for Neat Image.

. . .

8. No problem. Actually, I get an error message when I attempt to access the entire file as tweaked by you - and your link to my own JPG also gives an error message. Are the links correct?

Judging from what you have posted, I think I may go ahead and get a print from the file that you created. From the crops you posted, it looks as if that file might give me a print that would be very acceptable for the wall of my study. If I ever reach the point that I feel that my own skill at noise reduction has improved enough to get a better result with some hours of work, I'll revisit this image and see if I really can do better.

Thanks again for everything.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Hi Tom, the links to the large files are now working. Yes, NI is a great tool that I and others have been using for many years and I could not operate without using it or another similar top NR program.

Glad to be of service and happy shooting to you, Tom.

-Sonolta

Hi Don,

Thanks again. I downloaded your edit of my file and then uploaded it to Adorama for a 20x30 print, using their profile for poster lustre paper to create the printer file in Lightroom. I'm quite curious to see how that print turns out - for several reasons.

One reason is that in all of my color-managed software, the image for the printer looks like the one you posted. However, in a viewer that is not color-managed, the printer file has a very strong purple tint. I've never seen such a large difference in my (admittedly limited) experience. Naturally, based on Pako's recommendation I checked the option to have the folks at Adorama inspect the image, but there is nothing like skin tone in the image against which they can judge, so I don't see how they would know that the purple is not supposed to be there.

Of course, if color management works as it is supposed to do, what comes out of their machine will look like the screen image in my color managed applications. I'm just fretting because of the large difference that printer profile seems to make. Now you see why I have never had any illusions about whether or not I would be able to make a living with a camera - I'm definitely better off having chosen engineering many decades ago.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[Birma]

Very informative and useful thread guys - one for my bookmarks. Thanks very much.

[stevecim]

Tom, How did the print look?

[UrsaMajor]

Tom, How did the print look?

Hi Steve,

I don't know yet. According to an e-mail from Adorama, it was mailed to me on Tuesday, so I should get it soon. (I'm on the West Coast of the US - literally - and Adorama is on the East Coast, so it has about 4500 km to travel.) Since you asked, I'll post a comment here when the print arrives.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[UrsaMajor]

Tom, How did the print look?

On an overall basis the print comes very close to what I wanted, and I am planning to hang it on the wall in its current form. I may go back at some later time and see if I can do a better job with the post-processing, but at the moment I am going to adhere to the old saying, "Better is the enemy of good enough!"

To be clear about the reasons for the above statement - the noise reduction that Don did on the file gave me a 30x45 cm print that is completely acceptable in regard to noise, and the color of the print from Adorama is as I remember the actual scene. (I said above that the image being sent to the Adorama printer had a lot of erroneous purple in it when I applied their printer profile and looked at the image in a non-color-managed viewer. The print has none of that false purple, so the color management system at Adorama appears to have functioned as it is intended to work.)

The primary area in which I will attempt to improve the print in the future will be the image brightness. I knew when I started that a reflective print will not match the brightness of the computer screen, but I did not allow quite enough for that. In daylight the shadow areas of the print are fine, but under artificial lighting at night they tend to get a little too dark and lose some of the image that I would like to keep visible. That is completely separate from the issue that started this thread, and I mention it only to show how much more I have to learn.

With best wishes,
- Tom -