Old 10-16-2013, 01:34 PM   #1
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default To much noise/grain

This was rejected for noise and undersharpness.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...59&key=5673814

I don't see the noise. Could it have been introduced when I did an overall sharpness to the image? If so then I should probably selectively sharpen just the nose of the engine coming towards me. Your thoughts?
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 02:06 PM   #2
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

I can see it in the sky and distant landscape.

Chris Z
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 03:01 PM   #3
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Well I don't think that was enough noise to merit a rejection but yeah, there is some. And go ahead and sharpen the whole thing some. And if you have a program with a noise removal tool use it, but just barely.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 08:38 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

As this s just a mirror image of your accepted shot, just put it aside

Image © Carl Massart
PhotoID: 455257
Photograph © Carl Massart


And don't try to pull a fast one on RP ever again!!!!!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 09:10 PM   #5
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

The nose of the engine on the right needs to be sharpened selectively (not the whole image) and the sky needs to be degrained.

I think if you start over from your original file and sharpen only the nose of the engine without sharpening the whole image, it will turn out better.

BTW - what camera and lens are you using and what is the MP of the camera?
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2013, 11:46 PM   #6
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
BTW - what camera and lens are you using and what is the MP of the camera?
This should help you a little:

Name:  exif.jpg
Views: 326
Size:  402.8 KB
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 12:25 AM   #7
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default

Jim, do you work for the NSA? J/K....Boy, there sure is a lot of info hidden in a digital image.

Janusz, Oops, it made it on.

Image © Carl Massart
PhotoID: 455313
Photograph © Carl Massart


That was the view from the south side of the forest road overpass at Logan Hill only minutes later. Ask Jim if you want to know exactly how much later

Last edited by MassArt Images; 10-17-2013 at 02:15 AM.
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 12:39 AM   #8
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Ok, here is an observation:

You shot this at ISO 1250 (which is awful high for sunlight) and your shutter speed was 1/1250th of a second.

"I" shoot most of my pictures at ISO 200 and the shutter at about 1/250 to 1/500th of a second.

On a bright day the f-stop I use is f-11 and I might go as low as f-7.1, but usually, I would lower the shutter speed because I like the background in focus.

Are these trains running 50 MPH or less?

Because if they are, 1/250 is going to work just fine.

Consequently, if you were to lower your ISO, the image would be less noisy (grainy).

Additionally, if you are going to do these longer tele-smashs, perhaps F-11 or 13 would put those locos in focus better.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 454528
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Shutter - 1/250
ISO - 200
F stop - 9
Focal length 400mm
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 12:45 AM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Ok, here is an observation:

You shot this at ISO 1250 (which is awful high for sunlight) and your shutter speed was 1/1250th of a second.

"I" shoot most of my pictures at ISO 200 and the shutter at about 1/250 to 1/500th of a second.

On a bright day the f-stop I use is f-11 and I might go as low as f-7.1, but usually, I would lower the shutter speed because I like the background in focus.

Are these trains running 50 MPH or less?

Because if they are, 1/250 is going to work just fine.

Consequently, if you were to lower your ISO, the image would be less noisy (grainy).

Additionally, if you are going to do these longer tele-smashs, perhaps F-11 or 13 would put those locos in focus better.
ISO 400 and be there.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 01:19 AM   #10
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
ISO 400 and be there.
If it was late in the day, sure.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 03:39 AM   #11
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
ISO 400 and be there.
And f4, f5.6, f8 or f11. I've never understood when people use 'tween f-stops. Even though I'm not old school, I guess I am old school in that regard.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2013, 03:12 PM   #12
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,755
Default

I like f7.1 because it pisses old shooters off...

Loyd L.
__________________
Swipe left

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 04:13 AM   #13
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Ok, here is an observation:


Additionally, if you are going to do these longer tele-smashs, perhaps F-11 or 13 would put those locos in focus better.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 454528
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Shutter - 1/250
ISO - 200
F stop - 9
Focal length 400mm
With those specs you most definitely had your camera mounted on a stable tripod. I shot using the higher shutter speed since it was extremely windy, it was a handheld shot, and my focal length was at 200mm. I didn't want the lack of camera steadiness to introduce bluriness in the image.

Thanks for the tip about increasing my F-stop. The lense I use tends to get soft when I zoom in all the way.

Last edited by MassArt Images; 10-19-2013 at 04:22 AM.
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 05:41 AM   #14
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

No tripod.

Even in the wind of the Mojave, I only use a tripod at night.

All my lenses do have IS though.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2013, 05:33 PM   #15
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MassArt Images View Post
With those specs you most definitely had your camera mounted on a stable tripod. I shot using the higher shutter speed since it was extremely windy, it was a handheld shot, and my focal length was at 200mm. I didn't want the lack of camera steadiness to introduce bluriness in the image.
1/400 @ 200/400 ISO is more than enough to shoot handheld at 200mm, even when considering sensor crop. For that photo you uploaded, there is absolutely no reason to be shooting that at 1250 ISO. Regardless of the time of day, if the sun is out there is rarely an occasion when you'll need 800, let alone 1250 ISO.
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2013, 03:51 AM   #16
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
1/400 @ 200/400 ISO is more than enough to shoot handheld at 200mm, even when considering sensor crop. For that photo you uploaded, there is absolutely no reason to be shooting that at 1250 ISO. Regardless of the time of day, if the sun is out there is rarely an occasion when you'll need 800, let alone 1250 ISO.
Nothing like being subtle.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.