Critique Floodlit photos

Lardyc7

Lardyc7

Messages
351
Name
Lee Parker
Edit My Images
Yes
Any pointers, Ladies and Gents?

Haven't used any noise reduction, would that normally be a no no if you were trying to get them published??

Buxton V Frickley 665 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Buxton V Frickley 503 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Buxton V Frickley 335 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Stocksbridge V Leek Town 27 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Stocksbridge V Leek Town 61 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Stocksbridge V Leek Town 7 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Stocksbridge V Leek Town 73 by leeparker1968, on Flickr

Stocksbridge V Leek Town 88 by leeparker1968, on Flickr
 
I'm not an expert on what is suitable for publication, Lee, but these look like they need a bit of PP to get them looking a little more professional.
I've just put "Stocksbridge V Leek Town 27" through my normal PP and it does scrub up quite well....and more so in B&W

I'm also guessing that it'd had a fair bit cropping too....the uncropped shots look markedly better (as would be expected)

Bob
 
Cheers Bob, they've had a bit of PP, but only brightness and contrast. Was wary of doing too much as it increased an already noisy picture. I was trying to get some sort of idea about NR and whether it's worth it/accepted?

Thanks for the reply.
 
Lardyc7 said:
....I was trying to get some sort of idea about NR and whether it's worth it/accepted?
Click to expand...
As you can see from Bazza's edit, there's a huge improvement when you perform some NR....makes what starts out as a "snap" into something very much more worthwhile.
It's a challenge knowing how much noise to remove balanced against any detail loss that results from the process. When you're shooting near the usable Iso limit of the body then you can often gain a little by using custom white balance (in artificial lighting) rather than let the camera guess and subsequently adjust in PP (assuming that you capture in raw).

Bob
 
Too much noise reduction on that for me. Looks fake. The original, with noise is more realistic. Maybe somewhere in the middle would be good. Look at the signage in the background, looks awful with that much NR added.

I don't think sports stuff needs every grain taken out of it, I often just take out the colour in the noise and leave any grain as is.

As for what is acceptable for publication, I'm not sure, but as a club photographer I only ever used to send anything I thought looked acceptable, and when printed small in a programme noise was never really an issue.
 
On my iPad the corrected one didn't look that bad. But on a bigger screen I agree it looks like a painting. Thanks Steven, do you use PS or another program? I normally use Nik Dfine if I am trying to get rid of noise.


The photo below of Laurie Wilson (Son of Danny Wilson, Barnsley manager) celebrating his first goal for Buxton on Saturday. I don't normally sit on this side of the ground, but glad I did on this occasion!!
Ive used Nik Dfine to lessen the noise, I think it looks pretty good.......but im known for having dodgy Mince pies!!
Buxton V Ashton Utd FA 60 by leeparker1968, on Flickr
 
Your new version looks better than the other one to me. My view is that most of the shots are on the border line as to whether I'd personally use them, again depending on usage. A couple look soft and compositionally a couple are not ideal. If they are to be printed at 2x3 inches in a program then you'd get away with it if this is the best (noise wise) you could get from that game.

I use PS and also Capture One for noise reduction. Stated it a few times on the forum, but if I am in the situation of shooting in really low light, and shooting on a 7D at the moment, I shoot RAW and underexpose. Capture one is mainly a RAW converter but has many other features including great noise reduction for RAW files. I'm not saying you should shoot RAW, just saying that's what I do in severe low light. I now know the limit of my camera coupled with what I can do in PP so if I end up shooting outside that comfort zone, I know that I may end up with unusable images. Even if I'm really struggling I'd rather give over 10 images of the game that I'm happy with rather than 20 knowing they're not up to my expectations.

Laurie Wilson shot is great, good work!
 
Cheers Steven, that's something I'll probably try.
What I didn't put on the photos was the fact that no 73 and the one I used NR on we're both goals. I did get the cele shots as well but they were a bit boring to be honest as they were the 3 and 4th goals in the last few mins with the game won.
I've heard good things about Capture One.
Ta for having a look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top