RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Too Much Noise (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18122)

JMeade 06-18-2018 04:08 PM

Too Much Noise
 
Hello everyone.

Was on a hiatus for a bit from contributing to the site. I went out this weekend and wanted to document the opening of CT Rail. I'm not that hell bent on this image, but what I wanted was a fresh set of eyes on one of the rejection points. This was shot on a Sony A7R3 at ISO 100. My only guess is the "noise" the screener might be referring to are the plethora of bugs on the face of the engine.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...53&key=8045326

I re-edited the image, applied some noise reduction via LR.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...98&key=3271812

Thank you.

bigbassloyd 06-18-2018 04:25 PM

I don't really see a whole lot of noise. I do see some funky color casts in the shadowy areas on the right side. The crossties far right are borderline purple.

Thank goodness somebody posted something! Been awful quiet since we can't point and laugh at certain photographers now...

Loyd L.

SAR Connecta 06-18-2018 04:29 PM

Just my two cents :) I do see the noise / grain - too much use of the shadow enhancer tool? The blurry info sign and lady in the red top with no legs on the left edge doesn't seem to be helping either. Maybe try a different crop (a vertical even) and make less use of shadow tool and you may be successful.

SAR Connecta 06-18-2018 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194203)
I don't really see a whole lot of noise. I do see some funky color casts in the shadowy areas on the right side. The crossties far right are borderline purple.

Thank goodness somebody posted something! Been awful quiet since we can't point and laugh at certain photographers now...

Loyd L.

I wondered why it has been so quiet - I must have missed something.

ATSF666 06-18-2018 04:52 PM

Candyland!

RobJor 06-18-2018 07:16 PM

This is a tough one, strong light, shadowed areas and people on platform, a type of street photography. Assuming you don't have a better one I would crop(as mentioned) left and bottom(lady and out of focus) and top and right to get rid of some of the problems noted. If you are going to apply noise reduction, best done earlier. Not sure if this was like auto processed but reduce saturation(or vibrance if you have that option) and maybe contrast??? then I would sharpen at the minimum taking a chance on undersharpened.
As it is there is something showing up on the nose, maybe not noise, paint bubbling, dirt splatter but the sun and sharpening looks to bring out every little wart.

I just had one rejected for too much contrast, it really gave it pop but the rejection was correct, just too much and corrected did pretty well.

bob

bigbassloyd 06-18-2018 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAR Connecta (Post 194205)
I wondered why it has been so quiet - I must have missed something.

The forum has become a safe space. :)

Loyd L.

RobJor 06-18-2018 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194208)
The forum has become a safe space. :)

Loyd L.

LOL - Yes, perfect for snowflakes. And to think, I didn't start too long ago and it was tough but fun.

Bob

Joseph Cermak 06-18-2018 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194208)
The forum has become a safe space. :)

Loyd L.

Kind of a bummer, it's been dead quiet here now....really seems to have killed the participation....and the fun

RobJor 06-18-2018 09:59 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ok, try to liven up a little.

Seriously, when you are shooting train platforms you need to find the right subject. Although this was rejected due to foreground clutter.

Lot of things wrong about the 70's but not everything.

bob

miningcamper1 06-18-2018 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194208)
The forum has become a safe space. :)

Loyd L.

There ought to be a middle ground between the almost total lack of criticism on Flickr and the frequent nastiness on YouTube. :roll:

Considering what gets accepted here, I really don't see any reason that this one was targeted. Too bad management never says where they magically see "noise".

Really awful new image for "CT Rail". I wonder whether anyone there has looked up "CT" in Unban Dictionary. :twisted:

RobJor 06-18-2018 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 194213)
There ought to be a middle ground between the almost total lack of criticism on Flickr and the frequent nastiness on YouTube. :roll:

Considering what gets accepted here, I really don't see any reason that this one was targeted. Too bad management never says where they magically see "noise".

Really awful new image for "CT Rail". I wonder whether anyone there has looked up "CT" in Unban Dictionary. :twisted:

We always used it with another first letter but I will stick with the abbreviation for Connecticut.

Bob

JMeade 06-18-2018 10:31 PM

Thank you for the feedback. Again, I'm not totally hell bent over this frame but when the rejection said too much noise, it left my head scratching.

The vibrance can be muted since I shot in RAW and processed with LR/PS. The Sony A7R3 has an abundant of dynamic range and ISO100 its crazy how much detail you can extract from the shadow areas. The reason why the sign to the left is not in focus is because the engine where I focused is not on the same focal plane (was shot at f4.) I used my 135 prime lens and wanted to accentuate the massive crowd at Hartford.

Since the station is on an S curve, any further back and I would have the pillars obstructing the view of the engine.

jac_murphy 06-19-2018 03:45 AM

What's all the speckling on the locomotive - dirt and grime? That's the only thing in the image that resembles any kind of noise, and I assume the screeners were looking at that. Might be worth mentioning in the comments to them.

Other than that, I think your first effort was the better of the two. In the second, the shadows were pulled up a little too far to the point where the image was lacking contrast.

-Jacques

JMeade 06-19-2018 12:22 PM

Those speckles you are referring to are bugs. The face of the engine was plastered with them, and I did make a note to the screener when submitting.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...20&key=7256171

Final rejection. Thanks everyone for the input. Just going to let this slide. Probably one of, if not the only time you are going to see ridership this big get on a CT Rail train in Hartford.

bigbassloyd 06-19-2018 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 194212)
Ok, try to liven up a little.

Seriously, when you are shooting train platforms you need to find the right subject. Although this was rejected due to foreground clutter.

Lot of things wrong about the 70's but not everything.

bob

I think you were too busy enjoying the view :D

Loyd L.

Joseph Cermak 06-19-2018 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMeade (Post 194218)
Those speckles you are referring to are bugs. The face of the engine was plastered with them, and I did make a note to the screener when submitting.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...20&key=7256171

Final rejection. Thanks everyone for the input. Just going to let this slide. Probably one of, if not the only time you are going to see ridership this big get on a CT Rail train in Hartford.

I do like this crop a lot better, but don't see any noise in the photo anywhere. Even looking at the loco nose and the bugs it doesn't look like noise to me. Very odd...

bigbassloyd 06-19-2018 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMeade (Post 194218)

Final rejection. Thanks everyone for the input. Just going to let this slide. Probably one of, if not the only time you are going to see ridership this big get on a CT Rail train in Hartford.


I honestly do not see any noise in the photo. I say this, because I've been given crap here by several members through the years because I pointed out noise and was vocal about it. I hate noise in the digital age. I hate noise almost as much as I hate when photographers half-butt their wide angle shots by not addressing the lens distortion. :D

Loyd L.

ATSF666 06-19-2018 02:07 PM

The processing is much better on the final submission. I, too, do not see any digital noise.

JRMDC 06-19-2018 08:23 PM

In focusing on the rejection reason people are overlooking other flaws. For one, oversharpened! Just look at that oversharpening artifact on top of the engine. For another, what is going on in the sky upper right? And I don't mean whatever that netting (?) is that is hanging on the framework. I mean above that, up against the top edge on the right side. There's a brightness gradient there that does not look right.

bigbassloyd 06-19-2018 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 194224)
In focusing on the rejection reason people are overlooking other flaws.

I'm not overlooking.. I'm saving it. This may be the only thread for days, and I want to savor it.

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 06-19-2018 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 194224)
In focusing on the rejection reason people are overlooking other flaws. For one, oversharpened! Just look at that oversharpening artifact on top of the engine. For another, what is going on in the sky upper right? And I don't mean whatever that netting (?) is that is hanging on the framework. I mean above that, up against the top edge on the right side. There's a brightness gradient there that does not look right.

If this was a wreck, it would be accepted so fast that heads would be spinning!

Coverage of a newsworthy event need not be art gallery quality IMO.

Joseph Cermak 06-19-2018 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 194226)
Coverage of a newsworthy event need not be art gallery quality IMO.

I agree. And this certainly didn't seem like it was over-covered either.

JRMDC 06-20-2018 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 194226)
If this was a wreck, it would be accepted so fast that heads would be spinning!

Coverage of a newsworthy event need not be art gallery quality IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 194227)
I agree. And this certainly didn't seem like it was over-covered either.

Backing off on sharpening is a looooong way off "art gallery quality." And whatever is top right is, to my eye, just plain weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194225)
I'm not overlooking.. I'm saving it. This may be the only thread for days, and I want to savor it.

Ha ha ha ha ha

Joseph Cermak 06-20-2018 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 194228)
Backing off on sharpening is a looooong way off "art gallery quality."

I'm a terrible judge of sharpness, just can't discern it. Not saying the image didn't have some issues I would adjust, but this grain rejection is baffling.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.