Im new to post processing C&C please

Riamfada

Hi throwing this up here. Im trying to get the hang of post processing. I do love blues and cold images. Please give me some feedback (good and bad).

G
PS: anyone know how to knock the grain out of long exposure night pics?





Cheers

melekalikimaka

lovely shot - cept the horizon.... could do with straightening maybe?

look up noise ninja.... for noise removal

squareballoon

I'm not experienced in taking either long exposure or landscape shots but I like it. The one thing I would do though is straighten up the horizon.

Kintarō Hattori

Lovely shot and as the other two above me said........ the horizon needs some straightening.

Chorcai

What ISO did you use ?

KarmaGarda

As mentioned the horizon needs a straighten and it does seem quite noisy.

If you could give us a break down of the settings that would help. For example, what ISO, Aperture, did you turn IS/VR off, etc. Also, what type of camera do you use?

I do like the composition, it definitely has potential for another go at the shot.

Fenster

It needs both straightening and a stronger foreground focus.

CabanSail

I think you have the message about the horizon at this stage

I feel this shot would be improved with more foreground detail. If you have shot RAW then I think the detail will be there to extract.

You are on the right track. With Landscapes the use of ND Grad filters (either physical or digital) is an important concept to grasp.

sineadw

what they all said Plus, I recently discovered my Canon and a lot of the other models have a setting hidden in the menu system specifically for long exposures which helps to lessen the noise created by them. Not sure if it's any good (I don't do them that often) but it might be worth looking to see if your camera does.

bullpost

sineadw wrote: »

what they all said Plus, I recently discovered my Canon and a lot of the other models have a setting hidden in the menu system specifically for long exposures which helps to lessen the noise created by them. Not sure if it's any good (I don't do them that often) but it might be worth looking to see if your camera does.

My Olympus has the same feature and its vital for long exposures , otherwise you end up with lots of hot pixels in the image. It doubles the exposure time though.

djd80

sineadw wrote: »

what they all said Plus, I recently discovered my Canon and a lot of the other models have a setting hidden in the menu system specifically for long exposures which helps to lessen the noise created by them. Not sure if it's any good (I don't do them that often) but it might be worth looking to see if your camera does.

bullpost wrote: »

My Olympus has the same feature and its vital for long exposures , otherwise you end up with lots of hot pixels in the image. It doubles the exposure time though.

I have never heard of this, any odea what this feature is called?

Fenster

dar_d wrote: »

I have never heard of this, any odea what this feature is called?

Long Exposure Noise Compensation

bullpost

Fenster wrote: »

Long Exposure Noise Compensation

Or Fixed Noise Reduction in Olypmus land.

wersal gummage

CabanSail wrote: »

I think you have the message about the horizon at this stage

I feel this shot would be improved with more foreground detail. If you have shot RAW then I think the detail will be there to extract.

You are on the right track. With Landscapes the use of ND Grad filters (either physical or digital) is an important concept to grasp.

i dont really take any night shots - so not sure of this, but if you dont have a RAW file and you go to take this shot again could you meter off the foreground and then, as cabansail says, use an ND Grad just so the lights etc in the upper section aren't totally blown out ???

interested as well to see the ISO, i've shot two and three min exposures that didn't look that noisey.

Riamfada

Fantastic, thanks for the advice guys. Here are the details of the shot. I have loads more of the night, I may try to put another one up after i clear up the mistakes of the op.

Cheers

F/22 30s ISO 1600 18mm

KarmaGarda

Grimes wrote: »

Fantastic, thanks for the advice guys. Here are the details of the shot. I have loads more of the night, I may try to put another one up after i clear up the mistakes of the op.

Cheers

F/22 30s ISO 1600 18mm

Cool. Well, the 1600 ISO will explain some of the grain/noise. Get that right down to 100/200 for long exposure shots like yours. After that, you could reduce further noise by the suggestions offered by others in this thread.

Looking forward to your future shots

m_s_nixon

Grimes wrote: »

Fantastic, thanks for the advice guys. Here are the details of the shot. I have loads more of the night, I may try to put another one up after i clear up the mistakes of the op.

Cheers

F/22 30s ISO 1600 18mm

I'd set it at iso 100 on shutter priority at 30s and let the camera set the aperture. maybe try including more of the rocks in the foreground and set the camera lower on the tripod so that you get less of the sea and less of the sky. I like the shot though, definitely worth going back and playing around with different settings and compositions

KarmaGarda

m_s_nixon wrote: »

I'd set it at iso 100 on shutter priority at 30s and let the camera set the aperture.

If you let the camera decide the aperture, at 30 seconds it will most likely just max it out to about f22 anyway.

m_s_nixon

KarmaGarda wrote: »

If you let the camera decide the aperture, at 30 seconds it will most likely just max it out to about f22 anyway.

you reckon? obvoiusly depends how dark it is and what metering was used but I'd say it'd be closer to f/4 or so, you could work out exactly what the aperture would be by taking the settings he used and swapping iso 1600 for iso 100 but i don't know how to calculate it!

sineadw

I'd be going either AV or manual and shooting around the sweet spot of the lens. And iso as low as possible! You have all the time in the world to get the shot right, so I'd be more worried about the quality of the optics and the ISO and grain/pixel handling. Unless you were specific on the movement captured in the water?

KarmaGarda

m_s_nixon wrote: »

you reckon? obvoiusly depends how dark it is and what metering was used but I'd say it'd be closer to f/4 or so, you could work out exactly what the aperture would be by taking the settings he used and swapping iso 1600 for iso 100 but i don't know how to calculate it!

Actually you could be right. I always go manual and set a small aperture to get a balance between a long DOF and enough light getting in. Personally I wouldn't recommend a wide aperture on a shot like that, but obviously you'll get different opinions on the matter .

WedPhoto

i think the photo is quite dark...there's very little or no detail where the rocks are...try taking a few different exposures and than you can combine them in photoshop...multipole exposures will give you more of a dynamic range(more detail in the shadows and more detail in the highlights)...you'll need a tripod of course...