I have quite a few Great Lakes photos I would like to share but this is one of the problems . I submitted a version of this photo and it was rejected for badscan.. Also submitted another angle of it and it was rejected and rejected again after I did a little improvement...
JT8D From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 170 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1831 times:
A simple method I used in PS on occasion before I got the S2 which works fairly well at reducing grain in the sky is:
with the BLUE channel selected, click FILTER/BLUR/SMART BLUR, move the RADIUS value to 10 and the THRESHOLD to 30 then OK. Click back on RGB and there you'll have it. This method will never create a perfect "non-grainy" image, that goes beyond PS's ability, but it can help reduce apparent grain significantly.
Much of the noise exists in the blue channel, so it works particularly well for skys where grain is most noticeable. It doesn't deteriorate the overall image quality too much either.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
I don't think grain is the biggest problem with this pic - it is far too contrasty with almost all the shadow detail lost. I think the first thing to do is make a new scan and try and get a little less contrast and bring out more of the shadow. Of course, this assumes there is more detail in the original.
Once scanned, I think increasing the gamma a little (using levels or curves) and thereby lightening the sky and underwing a bit, you'll find the grain less obtrusive.
Personally I don't like most grain removal techniques - they tend to result in an "unnatural" look to my eye, but you can avoid making it look worse than it need be - sharpening generally tends to bring out the grain, so one thing worth trying is to mask off the sky before applying USM - use a pixel or so of feathering on the mask to avoid odd edge effects (esp round the props).
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1717 times:
Thanks for the opinion/advice Colin. I'll give the rescan a try tomorrow, I don't have anything to judge the pic with except the scanned negative since the prints were some crappy one hour matte finish....
I do try to do selective USM most of the time, but sometimes it leaves this compressed look on the sky/background.
I typed another reply to this thread before today, but my f***ing computer crashed when it was still in the preview mode .
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 775 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
I agree that you need to improve the quality of the initial scan. However, even after doing that you may still have grain issues. In that case, I recommend a neat feature of Paintshop Pro called “edge preserving smooth”. The name of the feature says it all. Apply the filter before resizing the picture for best results. You can mask the sky if you want, however I generally do not.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1660 times:
Yep! I really had hopes of getting every Great Lakes EMB-120 reg in the database (theres only 6 soon 7 of them anyway). I've only gotten 293UX and 297UX in... This is the largest commerical flight we get here so its always my "target" for photography... All we get are GLA EMB-120s and B1900Ds (I'd say one every few weeks if a Brasilia is down) and Big Sky Metros.
I never use auto-level or contrast anymore, but I do usually play with the curves and contrast myself. I'll try turning it down a bit.
I'll download the PSP trial version and check it out!
I'll do a rescan of the GLA photos and post the results up here if they're improved...
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3091 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
I just had a look at both images. My initial impression was to like the first one (the greyer one) a little more because it's a little more evocative of the darkness of winter, and a little more natural in appearance. I think I still feel that way, even though I had some doubts. I asked my wife to have a look, but she says she can't even tell the difference. Women.... what can you do? Maybe it's my laptop monitor. Sorry I can't be of more help, but congrats on your successful uploads.