How to fix too much noise photo & blurry photo?

<p>Our church doesn't allowed photographer using flash during mass. i have this photo that i'm having a hard time to fix...can anyone teach me how to fix this too much noise & blurry photo?</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00e/00e8Pg-565311784.jpg" border="0" alt="Untitled" width="700" height="466" /></p><div></div>

<p>Looks about as good as you're going to get, given the conditions. You can't fix blurry, and reducing noise will only make details softer and seem less blurry.</p>

<p>Given the conditions you described, I don't think the photo looks that bad. Does it have to be so large? Because it's in JPEG format, there's not a lot of tweaking you can do without making the photo look worse, in my opinion. Your camera should take RAW images. You don't mention whether or not that's what you worked with before uploading the current JPEG images to PN. RAW images can take adjustment much better than JPEGs. But, as Patrick points out, "blurry" is hard to fix. And you might have to learn to live with a certain amount of noise if you don't want the image to end up looking too soft/blurry.</p>

<p>I use a PhotoShop plugin called 'Focus Magic' in cases like this. Running it on your jpeg as a test, it automatically detected a blur width of 2 pixels and applying the correction for that, it significantly improved the sharpness of the hairpiece. However, it also alerted to the jpeg artifacts which were also sharpened. So, the advice to run it on something closer to a RAW image is well taken. This plugin works (separately) on both soft focus and motion blurs. The noise is something I wouldn't worry about in this case. Softening the noise will also soften the appearance of the image.</p>

<p>Looks like it was shot at 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO 6400. A faster lens would have helped you use a lower ISO. And would also have helped with the auto focus (in low light).</p>

<p>This was the best I could do with your jpeg shot at ISO 6400. I cleaned up the noise using lightroom as best I could without the lost of too much detail. Next time shoot in raw using a larger f stop and a lower ISO.</p><div></div>

<p>If this is a “must have” shot, then I would not attack the noise initially, but rather I would strive to make the image more viewer enticing and interesting.</p>

<p>On my Studio Monitor, the image appears to be about 2 Stops underexposed (perhaps a tad more) and it also lacks dynamic range and mid-tone contrast. To the viewer’s eye those technical traits usually make an image “lifeless” “lacking-punch” “lacking vitality” etc.</p>

<p>These technical features are evidenced by the HISTOGRAM here:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18284700-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> <br /> Here is the Histogram of the image after the DR has been extended and the under-exposure somewhat corrected:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18284701-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>*</p>

<p>The most important ELEMENTS in the image are the B&G – and the most important parts of those two elements are the FACES. And that is where I would begin: firstly with addressing the exposure and then addressing the lack of contrasts and then address the noise (in the skin on the faces). I would seek to make the faces and the B&G “pop” out of the image.</p>

<p>Once that is done then I would consider cloning out the Bridesmaid (camera left) and the floor fan (camera left background) and then I would consider addressing the noise in the dress/suit and maybe in the background also.</p>

<p>But the overwhelming rationale that I would use, would be to make the B&G “pop” . . . if the Viewer’s eye is interested in the main content and emotion, then the viewer’s eye will largely ignore all the peripheral “junk” like noise or a little bit of blur.</p>

<p>I concur that “Focus Magic” is a very good tool - I have rescued a few images using it: FM would work well on this image, but it takes some learning to perfect it.</p>

<p>Looking forward and to avoid the same issue in the future: it is an error for any pro wedding photographer to not have available and use a faster lens in that shooting scenario. At least a F/2.8 zoom, but best practice demands that we carry a very fast Prime around F/1.4~1.8. So if you are receiving payment for this type of work, then I suggest that you get your kit sorted. <br /> <br /> You might or might not have have captured in ‘raw’ – if you did capture in ‘raw’ then that’s good – if not then plan to do so in the future.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Here is an A/B and a ROUGH INDICATIVE of only the first few steps of the correction process that I would employ – this represents basic corrections of:<br /> > the underexposure <br /> > the lack of dynamic range <br /> > the lack of mid tone contrast<br /> > (some of) the noise in the faces<br /> The original is on the top.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18284707-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The tools used in Photoshop were –<br /> Shadow/Highlight – several passes at 1% highlights to extend DR<br /> Shadow/Highlight - Mid tone contrast several passes<br /> Clone – reconstruct facial skin as necessary<br /> Dodge and Burn – redo the light and shadow on faces<br /> Contrast – general<br /> Brightness – general<br /> Colour balance – correct<br /> Hue Saturation – enrich – mainly red <br /> Levels – general and reset grey point</p>

<p>Here is a close up of the faces from the original:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18284698-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a close up of the faces after only the <strong>initial</strong> work on the reconstruction and de-noise on the skin; and the dodging and burning of the facial features:<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18284699-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>*</p>

<p>These corrections took me about 4 minutes in total – if this image is a “must have” then I expect that I would need to work on it for about an hour maybe 90 minutes to get eh B&G as near to perfect as possible and then I would assess whether to use a noise reduction program for the noise in the background area.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>I think that you should consider how valuable this image is to you - and to the worth of your Client – and if you are a pro, then you should charge your editing time back to yourself as a cost. What I mean is if this images is a “must have” then you might end up spending 3 hours on it to get it to near to perfect as possible: those three hours would have been avoided if the image were made at the correct exposure in the first instance and to make the image at the correct exposure you need the necessary tools – my point being for the cost a fast Prime Lens you can save maybe 3 hours work in PP (on one image) which must be charged out at ? . . . $50.00 per hour?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>As said above to avoid it in the future you have to have faster lenses when shooting without flash, at least f2.8. But preferably primes at f2 or f1.4.<br /> ISO 6400, f5.6, 1/100s is around EV 5 which is normal indoor lighting levels.<br /> Crop cameras can't handle ISO 6400 much better than this. Full frame cameras are about one stop better so if you find yourself often in situations like this you might consider upgrading the camera as well as getting some faster lenses.<br>

...<br>

Regarding fixing the image you should use the raw file to start from (if you shot raw). You can tweak a little in lightroom if you use that but dedicated software can do a better job. I found in the past that Topaz Denoise does a good job on heavy noise, especially on jpeg files. Otherwise Imagenomics Noiseware produces more natural results for noise reduction. As mentioned above Focus Magic can fix image blur better than most.<br>

Most of these software you can try before you buy.<br>

...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Played with the image in PS6 then blew it up in Genuine Fractals denoised in Neat Image then shrank it back to about the same size as original. Don't really know if it is what you want and not a good practice for all wedding pics.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00e/00e8Y3-565344584.jpg" border="0" alt="Untitled" width="700" height="458"/> </p><div></div>

<p>Jane: You have some excellent suggestions above, but to fix this shot I enlisted Neat Image and then Capture NX2 for white balance. Neat Image isn't user friendly (at least for me) until you use it for awhile, but it does a good job. See what you think... Mike</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00e/00e8YX-565346384.jpg" border="0" alt="Untitled" width="700" height="499" /></p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"Neat Image isn't user friendly (at least for me) until you use it for awhile, but it does a good job."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How long (in time) or how many test runs did it take you to get comfortable and efficient with "Neat Image"?</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>https://phlearn.com/?s=noise. You will find a few tutorials on reducing noise here but I believe it is for photoshop users. Hope this helps....David</p>

<p>@William: I can't say a specific time, I've used the program sparingly for years. It has a multitude of sliders that seem to have similar results; although I freely admit that my infrequent use very well could be the root of my opinion. It's important to resist over correction that leads to a plastic look and halos. For the cost though, it's a program that is good to keep available for occasions like the OP's... Mike</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can't fix blurry, and reducing noise will only make details softer and seem less blurry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You can fix blurry, but usually not both noise and blurry at the same time.<br>

<br>

There is a whole art/science called deconvolution, and specifically you want nonlinear deconvolution. <br>

<br>

If you look at what was done in the early years of the Hubble telescope, when the mirror with the wrong curvature was installed, you will find that it can be done. But they could only do that with bright enough objects to keep the noise as low as possible. It was somewhat easier in the Hubble case, as they knew very closely what the point-spread (blur) function was. Then, mathematically, you ask what unburied image is most likely to generate the blurred image, with the given PSF, and the intensity always non-negative. </p>

<p>Mike and WW, great results. WW as usual your show-and-tell is extremely informative. I would handle this image slightly differently. I would crop out the same elements WW suggested (Bridesmaid and fans), convert it to black and white and retain the noise to a certain degree. I just find B&W in such situations and for this particular image, lends itself to timelessness and maintains the focus on the moment rather than the noise (no pun intended).</p>

<p>This was a 3 minute job but of course can be refined. I just wanted to give you an idea...</p><div></div>

Some excellent digital work!

<p><img src="http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s464/kjonbz/After_zps654xikve.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Considering your conditions. Noiseware does a pretty decent job.</p>

<p> </p>