Trying to improve pictures taken in low light

Gambler

I was at a gig last night and I was trying to take pictures in the low light..

Unfortunately I didn't have the tripod with me and the camera has a maximum aperture of 3.5 so I had to boost the iso to 1600 to stop my handshake from completely ruining all the pics (Lots of them still have a lot of shake)

What I am wondering is if there is any way in photoshop I can compensate for the cr*p quality that seems to have resulted from using the high ISO?

Also the light was all very "orangy", is there anything I can do to try and compensate for the light levels to make it all a bit more natural looking to balance out the orange glow over everything?

Any and all advice greatly appreciated!

Calina

What camera have you?

Regards the high ISO, you'll need some sort of noise reduction. There's a filter mentioned in the list of suggested plugins. I don't do noise reduction (hate it), but you can give it a try.

Regarding the light quality, did you shoot in RAW? If so you can play with the white balance in a RAW converter.

Thirdfox

Noise ninja plugin for photoshop...

there's a freeware one too - I can't remember what it was called - google would be your best bet.

You have a D40/400D with kit lens? Maybe think about investing in a fast cheap prime like the f1.8 50mm.

Gambler

Heh, I only have a Finepix S5700 so it doesn't shoot in RAW unfortunately..

I've tried Noise Ninja quickly with the demo version but it doesn't seem to really help, it reduces the noise alright but the picture starts to look "fake".

Before I started I wasn't sure if it would be possible to get decent shots in low light with the camera, I do think that if I use a tripod next time with a lower shutter speed they should actually come out alright.

I was just hoping it might be possible to salvage some of the shots I already have, oh well!

Thirdfox

Sorry, thought you had a dSLR... low light is one of the areas it shines in.

Perhaps if you put up an example photo we could give more suggestions?

Tripod + lower shutter speed = lots of blur if subject is moving - may not be what you want.

Gambler

This is a pic that came out ok light and focus wise but as you can see it's noisy as all hell from the high ISO (At least I think that's the problem!)



Oh and I think blur wouldn't be a huge problem with a slightly lower shutter speed, my problem is mostly that I shake way too much, a steadier hand would probably have much more success!

Thirdfox

Or try a monopod if a tripod is too bulky (so places won't let you bring one as it causes obstructions).

Gambler

Hehe I won't be taking many shots in those circumstances and when I am I doubt I'll have any objections as I'll be there with the choir (My better half is the conductor)

It's more as a learning exercise for me really and possibly I'll have a few shots they can use for the website\press releases.

Same with this, I can't see myself needing to clean up noisy pictures generally but I've got all these pics that would make a great learning exercise

Thirdfox

Okay, good luck with your photography in the future - put some up for us to see sometime!

5uspect

Regarding the colour cast here is a quick trick for PS.
First Duplicate your layer, and select the duplicate and apply filter>blur> average.
Then hit ctrl + I to invert it. Change the blend mode to "color" and drop the opacity as desired. Usually does a good job at taking out string casts!

Gambler

5uspect wrote:

Regarding the colour cast here is a quick trick for PS.
First Duplicate your layer, and select the duplicate and apply filter>blur> average.
Then hit ctrl + I to invert it. Change the blend mode to "color" and drop the opacity as desired. Usually does a good job at taking out string casts!

That's great! Certainly giving me a better colour balance already!

I need to start writing down all these PS tricks!

sheesh

Hi I reduced the saturation played with the colour balance and then sharpen the final pic it takes the orangeyness out of the faces. have you tried converting it to black and white? the taller guy on the left does not look as good as he should but the rest are ok the guy next to him looks over sharpened but this is more a demonstration of getting the colour back to an ok level.

Gambler

Hey Sheesh,

Using the steps that 5uspect gave me I got a colour balance I am happy with but still fighting a loosing battle with noise. I think I'm just going to have to find a way to get the pics with a lower ISO.. Dunno if there is must more I can do about the noise at this stage..

Muineach

With PS CS3 you can edit JPG's within the RAW converter, I know it's not the same as using a RAW file, but I find it easier for quick fixes, I generally use that when I get some JPG's from family to "tidy" up.

Ghost Train

this tool i find useful sometimes http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/enhancer.htm

photoshops better, but its a quick way to work out what you can get out of a photo by moving the sliders around

Gambler

Ohhh ok, I must have a play with the raw converter then

Will download that enhancer too

sheesh

does everyone think this is noise due to high iso ? it doesn't look like noise to me
when i think of noise i Think of that speckled type thingy. like on the noise ninja site. could it it be condensation on the lens?

http://www.picturecode.com/index.htm the noise ninja site.

Gambler

I can't see it being condensation, the place was cool and dry and the camera is brand new.. I may be wrong but I don't think it is.

I took some other pics in proper light at the same time with ISO's between 100 and 400 and they don't have the issue. I have read a few reviews of the finepix S5700 that did say that 1600 ISO has a problem with noise so I guess I just defaulted to that being the issue. At full size (I have reduced the image above obviously ) it really does look "speckled"..

5uspect

no its definately noise alright.
Here are two slices thru the center vertically and horizontally of the red channel. Lots of blown out reds but also plenty of noise.


Also here is what you'd expect from an image with low ISO (left) and high ISO (right).



Actually both these were taken at ISO 1600, I just "exposed right":D

Gambler

5uspect wrote:

Actually both these were taken at ISO 1600, I just "exposed right":D

Both were taken at 1600 ISO? What did you do differently with the exposure? (Looking to learn here )

I'm about to resign myself to just not using 1600 at all anymore but if there is a way to use it I'd love to figure out what will make the difference

5uspect

Its all about maximising signal to noise ratio
Have a read of this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Gambler

**Goes to knuckle down on s/n ratios and exposure levels**

Gambler

Hmmm very interesting! So basically the idea is to over expose and then use the raw editor to reduce the brightness right?

I just took a few test shots and I certainly saw a noise reduction, I just need to learn how to use the raw converter a bit better now.. I have a much less noisy picture at 1600 but I can't seem to get the colours in the higher exposure to be quite as "vibrant"\right as the noisy properly exposed image.. I assume I just need to play more

5uspect

technically not "over expose", but expose beyond what the camera would normally meter to without saturating the sensor. Also because the conversion to JPEG often clips colours that the camera's own colourspace doesn't you can even recover from what seems to be a blown image in RAW.

yes play away!

Gambler

Hehe unfortunately my camera only takes pictures in JPG so I am using the raw editor on a jpg file but it certainly is making a difference.

I just need to figure out how to get the colour back now

5uspect

man you need an SLR!

Gambler

Hehe yeah probably, I'm going to take a few months with this to see how I get on before I decide to invest some more money in an SLR

Thirdfox

If you are at all serious about the quality of your photos then a dSLR would really help. It is very cheap nowadays (comparatively) to get one and the improvement is colossal over bridge cameras (except for there being less reach with the kit lens - telephoto zooms will cost a lot...).