Recent press

Darkness Darkness Web Site

I posted my finished “book” project for the Solo Photo Book Month (aka SoFoBoMo) a few weeks ago but with work and vacations I never got around to mentioning it on this blog.

From the web site - “SoFoBoMo is short for Solo Photo Book Month - a group event where a bunch of photographers all make solo photo books start to finish, in 31 days, at more or less the same time. It’s modeled loosely on NaNoWriMo, where participating writers all write novels in a month, and NaSoAlMo, where musicians write and record solo albums in a month.”

Since this was the first time I’ve done such a project, I decided keep it simple and to use my favorite iPhone photography/camera - Shake It Photo - to produce all the images for the book. I’m primarily a night photographer and I didn’t want to commit to something I may never finish so I decided not to attempt 35+ night images within a single month…something that is way out of my normal range. The simplicity of the Shake It Photo app, which is similar to a digital Polaroid, seemed perfect for this project.

In any case, here is the finished “book”…

This is an image I posted a week or so ago on my flickr account. It is three 30 minute exposures at ISO 400 stacked to lengthen the star trails.

As I mentioned on flickr, I completely forgot that for exposures of this length it’s really important to use in-camera noise reduction (dark frame subtraction) and so I was left with an image that had a significant amount of the white speckly noise that’s really difficult, if not impossible, to effectively remove using normal noise reduction software (which I don’t have or use anyway). I’ve been to Yachats many times now but it’s rare to have 90 minutes of clear skies at night on a weekend so I was reluctant to give up on this image. And so I spent quite a few hours trying everything I thought might work to reduce the noise to a level I would be comfortable making a large print from. With only limited success I posted the image to flickr anyway…

Brent Pearson - who has somehow managed to publish a great ebook for night photographers and light painters while working on the Free Photo Guides site and also continuing to post new images on flickr! - suggested I just take a dark frame and do the dark frame subtraction I should have done in camera instead in Photoshop. Normally with dark frame subtraction you need to take the dark frame in similar conditions to which the original image was taken which normally means immediately preceding or following the “real” exposure but since I’d spent so many hours already an extra 30 minutes couldn’t hurt (a single dark frame which I would use to do the dark frame subtraction on all three images.) Here are the results…

The images were processed using DPP and then transfered to Photoshop CS3. For those who are interested, in my opinion, ACR doesn’t perform as well on high ISO images and it just made the speckly problem worse in this case. All samples posted are 100% crops and no sharpening has been applied.

The first image is straight from DPP without the dark frame subtraction. Immediately following it is the same image with the dark frame subtraction performed in Photoshop. I should mention here that while the camera seems to be able to do it all in one shot, it doesn’t seem to be that way in post processing. I had to use several layers and masks to adjust the opacity of the dark frame layer to get good results. The darker the area of the image, the higher the opacity should be set. Set the opacity too high and you’ll see black pitting all over the image. But back to the images…

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction, dark frame subtraction in Photoshop

There is a significant amount of blotchy/speckly noise in the first image but it’s reduced drastically by the dark frame subtraction! Finally, getting somewhere! The problem with the first image becomes much more apparent after some normal post processing adjustments.

This next set is the same pair but with a local contrast adjustment using the Unsharp Mask tool with a radius of 80 and amount 60. I commonly use this technique to enhance star trails but obviously it has an equally undesirable effect on any noise that’s in the image.

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction, local contrast adjustment

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction, dark frame subtraction in Photoshop, local contrast enhancement

The last set after the local contrast adjustment as well as the remaining adjustment layers I used to finish the image.

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction, local contrast adjustment, black and white conversion, final adjustments

30 minute exposure, ISO 400, no in-camera noise reduction, dark frame subtraction in Photoshop, local contrast enhancement, black and white conversion, final adjustments

I don’t think I need to point out how much better the second image in each pair is.

To be sure, this is not a critique of the 5DII noise performance. Considering the circumstances (30 minute sequential exposures at ISO 400) it’s really quite good, however, it’s good to know it’s possible (sometimes) to recover from mistakes made at the time of exposure…although it would be better not to make them in the first place!

Thanks Brent!

This image from Yachats, Oregon, was included in the Collective Visions 2009 show in Bremerton, Washington. The show is up now and runs through Feb 27.

The print is 12×12 inches mounted to 16×20. The print was made on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta paper at Custom Digital. For those of you on the never ending quest for the best paper for inkjet prints this should be at the top of your list to try.

In any case, stop by if you’re in the area or are in the mood for a beautiful ferry ride to Bremerton. The gallery is just a short walk from the ferry terminal.

A couple of night photographer friends and extreme light painters are putting on a weekend workshop in the California desert at the Pearsonville Junk Yard on March 7th and 8th so if you’re interested in learning about light painting be sure to check it out. If you’re wondering why I say “extreme” just ask Troy to tell you about some of the abandoned brothel’s in the Nevada desert and you’ll probably think I was watering down my description.

I met Joe and Troy at the Nocturnes Night Photography Conference in 2006 at Mono Lake and I have no doubt this workshop will be a great experience for anyone who attends. Troy Paiva has published two well received books about light painting, Lost America and Night Vision, so if you’re not familiar they’re definitely worth a read.

If you’re interested you can find more information about the workshop on Troy’s web site: http://www.lostamerica.com/workshop.html.

I don’t really consider this an example of what most people think of when they hear the term “light painting” but I, with the help of my brother who didn’t complain about standing in the heavy snow for a couple hours, did add light from an external source (flashlight) to “light” the falling snow so I suppose it counts.

The exposure above was shot at ISO 3200 using the 5D Mark II and is another example of how being able to reliably use such a high ISO allows some exposures that weren’t possible with my Rebel XT.

Here’s another example from the night before using ISO 400 and a longer exposure…

Pier, Lake Tahoe, California

Although the conditions don’t make for a pleasant shooting experience I really like the results so I’ll be back outside the next time we get a big snow here in Seattle!

Night photography in the snow has been a great opportunity to try out the higher ISO ranges of the 5D2. While it is possible to produce smooth, nearly noiseless images using longer exposures, image averaging, noise reduction, etc, I wanted to be able to use shorter exposure times to capture the falling snow. Even moderately long exposures (anything over 1/20 sec) would blur the snow enough to make it look like a mist or fog so I needed to use a combination of high ISO (3200 in this case) and f4.0 (the widest aperture on my lens) to shorten the exposures. Even so the image was slightly underexposed but I didn’t want to extend the exposure time or jump to ISO 6400 (though in hindsight I probably should have used ISO 6400 because an image exposed to the right at ISO 6400 would result in better quality than an underexposed image at ISO 3200 pushed to match the former).

In any case, at 100% there is undoubtedly “noise” - partly a result of zero noise reduction (DPP 3.5) but more likely the result of the exposure leaving the sky relatively underexposed as well as additional post processing (to brighten the sky area while controlling contrast in the lamps) which generally accentuates noise. However, considering the intent and particularly the image itself the noise is hardly distracting and a little graininess actually adds to the moodiness of the scene.

I feel like I’m walking a fine line between two potential interpretations of my comments (you could see one or the other in the 5D2/D700 debates). The one I want to mention directly is that it may appear that I am making excuses for the noise by claiming that it should be expected given the circumstances (even though it should). In fact I am actually very impressed by the results and the upper registers of the ISO range far exceed what my Rebel XT was capable of - it is unlikely this would have been a successful image with the XT because of the additional noise at ISO 1600 in addition to the increased the exposure times (see above).

In any case, I would not hesitate to print this image and I’m pretty sure it would make a beautiful print if done correctly.

A side note - I think it’s odd that the term “noise” has such a negative connotation while “grain” is considered natural and organic despite the fact that in many cases they’re not visibly different. The luminance noise in many of the newer dslrs is much more natural looking and not really an issue for most images even at what used to be considered unusable ISO’s (unless of course you’re using ACR to do RAW processing).

All of the images could have used at least another stop and a half of exposure - the histograms barely breached the 50% mark. My estimates based on a preliminary ISO 6400 exposure should have been better but I think the light was lessening slowly as the moon set which I didn’t account for. While this isn’t a perfect test scenario I decided to use it because it was a real world situation where although I didn’t correctly expose the image I still really like it and it’s certainly an interesting test of the camera’s capabilities.

The image was taken in portrait position but for this test I cropped off the top and bottom (mostly sky and sand). The first image below is a resized version of the image prior to any adjustments to the histogram and the second image is post adjustments (listed below the image).

Original unprocessed image in DPP 3.5 - click white balance, no adjustments to histogram using RAW or RGB settings, sharpness 0, luminance noise reduction 0, color noise reduction 5, resized to 500px wide

Processed image in DPP 3.5 to stretch the histogram to a “better” exposure - click white balance, brightness +2, contrast +4 in RAW, no adjustment in RGB, sharpness 0, luminance noise reduction 0, color noise reduction 5, resized to 500px wide

Here’s the histogram before and after the DPP adjustments. As you can see it’s a significant adjustment and as well all know an adjustment of this size will dramatically increase the noise levels in the image.

[Warning! The numbers you will read next are estimates only and not intended to be exact.] For an image shot originally at ISO 400 and pushed the equivalent of 1.5 to 2 stops it makes the effective ISO somewhere in the 1200-1600 range. Assuming this is in fact the equivalent of a push from 400 to 1600 there will be more noise in this image after adjustments than there would have been if I had correctly exposed the image with a 15 minute exposure at ISO 1600 in the first place.

What I’m really getting at is that this image should be damn noisy!

Not much to see yet so here are 100% crops from the image. The first in each set is a crop from the original image and the second is a crop from the adjusted image. The first set has one additional crop which is the crop of the adjusted image with the Dust & Scratches filter applied (see my last post). Keep in mind that with the exception of the third crop from set one no software based luminance noise reduction has been applied.

Crop 1

Original

Adjusted in DPP

Dust & Scratches

This shows pretty much what I would expect - decent noise levels in the original and increased noise levels in the adjusted image. The Dust & Scratches filter definitely makes a difference in removing some of the speckles and results in an improved image. Overall the noise levels really aren’t bad at all.

Crop 2

Original

Adjusted in DPP

Crop 3

Original

Adjusted in DPP

Very similar results for crops two and three - increased noise levels in the adjusted image but still holding up very well considering the circumstances.

And finally, crops from a screenshot taken at 50% viewing (print size was 40%) which are similar to what you would actually see on a print.

50% crop 1

50% crop 2

I don’t see anything in the 50% crops that would prevent me from getting an excellent print from this image especially considering I have made absolutely no effort at noise reduction or selective sharpening.

So while the 100% crops are moderately (but not unexpectedly) noisy (remember it was a 15 minute exposure at ISO 400 pushed the equivalent of 2 stops!) the 50% crops look great and in my opinion it’s an impressive performance.

[Update] I should add that once the Pandora’s box of noise reduction and sharpening has been opened the results are so wide ranging that it’s probably impossible to definitively conclude what is the “best” result without actually seeing a final print (no one in their right mind would publish a full size image on the web for “final” viewing). Since I published this post I’ve been playing with a variety of noise reduction and sharpening tools/scenarios and while it’s clear this image can be vastly improved it’s hard to say which tools/scenarios yields the “best” results. However, so far I would venture to say that once printed (excluding massive enlargements and assuming a well prepared image and a knowledgeable printer) no one would even mention the noise as an issue.

This is a photo from behind “The Mound” at Gasworks Park. This was taken a couple nights before the most recent full moon - which despite being the largest full moon of the year was no match for the marine layer of clouds and rain so common this time of year in Seattle.

I’ve also just posted a photography guide for Gasworks Park as part of the Free Photo Guides community project. If you find the guides useful and are willing to contribute be sure to contact me!

Here is a 300% zoom crop (it’s visible way below 300% but I just wanted to make it easy to see) before and after the Dust & Scratches filter was applied.

Dust & Scratches filter before and after, 23 minute exposure, ISO 400, Long exposure noise reduction ON, Settings: Amount 1, Threshold 10 (vary the threshold)

An important side note - this is a crop from a 23 minute exposure at ISO 400 taken in succession to three 15 minute exposures at ISO 400. Long exposure noise reduction was ON for all exposures and while the 15 minute exposures showed no speckling the 23 minute exposure did. There was definitely some threshold that was crossed during that extra eight minutes but I’m not sure if it was a result of the longer exposure or that the sensor was finally starting to heat up after more than an hour of exposures with little break in between.

The Dust & Scratches filter also works really well on the long exposure tests I posted earlier where the images without in-camera long exposure noise reduction showed speckling. Here is the 15 minute long exposure without noise reduction before and after the Dust & Scratches filter. I converted to black and white because it was easier to see the difference - in the color version there is still some color blotching left but it is far less noticeable than the speckling.

Dust & Scratches filter before and after, 15 minute exposure, Long exposure noise reduction OFF, Settings: Amount 1, Threshold 6 (vary the threshold)

Clearly the filter makes a significant difference here and until I see otherwise, for me, it’s justifiable to skip long exposure noise reduction with these results. Also for what it’s worth I don’t think this would work for astrophotography for obvious reasons.