How to fix this shot (noise related)?

boulderNardo

Got this shot last season, never used it because it's so noisy.
I have NO idea what happened. Maybe my camera crapped out on that one shot? (actually, the entire 11-shot series of which this shot is part). Maybe the wind was blowing real strong when I took this shot and it's just snow all over the foto .. not sure.






Sorry about the huge Watermark, still figuring this SmugMug watermark thing out

Anyway... how would you guys fix the sky in this shot?
The sky is really the only problem ... the noise on the skier and rocks doesn't bother me.
I have Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4 ... Not sure how to get started.
I tried Lightroom's noise reduction with absolutely no effect.

_Bernardo

divamum

Have you tried noiseware? Free standalone application (for windows) which was recommended to me here at dgrin by Ziggy. I find it's hugely more effective than the built-in noise reduction functions in other editing soft software. It can be found here

Scotto

Bernardo, if you are struggling I can run this through Noise Ninja in Aperture. It's never let me down and always gives great results.

If you want me to do this for you, point me in the direction of the original image

Sam

I just ran a copy of the image you posted through Neat Image, and it did a good job on the noise. I am sure the full res image would clean up well. Did you shoot in RAW?

If so ACR can eliminate some noise.

Sam

Ric Grupe

It's snow!

Being under exposed gives it the look of noise.

Give it some positive exposure adjustment and it really turns into a very nice shot.

leaforte

Ric Grupe wrote:

It's snow!

Being under exposed gives it the look of noise.

Give it some positive exposure adjustment and it really turns into a very nice shot.

Yes, it cleaned up very nice for me also. Nice shot!

pathfinder

I looked at the skiing slideshow on his website, and the snow reads between 180,180,180 to 220,220,220 which to my eye is a light gray at best, and not the white of snow at all. I think the images would pop a lot more, with more of the potential color depth utilized more effectively, with good curves.

I think snow should read closer to 245,245,245 or so, especially if sunlit. Even in shade, snow is probably brighter than almost anything else except sky.

The shots are very good, but they look flat to my eye due to the non use of the full 5,5,5 to 250,250,250 color space depth.

Candid Arts

pathfinder wrote:

I looked at the skiing slideshow on his website, and the snow reads between 180,180,180 to 220,220,220 which to my eye is a light gray at best, and not the white of snow at all. I think the images would pop a lot more, with more of the potential color depth utilized more effectively, with good curves.

I think snow should read closer to 245,245,245 or so, especially if sunlit. Even in shade, snow is probably brighter than almost anything else except sky.

The shots are very good, but they look flat to my eye due to the non use of the full 5,5,5 to 250,250,250 color space depth.

Sorry for my ignorance... But huh? On the numbers? I'm guessing they are in relation to exposure, i.e. black = 0 and white = 255. But how do you actually see which sections of the are exactly which numbers? And do you state a series of three numbers for RGB?

Candid Arts

Candid Arts wrote:

Sorry for my ignorance... But huh? On the numbers? I'm guessing they are in relation to exposure, i.e. black = 0 and white = 255. But how do you actually see which sections of the are exactly which numbers? And do you state a series of three numbers for RGB?

Never mind. Answered my own question. Thanks myself. Haha. Didn't know about that feature. That's awesome.