editing low-light shots

[Netskimmer]

I took several shots at the local fair well after dark and used I fairly high ISO to compensate for the low light and need for a higher shutter speed. As a result of the high ISO I good some noise in the images and decided to use GIMP to try and reduce the noise. Here are a few before and after the edit. Honestly, I don't know which is better, the ones with the noise or the ones without, I think I may have done more harm than good.

1. original

2. edit

3. original

4. edit

 

[Kerbouchard]

You seemed to have picked up a pinkish color cast in the edits. Honestly, I'm a little surprised that the D7000 at ISO 1600 isn't giving you better results. I don't know much about gimp as an editor, but it could be a lot of the problem.

Try a reedit in View NX. It came with your camera, and the update that they did to it about a year ago added a lot of pretty useful features. If you aren't going to go Adobe, it might be worth a relook.

 

[joealcantar]

Yep, I would download NX2 (hopefully you shot RAW) if you are using a Nikon comes with ViewNX to manage your files.
Did they not allow flash? This is where a snoot for a flash would come in handy to reach out and touch em.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[KmH]

Under exposure makes image noise more visible, with any digital camera. GIMP cannot correct an image parametrically (doesn't destroy pixels).

Fully half of a digital images luminance data is in the brightest stop of exposure. The next brighest stop only has 1/4 of the luminance data.

if we assume 6 only stops of dynamic range, and that the entire range has 4096 gradations of tone (a 12-bit tonal depth), the brightest stop will have 2048 of the gradations, while the last stop will only have 64 gradations.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

For learning more, and how to effectively use Camera Raw, I recommend reading and keeping handy for reference: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

1. original

 

[EPPhoto]

The D7000has more power than you think...you could have went higher than 1600 and had better exposure.

Don't underestimate that camera...I have one and it's bada$$ in low light.

 

[D-B-J]

The D7000has more power than you think...you could have went higher than 1600 and had better exposure.

Don't underestimate that camera...I have one and it's bada$$ in low light.

This is true. I was shooting at 6400 the other night and it's a solid performer.

 

[Netskimmer]

Thanks for the responses guys, I assumed that higher ISO = higher noise period, so I tried to work with the lowest ISO possible not realizing that the noise would be less noticeable with a better exposure. I did shoot raw and did the initial work (WB, cropping, ect in View NX 2 before converting to jpeg and continuing with GIMP. Thanks for the links KmH very informative. Ah well, you live, you learn, and you move on. If nothing else it was a good learning experience.

 

[KmH]

With film, we exposed for the shadows, and let the highlights take care of themselves.

Digital is exactly the opposite, we have to expose for the highlights, and let the shadows take care of themselves. because fully 1/2 of the luminance data is in that brighest stop of exposure.

It's called "Expose to The Right" - ETTR. There are places online worth tracking down to learn more about ETTR.

Note: highlights in the above context is not the same as specular highlights. (Doh! More internet searching for specular highlights)

 

[Netskimmer]

Doh! More internet searching for specular highlights

I can't help but feel that was a shot at my research techniques.

:study:...:???:...:study:

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Well your main problem then is that you were editing a JPEG in gimp. IMO you need to tackle noise at the RAW level right out of the gate with a capable editing software or all you are going to do is accentuate it more and more with every edit. Also, as others said, a better exposure would have produced less noise from the start as well as give you more room to tweak your image. If you are often shooting in low light you can get specific software ( cheaper than photoshop ) to combat noise. I know "Noise Ninja" is one and I believe Nik and OnOne both make their own.

 

[KmH]

GIMP can only do 8-bit edits, so even after converting a Raw file it is fairly limited regardless the file type being edited.

Many that have GIMP use the free Raw converter RawTherapee.....Raw Therapee - Bing

 

[Netskimmer]

Thanks for the links, I am going to take an online photography coarse offered by the state college when I get the chance and will pick up Photoshop (and possibly light room) then. I don't shoot in low light often (except for lunar and night sky photography) so I don't think I'll need the software you mentioned Goonie, but if that changes before I get Photoshop I may give those a try. I downloaded Raw Therapee and took a quick look at the manual and opened a few files with it. I will look at it more closely after work but I did notice that the shots I posted here looked horrible in it. The noise was way,way,way more noticeable in Therapee than in view NX 2. I will read the manual completely and dig around in the software some more. I know so little about photo editing, I'm going to have to raid the local library and kick my internet searching into overtime just to get started. There is so much technical information to say nothing of technique. It's like trying to excavate a buried Egyptian pyramid from the sand with a tea-spoon. Well, back to it.