Post by: sandbox on July 30, 2007, 02:25:25 PM
Anyone know how I could clear it up? I think it was a lack of light or a low ISO setting that caused this result.
Thanks
Post by: Paddy on July 30, 2007, 03:40:17 PM
Tips on removing noise from digital image
I played around with it for a few minutes - tried various options under Filters->Noise, including Despeckle and Remove noise, both of which helped somewhat and worked better than Dust and Scratches. Also used Gaussian Blur which helped reduce stubborn black speckles. Then applied Unsharp Mask.
Since this is probably only a portion of the photo, it's hard to judge the overall effect, but you should be able to improve things a bit. As someone in that thread noted, it's easier to avoid noise in the first place than get rid of it later, but sometimes in low-light situations it's hard to avoid.
Post by: dboh on July 30, 2007, 05:35:54 PM
Post by: Texas Mac Man on July 30, 2007, 07:10:20 PM
Was this picture made using a digital camera or a film camera?
If film camera, was the picture posted made from scanning a print (or scanning a negative)?
If scanned, is the picture you posted enlarged?
Post by: krissel on July 30, 2007, 10:07:18 PM
It's a really nice pointillist composition. I like it as it is.
Post by: sandbox on July 30, 2007, 10:38:47 PM
Paddy there seems to be some good answers in there but I can't tell what they are.
dboh, thanks for the pointers i'll make a duplicate and try to adjust it.
Tex, I took it with a digital in very odd light. I used 3:2 formatting and set the ISO to Auto.
This is the original. It doesn't look bad at 50% but at 100% it's a mess.
Post by: Paddy on July 30, 2007, 11:45:41 PM
1. global fixes - do level/curve, color balance fix first. These operations exaggerate filtering artifacts if done after filtering, so it's best to be done first.
2. isolation - try to isolate the noisy area so the rest of the picture retains its original quality. All noise filters soften the picture to some degree, it's best to apply it to only where it's needed. How to isolate? for shadow noise, you can use color select to mask out the brighter area and leave only the shadows. For long exposure noise, use the threshold adjustment in Dust and Scratches filter to isolate the salt and pepper. Once you identify the noise, then you can find the right tool for the job.
3. filter - use filter to remove noise. Dust and scratches filter is a median filter with a threshold setting. It's a non-linear filter that does a little better in terms of removing noise without too much softening. Gaussian filter is another popular choice. It's best for occations where bluring is not a problem.
4. sharpen - since all filters soften pictures, sharpening is a must after filtering. Unsharp Mask does the best for sharpening with minimal amount of typical filter artifacts. Keep the setting low and run multiple passes to boost edges and maintain smooth textures.
5. crop and print - not required, but a well cropped picture can often save the composition of a photo. Afterall, you are only looking at 95% of the picture when you frame it on the view finder. Pictures that I care enough to print, I would like to try to crop and improve the composition.
Post by: Paddy on July 31, 2007, 12:26:44 AM
1. convert to PSD - don't want to work on a JPEG, since it's a lossy format
2. Filter->Despeckle
3. Filter->Reduce Noise
4. Filter->Despeckle
5. Filter->Despeckle
6. Filter-> Unsharp Mask (89%, Radius of 1, Threshold 11)
7. Save as JPEG
This was after a bit of fiddling and trying other things, including a filter plugin called Neat Image. (Didn't like its results as much)
I didn't adjust anything else, although you probably should have a go at the color balance etc. before applying the filters. See 2nd image (without grid)
Despite what some will tell you, removing noise from a photo without seriously affecting other aspects (sharpness being the main one) is difficult.
I then tried one other commercial plug-in, Noise Ninja. Liked its results much better than Neat Image. See first image (with grid - I'm not about to pay $45 just to try it!) http://www.picturecode.com/
Post by: Thomas S. England on July 31, 2007, 05:45:41 AM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Jul 30 2007, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tex, I took it with a digital in very odd light. I used 3:2 formatting and set the ISO to Auto.
Despite your first comment that you thought a "low ISO" might be the problem, the real key is that you used Auto ISO, which left the camera free to boost the ISO to deal with the low light situation.
The camera chose a high ISO, resulting in a classic example of noise.
It also looks underexposed (I'm at a disadvantage here since the larger versions are not revealing themselves on my machine). That will make the noise even worse.
I have found Noise Ninja to be the best of the noise removal software, although it can be overdone, resulting in a very plastic, artificial look. If the image is important to you, let me know. You could send it to me & I will use Noise Ninja on it for you.
Post by: Gregg on July 31, 2007, 07:46:41 AM
Not having PhotoShop, or any experience using it, I'm not sure where to turn.
Are there such services available commercially somewhere?
Post by: sandbox on July 31, 2007, 07:55:51 AM
I'm going to busy trying the tools, though I had found the Despeckle and noise reduction without great success.
Here's another example.
Tom I don't know why your browser won't open the photo, but in Firefox and on my iBook it opens the photo at 50% first and the cursor turns into a magnifier that will increase the photo to 100% with just 1 click.
Post by: Paddy on July 31, 2007, 08:21:20 AM
I'm hoping I won't feel a compelling need to buy it, but you never know. There's always some major goof-up possibility or the possibility of photos that can't be redone and must be fixed, so it's nice to know that there IS something that seems to do a better job than just mucking about in Photoshop. And there are still those 1000+ photos from Europe still awaiting editing....
Post by: kps on July 31, 2007, 12:22:13 PM
I've had my own goofups with noise and the best I found was to keep playing around with it until I can't do any more.
I start with:
1-Levels --to get the image to an acceptable and viewable level
2-curves --to reduce the dominant color and to boost the RGB (input 128, output 128+)
3-Filter -Despecle
4-duplicate layer
5-apply median or dust and scratches to reduce the pointilization, but this will soften the overall image.
6-adjust the transparency of the duplicated layer to an acceptable sharpness.
7-keep playing with the controls, adjust contrast, hue, saturation, etc. Reducing saturation will go a long way, but it'll make the image flat.
8-merge the layers when done
The image bellow is a little too red, but it can be corrected further. I did it rather quickly.
Post by: Thomas S. England on July 31, 2007, 03:17:06 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Jul 31 2007, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tom I don't know why your browser won't open the photo, but in Firefox and on my iBook it opens the photo at 50% first and the cursor turns into a magnifier that will increase the photo to 100% with just 1 click.
Here's what I could do in a couple of minutes. Ironically,Photoshop isn't nearly as handy as reducing redeye as some of the imaging editing programs designed for consumers, or, at least, I've never gotten that great at it. I try not to have it be a problem to begin with.
can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?
[attachment=502:index.jpg]
Post by: kbeartx on July 31, 2007, 05:33:35 PM
Post by: jepinto on July 31, 2007, 06:05:11 PM
QUOTE(Thomas S. England @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?
[attachment=498:attach.jpg]
Click the browse button, navigate to the file location, click upload.
[attachment=499:2attach.jpg]
click on the little green arrow(ed) attachment.
[attachment=500:attach3.jpg]
png is allowed, as is jpg but not both.
Allowed types of attachments
[attachment=503:allowed.gif]
Post by: kps on July 31, 2007, 09:41:38 PM
For my second attempt, I started with Nikon Capture Editor to reduce the noise, adjust levels, curves and then finished in Photoshop.
Post by: krissel on July 31, 2007, 11:16:03 PM
In fact I would enhance it and take advantage of the artistic license therein.
Post by: sandbox on July 31, 2007, 11:21:05 PM
Paddy thanks for the offer, I think learning how to do the basics will help me with future dilemmas that I'm sure I'll find myself in.
I really depend too much on auto settings with these pocket digital cameras and this experience will remind me that I should pay closer attention in the future.Kbear, like you I use very basic PS tools because, I guess, I've never been faced with this situation. My cameras usually take pictures without issue. Of course I don't expect a lot from my skill-set or equipment either, but in this case the pictures were important to others.
KPS, I'm getting similar results as yours, it's sort of creamy or blurry I think? I lack the vocabulary for this subject so I may not be describing what I see, so that others can comprehend.
Post by: sandbox on July 31, 2007, 11:47:20 PM
QUOTE(krissel @ Aug 1 2007, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I maintain my preference for the impressionist look.
In fact I would enhance it and take advantage of the artistic license therein.
In fact I would enhance it and take advantage of the artistic license therein.
From an artistic perspective I suppose one could see speckles on someone else's dress and face as enhancement, but how would you feel if the speckles were yours? I vaguely remember that photo of you standing with the Governor of N.J., do you think a few strategically place speckles would have been an improvement?
Post by: krissel on July 31, 2007, 11:58:25 PM
Post by: jepinto on August 01, 2007, 06:53:03 AM
Jane looks good, how do you look cleaned up?
Post by: Thomas S. England on August 01, 2007, 07:27:17 AM
Having your camera set to auto ISO, those decisions were made by the camera. When there was ample light, the camera selected the lower ISO, hence you had less of a problem with noise.
I use Nikon capture very rarely, just on problems frames (thankfully, I don't have many of those). Capture is an excellent program, but too slow for me to use when dealing with large numbers of images. It does have the uPoint feature, which lets you apply changes to selections within the frame, not across the whole image. That can be quite useful at times.
I use Photo Mechanic constantly to import my images, rename them, move them around, email frames, make quick websites and for my initial editing. Then I send the photos in batches to Photoshop's Adobe Camera Raw, since I shoot virtually everything in the RAW format (which Nikon calls NEF).
The software for dealing with digital photography is a crowded field, changing everyday. Aperture and Lightroom are both hot contenders these days since they also can act as cataloging programs. Lightroom may well become my choice for image software.
I maintain that the time required to handle digital files is more dependent on your skill & knowledge of a program than on the speed of the program itself. At this point I am so familiar with with Adobe Camera Raw that I can use it very quickly.
Post by: Gregg on August 01, 2007, 07:45:03 AM
QUOTE(jepinto @ Jul 31 2007, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Thomas S. England @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?
[attachment=498:attach.jpg]
Congrats, TSE - your interjected question wasn't ignored.
Post by: Paddy on August 01, 2007, 09:38:20 AM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D550/D55FAR400.HTM
Generally, the point and shoot cameras don't do as well as the DSLRs in the noise department at higher ISO ratings.
From dpreview.com:
QUOTE
ISO equivalence on a digital camera is the ability to increase the sensitivity of the sensor. This works by turning up the "volume" (gain) on the sensor's signal amplifiers (remember the sensor is an analogue device). By amplifying the signal you also amplify the noise which becomes more visible at higher ISO's. Many modern cameras also employ noise reduction and / or sharpness reduction at higher sensitivities.
....With tiny, high pixel count chips noise is always going to be an issue, and to a large degree this is more a test of the effectiveness (both measurable and visible) of a camera's noise reduction system. Designers have to balance the desire to produce smooth, clean results with the need to retain as much detail as possible (if you blur away the noise, you blur away image detail too). These crops show that all manufacturers find it difficult to produce an acceptable result at anything over base ISO from 10 million pixels crammed into a tiny sensor.
....With tiny, high pixel count chips noise is always going to be an issue, and to a large degree this is more a test of the effectiveness (both measurable and visible) of a camera's noise reduction system. Designers have to balance the desire to produce smooth, clean results with the need to retain as much detail as possible (if you blur away the noise, you blur away image detail too). These crops show that all manufacturers find it difficult to produce an acceptable result at anything over base ISO from 10 million pixels crammed into a tiny sensor.
Unfortunately, your camera was never reviewed at dpreview, so you can't see how it does in their very good noise tests, but in just quickly perusing the reviews of various cameras that are reviewed, it becomes pretty clear that when it comes to noise, you more or less get what you pay for.
Check out the review for the Nikon D40 for instance. Then compare it to say, the Nikon P5000 Both are 10MP cameras, but the difference in noise levels is pretty striking.Clearly, choosing the ISO setting yourself is key - at least you then know what you're going to get. You might even want to run your own comparisons in a couple of different lighting conditions to figure out what you find acceptable with YOUR camera, if Phil Askey hasn't already done it for you at dpreview.com.
(BTW, SB, your camera in the UK was the 300Z...I don't know why some manufacturers persist in confusing us with different naming schemes in different markets!!)
Post by: sandbox on August 01, 2007, 10:29:33 AM
QUOTE
Having your camera set to auto ISO, those decisions were made by the camera. When there was ample light, the camera selected the lower ISO, hence you had less of a problem with noise.
I had noticed that myself Tom, when I arrived home and opened the camera among the details in the window was ISO 60, still set from the last shot I took.
Jen, I was the only one handling the camera so there are no shots of me. The Biltmore Brunch is both casual and appointed, there are rooms to separate the beach/pool folks from the Sunday-go-to-meeting crowd, so you could wear your bowling attire and fit right in. They prefer reservations, especially for large numbers, of course, don’t we all, but the guard at the gate will direct you to the parking lot without one. The prices are reasonable @ $22 bucks a head, as compared to the other historical resorts around here like the Don Caesar http://www.doncesarshop.com/detail.asp?product_id=KGSB @ $90 or the Renaissance Vinoy. http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/tpas...-and-golf-club/
Paddy it was just as much the fault of the operator as it was the settings I stood to far away and pushed zoom to the limit, (below) where I could have been closer to better utilize the flash. It’s been many years since I’ve seen this problem; I have many old 35mm photos taken on trips to Mt. St. Helen and St. Mary’s Glacier that need to be worked on as well. When I purchased this camera it was considered a good choice for it’s size, and has served me well through the years. I still don’t want to go back to an SLR because I find it’s not convenient enough to carry everywhere and so I don’t and consequently don’t have pictures of things I happened to capture because I snuck the camera into Jane’s Purse.
Post by: Paddy on August 01, 2007, 02:03:03 PM
However, it all depends on what is important to you and whether you have a primary interest in photography or not. I do, so the answer was fairly simple (though not especially cheap!!!!) I love my DSLR, but there are definitely times when it is just too much to carry around.
Post by: sandbox on August 01, 2007, 04:39:35 PM
My needs are small and yet they lack zoom more times than not, so if the Lumix will fit in my pocket and reach out 300 ft. with a decent photo that's all I pretty much require. I'm still waiting for someone or Panasonic itself to come up with something a bit more finished, but if not this camera just may suit me.
Post by: Paddy on August 01, 2007, 06:02:47 PM
The A640 is a slightly larger camera than the Panasonic, but it also has more options to override the automatic settings. The A570 is smaller, lighter and hasn't got the handy moveable screen of the A640. It also has 7.1MP instead of 10, but on the plus side, it does have image stabilization. It's also cheaper, of course. The A640 is a very sturdily built camera - feels very solid. Another thing - both of them take AA batteries, which is a must for P&S cams in my book. (Convenience, after all, is one of the main reasons a lot of us buy these cameras in the first place!) The 570 only requires 2 batteries, which helps keep its weight down. The 640 takes 4, but seems to last a good long time if you use 2300 mAh NiMH batteries or better.
Post by: Gregg on August 02, 2007, 07:39:09 AM
Post by: sandbox on August 02, 2007, 01:24:49 PM
What's the problem Gregg?
Post by: Gregg on August 03, 2007, 07:41:54 AM
QUOTE(Gregg @ Jul 31 2007, 07:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have a similar need - to remove a car from a digital photo of a covered bridge.
Not having PhotoShop, or any experience using it, I'm not sure where to turn.
Are there such services available commercially somewhere?
Not having PhotoShop, or any experience using it, I'm not sure where to turn.
Are there such services available commercially somewhere?
QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 1 2007, 07:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(jepinto @ Jul 31 2007, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(Thomas S. England @ Jul 31 2007, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
can somebody teach me how to do these reduced size thumbnails of images?
[attachment=498:attach.jpg]
Congrats, TSE - your interjected question wasn't ignored.
Post by: sandbox on August 03, 2007, 02:09:10 PM
Paddy, I looked at your suggested comparison http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...z3&show=all
and didn't find the Canon would offer me a 28mm wide angle or a decent zoom with stabalization. Granted they say there are noise issues but there are noise issue in the Canon as well. I looked at all the Canons and none offer the size, wide angle and zoom in one package, nor is it easy to find any manufacturer that does.
I looked at their sample shots and they seem to meet my simple needs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/page14.asp which is a smaller camera that can reachout and touch something beyond my Olympus.
The Lumix TZ3 is so close to what I need that I've been tempted to take one off the shelf at Office Depot, but I have this sense that if I wait just a little longer they will improve it to a point where I'll have no reservations at all.
Post by: Paddy on August 03, 2007, 02:31:54 PM
Of course, if it's not a rush, I'd wait - 'specially as the pre-holiday and inevitable shiny new cameras are just around the corner!
Post by: sandbox on August 03, 2007, 07:54:49 PM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Aug 3 2007, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're right that the Lumix does have a wider and longer zoom and comes with the IS, but I guess I found the image quality issues a little less to my liking. Fussy - that's me.
Of course, if it's not a rush, I'd wait - 'specially as the pre-holiday and inevitable shiny new cameras are just around the corner!
Of course, if it's not a rush, I'd wait - 'specially as the pre-holiday and inevitable shiny new cameras are just around the corner!
oh yes I hear that Santa's Horse is coming to town.
No one has it all, you just pick what suits you best. From the photos they took I can't really say I'd be sacrificing a lot but the gain would really be clear. I'd get my size, 7.1 mm, 10x zoom, wide angle, IS, all in one package. It is a bit more expensive than the Canon but without a long zoom I don't even want to buy a new camera. I'm really only considering a new camera because of a zoom shortfall.
I don't really have a choice here, no one else has this package. 
Post by: Gregg on August 04, 2007, 01:03:54 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 3 2007, 02:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Gregg, I'm sure there are services that will work on your photos maybe even a place like Walgreens Drug Store. Sometimes the software that comes with your camera will do the job you need. My Olympus comes with CamMedia software that fixes many issues.
Thank you, sir. I have another avenue to try now.
Post by: Thomas S. England on August 10, 2007, 12:36:19 PM
Some cameras have a true zoom function which means that the focal length of the lens actually changes throughout the zoom.
On other cameras the zooming is accomplished (at least in part) by having the image cropped down. This is usually called a digital zoom, as compared to an optical zoom.
The only benefit of digitally zooming is that it lets the manufacturer make a misleading claim about the zoom capability. If the digital zoom is not used, but you crop the image, you get the same result.
Of course, one of the results is that noise will increase in visibility since you are only using part of the total image, along with any lack of sharpness.
So when comparing cameras, be sure to determine if zooming is Digital or Optical. It will make a difference. Many cameras combine the two--you can zoom the lens to its longest focal length, then the camera will start cropping to give you the appearance of a tighter framing.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on August 10, 2007, 02:53:49 PM
QUOTE
If the digital zoom is not used, but you crop the image, you get the same result.
Minor point: That would be true if the cropping is done after taking the picture. If you crop by using optical zooming, while preparing to take the shot, you should have a much better image to work with. Of course, this assumes that the optical zoom is sufficiently accurate. Cheap lens give lower quality images no matter how they are used. 
Post by: sandbox on August 11, 2007, 07:25:42 PM
I have learned from this experience that I was depending on my flash at too great a distance, 30ft. in some shots, and that it's range is closer to 10ft. or so. I don't think a new Panasonic would improve the pictures here, it was not the camera that failed, it was the careless operator. 
In general, both Jane and I have said that we wish we had.....a better zoom....and when you both find the same restriction it's easy to correct. As long as I'm not loosing any quality compared to my Olympus (low threshold) I should be OK. The Leica lens in the Panasonic seems to be well received by people who write about such things so my reluctance to buy a Panasonic was pacified. For now I'm on hold, but if the itch for a new shinny camera becomes to hard to bear, I'll scratch it! ;)Thanks Thomas, I guess i should have been more descriptive and said Optical Zoom. ;)Along with the Zoom offered on this Panasonic is a stabilization method that is not available on my old Olympus.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/page4.aspI suppose i could get another SLR to perform at 300 ft. but I find if the Camera is not convenient then it gets left behind so I'm really stuck with purchasing a camera that will take long shots and fit in my pocket, then purchase software like what you've suggested to correct what mistakes that I have made, if possible. I have learned from this experience that I was depending on my flash at too great a distance, 30ft. in some shots, and that it's range is closer to 10ft. or so. I don't think a new Panasonic would improve the pictures here, it was not the camera that failed, it was the careless operator. In general, both Jane and I have said that we wish we had.....a better zoom....and when you both find the same restriction it's easy to correct. As long as I'm not loosing any quality compared to my Olympus (low threshold) I should be OK. The Leica lens in the Panasonic seems to be well received by people who write about such things so my reluctance to buy a Panasonic was pacified. For now I'm on hold, but if the itch for a new shinny camera becomes to hard to bear, I'll scratch it! 
Post by: sandbox on August 25, 2007, 08:41:54 PM
QUOTE
If the image is important to you, let me know. You could send it to me & I will use Noise Ninja on it for you.
which have been returned to me, (sorry Thomas just noticed) and the result was better than expected. Although I'm going to try and learn a lesson from my sloppy picture taking, if this software doesn't require a long learning curve and little talent I may like to acquire it some day.Thanks for your generosity Thomas. It makes… making mistakes more than worth it!
Post by: Thomas S. England on August 27, 2007, 08:30:13 AM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Aug 25 2007, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I took Thomas England up on his offer
Thanks for your generosity Thomas. It makes… making mistakes more than worth it!
QUOTE
If the image is important to you, let me know. You could send it to me & I will use Noise Ninja on it for you.
which have been returned to me, (sorry Thomas just noticed) and the result was better than expected. Although I'm going to try and learn a lesson from my sloppy picture taking, if this software doesn't require a long learning curve and little talent I may like to acquire it some day.Thanks for your generosity Thomas. It makes… making mistakes more than worth it!
I'll run through how I handled the images. I used Noise Ninja & three Photoshop actions which I have set up previously:
1. Noise Ninja: This software can profile the image to help it determine the best fix for noise reduction. Takes a mere second or three.
2. Levels adjustment layer. This action creates a new layer in Photoshop which I use to adjust the levels, with the help of a histogram. All your images required me to move the whole histogram to the right, since the images were underexposed, giving no true bright, white pixels.
3. Dodge selected parts. I have an action which creates a new layer which is nothing but 100% grey. I then use the brush tool, a white brush to dodge, and a black brush to burn. I used the dodging to lighten the face of the woman on the left, since she was darker in the image.
4. Sharpening. I have several sharpening actions. In this case I used an action which sets the Unsharp Mask tool to 85%.
Finally, I flatened out the layers & save the changes.
Since I had these actions already made, the whole process took about 4 minutes per image, most of that spent on the dodging--getting the right brush size and choosing the opacity I wanted. I make my changes on adjustment layers, rather than on the image layer since this is more non-destructive. You are adding pixels rather than discarding pixels.
Post by: Paddy on August 27, 2007, 10:07:56 AM
Post by: Thomas S. England on August 27, 2007, 10:28:01 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Aug 27 2007, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So...can we see the result?
Post by: sandbox on August 27, 2007, 06:14:13 PM
Now you see there's that learning curve....I wouldn't know which tool to use. If Auto Levels or Contrast doesn't work for me, I'm lost. And... the thing is..... most of my pictures are acceptable for personal use, normally no more than a dozen people on the planet ever see them and all they ask of them is a memory.
Knowing how light effects the outcome has been emphasized in this exchange. I was in an antique building that was almost lost to the wrecking ball and in need of restoration. We took the elevators from level to level walked down the wings in dark hallways that seemed that they would never end. It was like a scene from an old movie and not an environment that I’m accustomed to taking picture in, so I didn’t even consider that the yellow light, absorbing wood and wallpaper should be considered. Then there’s the distance from my subjects, standing too far away, zoom fully extended while relying on a small but normally adequate flash to illuminate what needed to be captured. Dah, a Big dah.
I carried the camera just in case, didn’t plan to take pictures….but. So the moment was a reflex just before we exited the building, an opportunity for a few more laughs. This sort of photography is what I am capable of but obviously not good at in all environments. If someone asked me to take pictures there I would have put more thought into it and taken a few shots early, viewed the result and adjusted the camera accordingly. Since no one asks me to take pictures the process is normally point and shoot.
This thread could be a benefit to the next member of TS who may, on the way home from the beaches, stop into the Biltmore for swim and a bite. Knowing that there are ghosts there that steal the light from their pictures could make the proper adjustments so to avoid the haunting.