Smooth like desktop backgrounds

[Dazzauk]

how do you get a pic that is super smooth like desktop backgrounds. I’ve taken a few snaps that I really like but they always seem to have some grain in them.

Examples

:

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

Start with raw, not jpg, the dpi is 3x higher, but Photoshop or another program is required.

 

[Dazzauk]

Start with raw, not jpg, the dpi is 3x higher, but Photoshop or another program is required.

I always use raw and I have lightroom

 

[Blessed77]

If you're shooting at night, or in low light, maybe your shutter speed is too slow. So it's not snapping a quick/clear shot?

 

[Drestin Black]

how do you get a pic that is super smooth like desktop backgrounds. I’ve taken a few snaps that I really like but they always seem to have some grain in them.

Actually, while using the lowest possible ISO is always the best solution, here is what gets you the rest of the way:


Noiseware - the Better way to remove Noise

 

[Drestin Black]

Start with raw, not jpg, the dpi is 3x higher, but Photoshop or another program is required.

Dpi is the same, but JPEG does add some artifacts and other issues

 

[Dazzauk]

Actually, while using the lowest possible ISO is always the best solution, here is what gets you the rest of the way:


Noiseware - the Better way to remove Noise

Thanks buddy

 

[anotherlab]

how do you get a pic that is super smooth like desktop backgrounds. I’ve taken a few snaps that I really like but they always seem to have some grain in them.

Examples

View attachment 89243 View attachment 89244
:

If you have the the RAW files, Adobe Lightroom can do a lot to reduce noise. There are other programs that can reduce noise. You might also want to take a look at online articles and tutorials, like this one: How to do Noise Reduction in Lightroom

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

Dpi is the same, but JPEG does add some artifacts and other issues

Sorry, you are incorrect, DPI for JPG, 72 DPI, for RAW 240 DPI, that is a huge difference in resolution.

 

[anotherlab]

Sorry, you are incorrect, DPI for JPG, 72 DPI, for RAW 240 DPI, that is a huge difference in resolution.

The DPI embedded in the image file is meaningless as a measure of resolution. The resolution of a digital image is indicated by its pixel count, not by the embedded DPI.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

The DPI embedded in the image file is meaningless as a measure of resolution. The resolution of a digital image is indicated by its pixel count, not by the embedded DPI.

Have you looked at both and compared them, by eye?

 

[anotherlab]

Have you looked at both and compared them, by eye?

With my Phantom 3 Standard? Yes. And I usually just work with the RAW files with Lightroom.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

With my Phantom 3 Standard? Yes. And I usually just work with the RAW files with Lightroom.

In CS5, the differences are quite noticeable, much smoother, less pixel edge.
I do Astrophotography, where we take many hours of 7-30 minute single exposures, with filters, stack and combine them to create LRGB masters, which we then make color images of extremely distant objects. I am used to working at pixel levels during post processing.
Check it out at
www.floydblueastrophotography.com

 

[anotherlab]

In CS5, the differences are quite noticeable, much smoother, less pixel edge.
I do Astrophotography, where we take many hours of 7-30 minute single exposures, with filters, stack and combine them to create LRGB masters, which we then make color images of extremely distant objects. I am used to working at pixel levels during post processing.
Check it out at
www.floydblueastrophotography.com

I was responding to your message about the DPI being different. I was not commenting about the IQ of the JPEG image vs the RAW. Even with an older version of Photoshop like CS5, you are better off working with the RAW file than with the JPEG.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

I was responding to your message about the DPI being different. I was not commenting about the IQ of the JPEG image vs the RAW. Even with an older version of Photoshop like CS5, you are better off working with the RAW file than with the JPEG.

I see, well to me, there is a distinct difference between the two types, if it is not the native DPI, it certainly appears to be.

 

[anotherlab]

I see, well to me, there is a distinct difference between the two types, if it is not the native DPI, it certainly appears to be.

Yes, the files are going to be different. The JPEG was rendered from the same raw data that was written to the RAW file. They should have the same resolution in pixels. The DPI is just a setting stored in the meta data and you can pretty much just ignore it while manipulating the images.

 

[furthertofly]

Yes, shoot RAW, get top-line processing software and learn how to use it, etc., but the camera, more specifically the sensor and processor, are major considerations also. DJI sensors on the Sparc, Mavic, P3 and P4 and smaller and older with limited dynamic range and noise characteristics. They are made for video, which can tolerate more limited per-frame specs than still photography. The P4P has a better, but still limited sensor, and with some heroic processing you can make some shots look acceptable. (check this album) The camera on the Zenmuse X5S gimbal is the best DJI currently offers, a good 4/3 sensor with interchangable micro-4/3 lenses. The next step up is a hexa- or octo-copter that can take a DSLR aloft, but of course you're looking at major $$ and more technical knowledge to build and customize.