6

The moon is really a special case, because it is mostly grey. So you can remove chroma noise by just picking a channel (green, usually). This also removes some of the chromatic aberrations on the edges (when they are sharp, which isn't he case here). You can also average the three color channels: copy the image to obtain three layers, and using the channel ...


5

There are photoshop plugins around like imatag or digimarc, which offer this as a professional service. The software encrypts a bit of information in a bit pattern and then hides this pattern in your image numerous times. This will work ok as long as there is enough variation in the image, which usually is true for photographies. The information is somewhat ...


4

Diffraction and noise You basically used a 3000mm f/30 lens, so heavy diffraction is expected. You simply cannot obtain sharp results with this lens and teleconverter, even if you manage to focus the lens properly. On top of that, the lens itself might be soft. With the teleconverter, you won't get any sharp result, without, you might. Finally, you have ...


3

Adjustment LAYERS are non-destructive in Photoshop. You can delete or disable them at any time and get back to where you started w/o any losses. Adjustment layers only add data to the file; as shown by the file size (document size can be selected in lower left of the UI). The problem with 8bit vs 16bit is the accuracy of the math (digital edits are all ...


2

There can be less color in the result, yes. In a pixel, each color channel can take only one of 256 values (2⁸). Each adjustment transforms these 256 values to some other 256 values. But there is a constraint: for any pair of two values of input, the highest value of the two must remain the highest (otherwise you get an effect called solarization). If you ...


2

Here is my process in RawTherapee: We start in the Raw tab. The first thing I notice is that you have horizontal banding. RawTherapee can deal with this using the "Line noise filter". Set the direction to "horizontal" and the value to something that seems to work (around 400). Note: this is not perfect, there is some residual banding. I think you'd need to ...


2

In general you can always remove noise, but you might not have much detail left in your image if the signal to noise ratio was poor to start with. State of the art these days are filters based on a non-local means algorithm. This tends to do better than most previous algorithms in terms of not making textures look like smooth plastic, if there is some ...


2

I think your image would have turned out much better without the 3x teleconverter. With a 18MP or 24MP camera, cropping the image would probably be sharper and you could have used a more reasonable ISO. I use a free program by Imagenomic called Noiseware and here is a sample of how it works on a jpeg.


1

The ISO noise isn't the problem, it's shaking. There's definitely ISO noise but the shaking means that you can't clean it up. You can photoshop an image out of this pic but it won't be the real thing. Here's the picture with saturation blown out. The banding is all bent and distorted from movement and the noise itself is turned into vertical lines. ISO ...


1

After lot of time spent on moving any button/slider available, I came to the surprising discovery that the culprit is - LR adjustment brush. Posterisation in sky was solely caused by adjustment brush in this case. Even when each and every slider within brush is set to zero, posterisation still existed; the only way to get rid of it was to remove brush ...


1

Posterization was an intentional artistic enhancement. This was a darkroom technique used to create a relief image often used as an eye-catcher. In modern time this term is applied to a defect also called banding. Banding occurs mainly in digital photography as bands of continuous tones in areas that should reproduce smoothly like blue sky etc. This ...


1

Focal length is not everything. You made a mistake by using 3000mm focal length. The truth is, 400mm is plenty. I took this picture of the moon with a 400mm lens: If you use a longer focal length, you have poorer light collecting ability unless the lens is very huge. Every teleconverter reduces the resolution of the lens system. Also, you start to see the ...


1

As noted in other answers there, is neither going to be a single fix nor a complete set of fixes. It may be worth seeing what the DXO Photolab prime de-noising algorithm can do; it can be be extremely effective. My concern is the possibility of excess smoothing however it may be worth installing a trial to see if you can create a base onto which you can ...


1

A lot of noise can be removed. I used unprocessing to denoise it, which is probably an overkill approach for this. If additional sharpening was applied, maybe this image could be passable. It is however evident that your picture is not entirely sharp to begin with, and as others have stated, going back and reshooting with a stable tripod and a lower iso ...


1

SOLVED! I found Bruno Postle's solution (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/hugin-ptx/nona-deshake%7Csort:date/hugin-ptx/yFE6VF-mtGk/U8OYAuNYCgAJ) and implemented it on Windows. https://sites.google.com/site/alistargazing/home/image-processing/time-lapse-deshake. Takes 4 sec per image on an old laptop, and less than 5 minutes to launch a new project ...


1

In Expert mode: 1) Choose the Elliptical Marquee Tool and draw either an oval or a circle over the image. Adjust the shape by using Select > Transform Selection and using the handles on the transform box to alter the size, adjust the shape or move it around. When you're done tweaking, click the green check mark to accept the selection. 2) Go to the Select ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible