help - very noisy photos!
Discussion
Morning,
Last night i did some studio work with my D100 and new sigma 18-50 F2.8 lens.
Got to look on the computer today and they are all very grainy!!!! as if the ISO was right up, it wasnt it was on the lowest setting of 200iso. I did some photos the other day with another lens and it was fine no problems, but is this anything any of you have come across?
And finally, what is the best way for me to reduce the noise in these pictures?? I have the family coming round at 3pm to view and order for XMAS!!
Not good times!
Thanks
Last night i did some studio work with my D100 and new sigma 18-50 F2.8 lens.
Got to look on the computer today and they are all very grainy!!!! as if the ISO was right up, it wasnt it was on the lowest setting of 200iso. I did some photos the other day with another lens and it was fine no problems, but is this anything any of you have come across?
And finally, what is the best way for me to reduce the noise in these pictures?? I have the family coming round at 3pm to view and order for XMAS!!
Not good times!
Thanks
Not tried it personally but NoiseNinja gets a fairly regular mention on here for tidying up photos 
No idea why you're getting the noise in the first place though. High ISO being selected by the camera because it's been knocked onto one of the semi-auto functions would have been my first guess. Sounds like you've already checked this though
No idea why you're getting the noise in the first place though. High ISO being selected by the camera because it's been knocked onto one of the semi-auto functions would have been my first guess. Sounds like you've already checked this though
first thing i checked this morning, because my thought was it must have been put somehow onto auto iso, but even so at 125th/F11 with studio lighting on pretty much normal settings it wouldnt bump it up to the point which is is that grainy.
I will have a little look at noise ninja, thats what i need recomendations of programmes which work to reduce it. my girlfriend didnt even notice when she was looking at her pictures, so its posible i could get away with it, but i really am not happy with that idea as i will always see the imperfections.
Lee
I will have a little look at noise ninja, thats what i need recomendations of programmes which work to reduce it. my girlfriend didnt even notice when she was looking at her pictures, so its posible i could get away with it, but i really am not happy with that idea as i will always see the imperfections.
Lee
I know it sounds silly.. but what style of lighting was it?.. if it was low key with alot of shadow detail did you expose correctly?.. are you trying to push the shadow areas?.. sometimes this is responsible for alot of noise at any iso, have a look at your histogram and if the detail is all to the left with not much at the right then you maybe properly stuck..
i was not trying anything clever with shadows, just had 2 lights over exp backdrop, then a soft box to my left, and brolly to my right to give even coverage of subject.
I have just downloaded a free version of neat image plugin, and my arse is well and truely saved on this occasion.
How do i get exif data from photoshop?, as i know my camera was and is reading 200 iso but this just can not be right for these images.
appreciate your help as always
thanks
I have just downloaded a free version of neat image plugin, and my arse is well and truely saved on this occasion.
How do i get exif data from photoshop?, as i know my camera was and is reading 200 iso but this just can not be right for these images.
appreciate your help as always
thanks
In of the digital photo magazines reviews them this month. If only I could remember which one, eh? "Digital Photographer" i think... it has some wintry stuff on the cover and a disc in the back.
Wait... the disc is in my drive! Yep, it's issue 64 of Digital Photographer magazine.
I bought Neatimage the other day, as it got reviewed as the best. Noiseninja came 2nd by a small margin, and Noiseware was last as it was lacking in features, i think.
I liked Noiseware especially as you can download noise profiles for your specific camera/ISO combination - e.g. http://www.neatimage.com/noise-profiles/digital-ca...
I cant see why your D200 would be noisy at high speeds, though. Sounds weird to me.
Wait... the disc is in my drive! Yep, it's issue 64 of Digital Photographer magazine.
I bought Neatimage the other day, as it got reviewed as the best. Noiseninja came 2nd by a small margin, and Noiseware was last as it was lacking in features, i think.
I liked Noiseware especially as you can download noise profiles for your specific camera/ISO combination - e.g. http://www.neatimage.com/noise-profiles/digital-ca...
I cant see why your D200 would be noisy at high speeds, though. Sounds weird to me.
leeb said:
How do i get exif data from photoshop?, as i know my camera was and is reading 200 iso but this just can not be right for these images.
thanks
Adobe Bridge shows it, if you use that. Not sure about photoshop. thanks
Also, there's this program called EXIF reader: http://www.takenet.or.jp/~ryuuji/minisoft/exifread...
I haven't seen the photos but vastly increased visible noise is likely down to one or more of the following:
- Poorly exposed images (as suggested before)
- Different processing technique (ie using RAW not Jpeg, NR turned off etc)
- Increased sharpening (have you adjusted the sharpen settings in camera (or in PP)?
- Camera hotter - running the camera in hot conditions makes quite a difference, at 40deg+ my D80 sings, where as I can get about 3-4 stops more exposure for the same noise at below zero.
It's also possible that the new, sharp lens is just showing it up more if the older lens was a bit soft.
- Poorly exposed images (as suggested before)
- Different processing technique (ie using RAW not Jpeg, NR turned off etc)
- Increased sharpening (have you adjusted the sharpen settings in camera (or in PP)?
- Camera hotter - running the camera in hot conditions makes quite a difference, at 40deg+ my D80 sings, where as I can get about 3-4 stops more exposure for the same noise at below zero.
It's also possible that the new, sharp lens is just showing it up more if the older lens was a bit soft.
nick_bbb said:
In photoshop if you were (and I hope you were) shooting RAW then it will show in the title bar when you open the image, otherwise File then File Info. This is in CS2 BTW.
Jpg im afraid, always have shot jpg and have never, ever had a problem with what i have printed of been able to edit from. today however seems to be a bit different! dammit.VxDuncan said:
I haven't seen the photos but vastly increased visible noise is likely down to one or more of the following:
- Poorly exposed images (as suggested before)
- Different processing technique (ie using RAW not Jpeg, NR turned off etc)
- Increased sharpening (have you adjusted the sharpen settings in camera (or in PP)?
- Camera hotter - running the camera in hot conditions makes quite a difference, at 40deg+ my D80 sings, where as I can get about 3-4 stops more exposure for the same noise at below zero.
It's also possible that the new, sharp lens is just showing it up more if the older lens was a bit soft.
Thanks a lot Duncan, the exposure, i thought should have been right, was all metered and worked to the meter, which didnt show anything unusual.- Poorly exposed images (as suggested before)
- Different processing technique (ie using RAW not Jpeg, NR turned off etc)
- Increased sharpening (have you adjusted the sharpen settings in camera (or in PP)?
- Camera hotter - running the camera in hot conditions makes quite a difference, at 40deg+ my D80 sings, where as I can get about 3-4 stops more exposure for the same noise at below zero.
It's also possible that the new, sharp lens is just showing it up more if the older lens was a bit soft.
all shots in standard jpg as normal settings
images arent sharpened in the camera, only ever if required with unsharp mask further down the line
normal temperature,
the only difference seems to be the lens, but with the other longer lens then it seems fine. however i havent used the longer lens on exactly the same settings in studio.
Quick thought, but "better" lenses tend to be more contrasty. I noticed that the higher noise /signal ratio in shadows has differed from choice of lens sometimes. D70 was very often disappointing, D2X not so bad, but a contrasty subject and a "contrasty lens" can really show up in the shadows.
(I let my lenses get nice and dirty to cut down on the contrast a bit - and my sensor - and then push the exposure to the right on the old 'istogram....)
(Only joking!)
(I let my lenses get nice and dirty to cut down on the contrast a bit - and my sensor - and then push the exposure to the right on the old 'istogram....)
(Only joking!)
Fidgits said:
on an aside, what is the main benifit of shooting RAW vs JPEG? Obviously it avoids the compression, but does it have any extra bonuses that make the increased space requirements worthwhile?
Raw basically records the exact data that the sensor detects, and pretty much bypasses the camera's image processor. Shooting raw has pros and cons:
Pros of RAW
- Better quality (although it can be very very hard to notice against a good JPG)
- Total flexibility when opening the image: many corrections (levels, white balance, chromatic aberrations) can be done here, before you open the file. Colour data isn't stored in the file so you can really go to town on it.
Cons of RAW
- Bigger file sizes
- An extra step when opening/viewing images (but if you use something like Adobe Bridge then it's irrelevant)
- You need better software (e.g. Picasa/windows explorer isnogood)
TheCaseAce said:
Fidgits said:
on an aside, what is the main benifit of shooting RAW vs JPEG? Obviously it avoids the compression, but does it have any extra bonuses that make the increased space requirements worthwhile?
Raw basically records the exact data that the sensor detects, and pretty much bypasses the camera's image processor. Shooting raw has pros and cons:
Pros of RAW
- Better quality (although it can be very very hard to notice against a good JPG)
- Total flexibility when opening the image: many corrections (levels, white balance, chromatic aberrations) can be done here, before you open the file. Colour data isn't stored in the file so you can really go to town on it.
Cons of RAW
- Bigger file sizes
- An extra step when opening/viewing images (but if you use something like Adobe Bridge then it's irrelevant)
- You need better software (e.g. Picasa/windows explorer isnogood)
i have just looked at the exif data from all the images and they are saying 1600 ISO!!!!!! Bad Times.
So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
anyone in the nikon world had this before?
The viewing went very well, and a good mornings work panicing and fixing photos.
So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
anyone in the nikon world had this before?
The viewing went very well, and a good mornings work panicing and fixing photos.
leeb said:
i have just looked at the exif data from all the images and they are saying 1600 ISO!!!!!! Bad Times.
So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
As soon as I read your post I thought 'AutoISO'. I'd wager that imp is at work - check the custom settings. Then turn it off So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
Simpo Two said:
leeb said:
i have just looked at the exif data from all the images and they are saying 1600 ISO!!!!!! Bad Times.
So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
As soon as I read your post I thought 'AutoISO'. I'd wager that imp is at work - check the custom settings. Then turn it off So why would the camera automatically set to 1600 when i have clearly manually set it to 200, and at every point i can see what it is before taking the shot it reads 200. then somehow plucks 1600 from somewhere.
thats a whole lot of hassle fixed. i didnt even know there was a custom setting that overrode the main settings. At least its sorted and not 'broken' as i thought it was, Thanks a lot Simpo
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff