Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Noise at iso100

Reply
Thread Tools

Noise at iso100

 
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2012
Wot ho, chaps and chapesses.

I took a snap indoors at f1.8 and iso100 and it's noisy.

Can anyone tell me why?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbley...in/photostream

Chars.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Pablo says...
: > Can anyone tell me why?
:
: I can only guess that the Canon 1000D is not a good camera.

The 1000D is an entry-level DSLR that's quite capable of producing good
pictures when used with a decent lens.

In this picture, noise may not be the principal problem. It's also
underexposed, and its focus accuracy is at best uneven. (Note the fuzziness of
the top edge of the shelf on which the figurine stands.) Even so, skillful
editing might rescue it to some degree.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> : In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Pablo says...
> : > Can anyone tell me why?
> :
> : I can only guess that the Canon 1000D is not a good camera.
>
> The 1000D is an entry-level DSLR that's quite capable of producing good
> pictures when used with a decent lens.
>
> In this picture, noise may not be the principal problem. It's also
> underexposed, and its focus accuracy is at best uneven. (Note the fuzziness of
> the top edge of the shelf on which the figurine stands.) Even so, skillful
> editing might rescue it to some degree.
>
> Bob


The Canon DSLRs normally use multi-spot metering rather than full sensor
metering. It's much faster and uses much less power but it won't get
perfect levels like full-sensor metering sometimes can. Some models can
switch to, or at least show, full sensor metering. It's expected that
you'll shoot in RAW mode and have plenty of SNR margin for these minor
corrections.

The noise depends on how the sensor's data is processed. The on-camera
processor for producing JPEGs has an on/off switch. Canon's desktop
software is adjustable and does a good job. Apple's Aperture does not
process noise correctly (doesn't account for the non-linear level
processing it applies).
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
Kevin McMurtrie escribi├│:

> The Canon DSLRs normally use multi-spot metering rather than full sensor
> metering. It's much faster and uses much less power but it won't get
> perfect levels like full-sensor metering sometimes can. Some models can
> switch to, or at least show, full sensor metering. It's expected that
> you'll shoot in RAW mode and have plenty of SNR margin for these minor
> corrections.


That picture was taken using a manual Takumar 55 1.8 at 1.8. It does have a
chip in the adapter meaning the centre focus indicator flickers when it's
focussed. Tricky at 1.8 though.

> >

> The noise depends on how the sensor's data is processed. The on-camera
> processor for producing JPEGs has an on/off switch. Canon's desktop
> software is adjustable and does a good job. Apple's Aperture does not
> process noise correctly (doesn't account for the non-linear level
> processing it applies).


That photo was taken in RAW, but I haven't buggered about with it much. I
could look at noise reduction in software, but my question was why the noise
is there. The room is quite well lit by a window.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
Robert Coe escribi├│:

> On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> : In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Pablo says...
> : > Can anyone tell me why?
> :
> : I can only guess that the Canon 1000D is not a good camera.
>
> The 1000D is an entry-level DSLR that's quite capable of producing good
> pictures when used with a decent lens.
>
> In this picture, noise may not be the principal problem. It's also
> underexposed, and its focus accuracy is at best uneven. (Note the
> fuzziness of the top edge of the shelf on which the figurine stands.) Even
> so, skillful editing might rescue it to some degree.


Erm, it was taken at 1.8, so there's lots out of focus. That's intentional.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2012
On May 17, 3:56*am, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >That photo was taken in RAW, but I haven't buggered about with it much. I
> >could look at noise reduction in software, but my question was why the noise
> >is there. The room is quite well lit by a window.

>
> The image is more than 2 stops underexposed.


Agree with this, unless he wanted it to look this way.

Plus, the 1000D doesn't have a top of the line sensor, as far as low-
light noise is concerned. Post-processing can help, of course. But it
will never be as good some of the better cameras. It's better than
many smaller sensor cameras, though. You should see some of my
attempts at night photography with the G12.

Noise is to be expected in low light situations, unless you've got a
great camera. Unfortunately, that tends to cost more than some of us
are willing to pay. But there is software that can hide much of it
for a reasonable cost.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2012
On Thu, 17 May 2012 10:33:43 +0200, Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe escribiˇ:
:
: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)>
: > wrote:
: > : In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Pablo says...
: > : > Can anyone tell me why?
: > :
: > : I can only guess that the Canon 1000D is not a good camera.
: >
: > The 1000D is an entry-level DSLR that's quite capable of producing
: > good pictures when used with a decent lens.
: >
: > In this picture, noise may not be the principal problem. It's also
: > underexposed, and its focus accuracy is at best uneven. (Note the
: > fuzziness of the top edge of the shelf on which the figurine stands.)
: > Even so, skillful editing might rescue it to some degree.
:
: Erm, it was taken at 1.8, so there's lots out of focus. That's intentional.

If the lack of focus was intentional, I think it was a mistake. But of course
that's a matter of artistic judgement; and as the artist, you get the final
say.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2012
Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wot ho, chaps and chapesses.


> I took a snap indoors at f1.8 and iso100 and it's noisy.


> Can anyone tell me why?


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbley...in/photostream


The image is, ah, strange. EXIF says 55mm, f/1.8 --- which
lens would that be? And much of the EXIF data has been removed.
The image has been downscaled a lot. A software called "Phatch"
seems to have left traces in the EXIF.

Otherwise, at that 'noise' size patterns I'd guess at ingrain
wallpaper and dirt on the board. Or maybe a *very* dusty rear
lens or sensor.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pablo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2012
Wolfgang Weisselberg escribi├│:

> Pablo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Wot ho, chaps and chapesses.

>
>> I took a snap indoors at f1.8 and iso100 and it's noisy.

>
>> Can anyone tell me why?

>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbley...in/photostream

>
> The image is, ah, strange. EXIF says 55mm, f/1.8 --- which
> lens would that be?


Takumar. Manual.

> And much of the EXIF data has been removed.
> The image has been downscaled a lot. A software called "Phatch"
> seems to have left traces in the EXIF.


Phatch is a batch photo manipulation program.

> Otherwise, at that 'noise' size patterns I'd guess at ingrain
> wallpaper and dirt on the board. Or maybe a *very* dusty rear
> lens or sensor.


No wallpaper. Juat a mothers' day card.

I've put the original up now.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
nikon d50 and ISO100 ? banjo`s Digital Photography 9 05-12-2007 02:55 AM
Non-noise words are incorrectly recognised as noise words. Peter Str°iman ASP .Net 1 08-23-2005 01:26 PM
Noise about noise... Stacey Digital Photography 3 02-18-2005 05:57 AM
Noise Ninja custom noise print- worth the effort for stacked photo?? Jason Sommers Digital Photography 4 01-19-2005 06:54 AM
Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise? Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 9 09-21-2004 09:54 PM



Advertisments