Noise at iso100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pablo, May 16, 2012.

  1. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, May 16, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pablo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:
    : In article <>, 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
    Robert Coe, May 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <>
    > wrote:
    > : In article <>, 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
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 17, 2012
    #3
  4. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie escribió:

    > 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
    Pablo, May 17, 2012
    #4
  5. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Robert Coe escribió:

    > On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <>
    > wrote:
    > : In article <>, 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
    Pablo, May 17, 2012
    #5
  6. Pablo

    otter Guest

    On May 17, 3:56 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > Pablo <> 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.
    otter, May 17, 2012
    #6
  7. Pablo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 17 May 2012 10:33:43 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe escribió:
    :
    : > On Wed, 16 May 2012 22:55:51 +0200, Alfred Molon <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : In article <>, 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
    Robert Coe, May 18, 2012
    #7
  8. Pablo <> 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/wibbleypants/7209608174/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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 18, 2012
    #8
  9. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Wolfgang Weisselberg escribió:

    > Pablo <> 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/wibbleypants/7209608174/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
    Pablo, May 18, 2012
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian C. Baird

    Canon 1Ds Mark II - Noise? What noise?

    Brian C. Baird, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    502
    Brian C. Baird
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. Jason Sommers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    499
    Jason Sommers
    Jan 19, 2005
  3. Stacey

    Noise about noise...

    Stacey, Feb 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    310
    Stacey
    Feb 18, 2005
  4. Cynicor

    ISO noise vs. long exposure noise

    Cynicor, Aug 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    516
    Dirty Harry
    Aug 27, 2005
  5. banjo`s

    nikon d50 and ISO100 ?

    banjo`s, May 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    558
    John Sheehy
    May 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page