Help Needed, Please

[Loyce Hood]

I have a Canon Rebel XT, I've been having serious noise issues--even on a bright day at ISO 100. I took this photo in RAW mode, using Parameter 2 with all the settings at neutral, AV Mode, F6.3, .4 sec, EV +.67, Pattern metering mode, no flash and Auto White Balance. If you look at the shadows, you'll see how bad the noise is. I brought this image into PS-CS3 and just saved it to .tiff. I didn't do any corrections at all. All I did after I saved it to .tiff is resize and saved as a .jpg to post here.

I have this issue all the time even outside in bright light. The shadows always blend together like this. I've tried different lenses, different lighting and different settings. It doesn't seem to make a difference.

Is it something I'm doing, or do you all think something is wrong with my camera?

[James Shadle]

Start by setting the camera's contrast / tone to it's lowest level.

Then "photograph to the right" have your histogram as far right as possible without clipping the white details.

Try that and then we will go from there.

James

[Maxis Gamez]

Ditto what James said. Do another test and see if you get any better images. You can always consider a NR software that will help you with that without loosing much details.

[Loyce Hood]

Thank you, James and Maxis. I'll give it a try today and go from there.

[Loyce Hood]

I went back to the same place and photographed more using your suggestions. It's a little bit better, but still very noisy. I ran this through Noiseware and it seemed to take care of the noise issues. I'm not sure if I can post another photo via link since I've already posted a photo in this post. If I can, please let me know and I'll post the other.

Thanks for all your help,

[David Kennedy]

Loyce,
For what it's worth, I'm looking at the shadows in this image and I don't see anything noisy about it. Perhaps you could post a crop at 100%? And James and Maxis are correct that you will get the best possible image by exposing to the right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml)(Michael Reichmann should have trademarked that phrase!!!).

[Loyce Hood]

Hi David, can I post it at 100%? It looks like there's noise, then the pixels just drop out. It's evident in the door and black borders. It gets pretty muddy looking--sort of like what I used to see with the old 1 & 2 mp cameras. Should I put it up on Photobucket and post a link to it? I don't want to break the rules.

[David Kennedy]

Loyce,
You could crop a 100% section of the image that would still be within the rules of BPN. Just change the resolution of the image to 72dpi, then crop an 800-pixel section of it and it will be a 100% view.

[Loyce Hood]

OK. I made this one exposed as much to the right as possible without blowing the highlights. I had the Contrast set to the lowest it would go. It was taken on a partly cloudy day (blue skies, puffy white clouds).

Exposure info: 1/60, F11, AV Mode, ISO 100, Pattern metering, 18-55 kit lens @ 21mm, Auto White Balance, RAW format. I did no corrections in PS Camera RAW. All I did was save it like it was taken and converted it to .tiff. In PS-CS3, I viewed it at 100% and cropped a section to show you what I'm talking about.

Here it is:

[Gerald Kelberg]

Hi Loyce,
I have also owned a Rebel XT and I am afraid that you may find noise is a "feature" rather than a "fault". It is a super little camera and great value for money, but it does have it's limitations. On the bright side, my mother-in-law really loves the "impressionist effect" I have achieved in a dusk shot of her local village!

Gerald

[David Kennedy]

Loyce,
Thank you for posting the second image. I'm afraid I don't really see any digital noise (aka "film grain"). However, your statement in the original posting:
The shadows always blend together like this. I've tried different lenses, different lighting and different settings. It doesn't seem to make a difference. This makes me think that you might be using the term noise to describe something else?

Dark portions of the image "blending together" sounds more like underexposure than anything else. Consequently, lightening a dark section in post-production would reveal noise, but this brings us back to James' original suggestion about exposing to the right.

Also, are you viewing your images on a calibrated monitor?

[Loyce Hood]

Unfortunately, the only computer I have is a laptop. Since the monitor won't calibrate, I'm kind of stuck with this. That probably is underexposure, and you're correct that when I try to fix it with levels or curves, then I'm left with a big mess. I think exposing to the right is a good alternative.

I read that article you gave me a link to last night and it makes a lot of sense to me. When I bring my images into Adobe Camera RAW to optimize and convert them, I've always chosen Automatic Exposure correction, then worked from there. I'm going to try the sliders instead of Auto. Maybe that will make a big difference. I've also noticed that if I click on the black spot first, then I really mess it up. I've been trying all sorts of things to correct these images.

Any suggestions?

[David Kennedy]

I would really consider getting a copy of Real World Camera RAW with CS3 - here's Reichmann's review of the work Jeff Schewe did in picking up the torch for Bruce Fraser, the late author of the previous edition for CS2 (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/rwcrcs3.shtml). Unless, of course, you're using CS2, in which case you could find a copy of the earlier book.
Exposing to the right is probably the most important thing you can do in the field. As you've found out, upon your return to the computer you have to be careful. While there are a lot of options to choose from in Adobe Camera RAW that can be helpful, but some can be counterproductive if used improperly. Like the black eyedropper you were describing! :)

[Loyce Hood]

I am using CS3. I'll have a look at picking up that book. You're right about that eye dropper--it really leaves me with a big mess. So, it looks like I'll be exposing to the right from now on, and watching out for contrasty light (that's a big order for Florida; it's the only light we ever get around here). Meanwhile, I'll just have to learn how to deal with what I have and figure out the best was to develop it in CS3.

It's like learning everything over.

Thanks for all your help, David. I'll be taking a trip to Borders tomorrow.

[Pat Nighswander]

Hi Loyce... i have been using a moniter callibrater on my laptop which has been working out real well and it is plugged in to a usb port and adjusts intself as the light changes.. pantone huey

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Loyce Calibrating a laptop is easy As Pat says just plug in the USB device and follow the prompts on screen There are several I like the Xrite

btw can't stress enough getting the right histogram Make sure you have data on the fifth box If you open the shadows in PS noise will be introduced Also any area with underexposure and not in perfect focus will look strange As David pointed out it has nothing to do with noise

[Fabs Forns]

It looks to me you are photographing backlit subjects, thous getting very dark darks, which is conductive to noise...

[Loyce Hood]

Thank you, Pat, Alfred and Fabs. I took some more test shots, keeping the histogram to the right and it really seems to help. I also think that I've been introducing noise by opening up the shadows because I didn't see the noise before I processed the image--so it looks like I'm doing something funky with the way I'm processing it. Thanks, Alfred, now I know I'm not going nuts.

Pat, nice to see you in here. I've missed seeing your birds.:)

Loyce