Noise after long exposure

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by swind, Dec 31, 2005.

  1. swind

    swind Guest

    Hi all

    I own a Canon 300D and last week I tried some night photographing in the city(which turned out great). No problem so far

    But yesterday I took some photos during daylight and these where all filled with noise! It seems like strokes of colored noise is on every photo. Also shadow are pixelated. On the link below I have a sample of a photo I took (RAW)

    http://www.swind.nl/plant.jp

    What can I do to make this noise go away? Can somebody help me

    tia

    Sande
     
    swind, Dec 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. swind

    Ole Larsen Guest

    swind skrev:
    Underexposure or too high iso
     
    Ole Larsen, Dec 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The image you posted has no exif info in it, so we don't know what the
    settings are. I'll hazard a guess the camera was set to auto iso and
    selected an increased iso value which will add noise.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Dec 31, 2005
    #3
  4. swind

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You left the camera set to ISO 1600.
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 31, 2005
    #4
  5. How can it be a RAW when it's a jpeg?


    *************************************
    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However" replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."
    Stephen Crane
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 31, 2005
    #5
  6. swind

    hornyrhino Guest


    It's becoming fashionable to convert RAW files into jpg's...........(wise
    people use Silkypix for that very purpose - but that's another story)
     
    hornyrhino, Dec 31, 2005
    #6
  7. swind

    JPS Guest

    In message <43b67512$0$58120$>,
    Even if it were, you'd only see banding in a low-contrast shot like this
    if the image were under-exposed.

    Banding occurs at low ISOs, as well, if the image is under-exposed.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Then he did post the RAW file did he. ACR is much better for working
    with RAW It fits a work flow better.

    PSD is a better format for converting RAW into than a jpeg.


    *************************************
    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However" replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."
    Stephen Crane
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 31, 2005
    #8
  9. swind

    Scott W Guest

    Depends on what you are going to do with the file after converting it.
    If you are
    going to edit then clearly PSD is what you would want to convert to.
    But if you
    are going to print right from the converted image then jpeg could be
    the way to
    go. When I make prints I up load my files to Costco and have them
    print them,
    The PSD file will give me not better print then what I get from a jpg
    copy.

    The image that the OP posted the noise was clear enough that a psd file
    would not have added much. The raw file would have been more useful
    since the noise in the final image depends a lot of the settings during
    the conversion, but not everyone has high speed internet. The exif
    data what is really needed, but that data is missing from the photo.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 31, 2005
    #9
  10. Oh, I never print from a jpg but directly from CS2 with 16bit images
    in ProPhoto color space. Why would you want to reduce your color
    gamut to 8bits?

    I just guess we have different standards of quality in our work.


    *************************************
    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However" replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."
    Stephen Crane
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 31, 2005
    #10
  11. swind

    Paul Furman Guest

    I only bother with 16 bit if I'm going to apply curves or other
    adjustments. Then I change to 8 bit jpeg & archive the raw file.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 31, 2005
    #11
  12. swind

    Rich Guest

    You can do few things:
    1. Make sure your ISO settings are not being randomly chosen by the
    camera. Use ISOs below 400.
    2. Make sure the exposure is correct, and that the image doesn't have
    large areas of underexpsure. In other words, expose for the darker
    areas to bring out shadow detail without of course exposing so much
    that lighter areas get "burned out."
    3. Use a good noise reduction program like "Neat Image" and
    experiment with it to determine what gets rid of any noise without
    sacrificing image detail and tonality.
    4. Use JPEG in-camera if you want to reduce noise in-camera as
    cameras incorporate some level of noise reduction in JPEG modes.
    However, this reduces dynamic range.
    5. Use as fast a lens opening as possible to avoid any long
    exposures. Exposures longer than 1 second generate electronic noise.
     
    Rich, Dec 31, 2005
    #12
  13. swind

    Scott W Guest

    You would never see the difference between a print made from 8 bit/
    color and 16/color.
    If you are going to adjust the photo then 16 bits makes sense otherwise
    you are not
    getting any extra quality in your prints from the 16 bit.

    BTW 8 bits does not reduce the color gamut, it just changes the
    granularity.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 31, 2005
    #13
  14. Or Noise Ninja.
    Suggesting to use in-camera JPEG for reducing noise is like telling a
    depressive to cut lengthwise.

    *************************************
    A man said to the universe:
    "Sir, I exist!"
    "However" replied the universe,
    "The fact has not created in me
    A sense of obligation."
    Stephen Crane
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 31, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.