Whats up with the noise!?!

[edneeves]

For a while now ALL my shots seem to be really noisy. They have a rather disgusting haze about them and if I zoom in 100% there is a fair bit of noise.

I am not sure if this could be a problem with my computers rendition of the shots or if it is happening in the camera! I have double checked the ISO and its at 200, I have tried resetting the camera but it doesn't seem to have an effect.

When I review the pictures on the camera they look as sharp as a tack with awesome colours, when they are downloaded using Picasa 2 they seem to loose heaps of colour and get hazy.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Big V]

Ed, you need to provide an example so we can have a look at it...

[Steffen]

More information is needed, and a sample would be good.

Image format: RAW or JPEG? If JPEG, what resolution and parameters? White balance settings? If RAW, what RAW converter? Exposure information? What camera??

Cheers
Steffen.

[gstark]

Also, what camera?

More information, please.

[Big V]

hmmm ISO 200 may be a hint that he is using a D70. We need facts!!! We cant help without reliable data...

[Yi-P]

Do you have ISO Auto turned on?? D70 boost up ISO to 1600 whenever it thinks it is needed.

[jammy2]

I think the D70/s exposure is programmed to retain detail in the highlights which may make the unprocessed RAW picture a bit flat (hazy?) and "dark" for want of a better word. If there is a lot of areas of shadow in the picture, picasa may be trying to bring out detail in the shadows which may account for the noise you are seeing

Possibly what you are seeing when you preview the pic on the LCD is the jpeg file (processed) that is embedded with each raw file, assuming you are shooting RAW in the first place but all this is conjecture until we see the actual pic

[edneeves]

Find examples below. The shot was taken with 50mm f1.8 which is a wonderfully sharp lens with great colour rendition.

This is what Picasa does with it:



This is what the RAW format looks like, converted to JPEG using the Windows RAW viewer:



As you can see there is a serious difference which is adversely affecting my pictures. Maybe I have to stop using Picasa

Does anyone else have this problem with Picasa?

[jammy2]

As you can see there is a serious difference which is adversely affecting my pictures. Maybe I have to stop using Picasa

I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with what Picasa is doing with the RAW files. It is using a more conservative tone curve which retains highlight detail in the clouds (the cloud area around the sun are a smidgen overexposed still though) and in the shadows (area among the leaves). This leaves the photo a bit flat as you say but possibly more suitable for post-processing.

Windows RAW viewer is using a more contrasty tone curve which results in more punchier/contrasty colours especially evident in the white sign and green leaves. However this has resulted in loss of shadow detail in the leaves and loss of some highlight detail in the clouds. I must agree with you that it makes for a more striking picture though.

Neither exposure is wrong per say just different so if you feel that the conversion from Windows RAW viewer is more pleasing to your eye then that is prob the program to use for your RAW conversions. All very subjective though

Regarding the noise at 100% in dark areas it seems that you may have exceeded the dynamic range of the sensor and when the RAW converter tries to bring up the exposure in the shadows to show detail it will bring up noise in those areas. You might want to use fill-flash to fill in those areas of shadow and narrow the dynamic range of the scene to better fit the sensor.

[elffinarts]

Yiipes I'm sticking to adobe and RawShooter Premium.

[lukeo]

If it was Picasa that prepared those shots for posting here I'd put it down like a lame horse. The EXIF data is stripped out of both those images (so no telling focal length, ISO, shutter speed etc). Also they are saved at 72 dpi which may have been your intent as it's a good res for web display but if it's doing that to your normal prints then thats very bad. It's not some "Save for Web" option is it?

Looks like some sort of auto levels or auto curves being applied by picasa to my eyes, and if it's being done from a RAW it also looks like its ignoring the camera's Sharpness setting and either using none or some default low setting.

I'll guess you are using Nikon with the ISO at 200, install Nikon Capture 4 (or NX) it is a nice package for working with RAW NEF Files. With the option to export to Photoshop at any stage.

[edneeves]

My thoughts were that considering Picasa ignores all the EFIX data then it wouldn't be a huge stretch of the imagination to assume that it also ignores all of the settings that the camera has put on the image (eg, contrast, saturation etc).

The upside of all of this is that Picasa isn't doing anything dangerous to any of the images. It doesn't change them, edit them, delete anything (all the EXIF data is still intact), it is merely a really crap program (for my taste) to display the shots without any post production.

[jethro]

I dont even get these results with my crappy D70 shooting jpeg. You must have you cam set weird. What mode are you shooting in? Auto? Ap priority?
Or are you tinkering in a PP application?

Jethro

[edneeves]

This is straight out of the camera; Shotting RAW, ISO 200, f16, 1/100s, White Balance (Auto), 50mm f1.8 (lens).

I tend to use custom optimization; no sharpening, +2 tone comp, IIIa Colour Mode, + Saturation & 0 Hue Adjustment.

No PP except for conversion to JPEG and resizing for web.

edit:

This was shot in AP. I only use Manual, AP or S.

[sheepie]

It would appear the answer is not to expect a crappy freebie processor to do a proper job with your expensive photo's

Seriously, you have spent a significant amount of money on the physical equipment to take pictures. You are using RAW, presumably in the hope that you will be able to get an advantage from being able process those pictures properly. I wouldn't then be expecting a free processor to give you that advantage.

Granted, it should be giving better results than that, but I'm not surprised.

There are far better RAW processors out there, some quite reasonably priced (some free ones do a good job as well) - try some of these out.

There is a difference in something being able to read or render RAW files (which Picassa does do) and something that is actually designed to be part of a proper RAW workflow. I'd stop worrying about why it's not giving you the results you expect, and move onto something that will

I would also personally stay well away from the Windows Raw viewer.

[edneeves]

What sort of tool should I be looking at then. I have to say that the one thing I loved about Picasa was the method of displaying and managing the photo's.

I am aware of Raw Shooter for a RAW managing tool, I had a play with Capture NX and understand that it is very capable.

Could some people list some user friendly photo managing software, free and paid.

Also peoples options for workflow tools (other than Photoshop; I am saving for that one!), free and paid.

[sheepie]

Could some people list some user friendly photo managing software, free and paid.

There are several listed in the Important Links section (try here: http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=98).

Personally, I use a combination of Photoshop, DXO and very occassionally Capture. Others here use other software, some of which is either dirt cheap or free - no doubt they'll come along shortly and add their bits.

You might also want to (as this thread has now taken a sharp turn to the left, and it's a question others may be asking themselves) ask the question as a new thread - you may get more responses that way

[Steffen]

Could some people list some user friendly photo managing software, free and paid.

I used to use BibblePro, which can yield excellent results as RAW converter and comes bundled with goodies such as NoiseNinja, Perfectly Clear and lens distortion correction. I'm mentioning these three because they are missing in the tool I'm using now (see below). BibblePro is of the non-destructive workflow type, it'll never touch the RAW file but write all your adjustment steps into a database and sidecar file. Those steps are then applied on output (screen, printer or file). In terms of user friendliness it is so-so, and it doesn't give a lot of assistance in managing photos.

I've recently switched to Aperture which has the slickest, most intuitive user interface I've seen in an imaging product. It is lacking some of the adjustment features BibblePro has, but it excells in digital asset management, an area most RAW converters struggle with. Like Bibble, it uses a non-destructive workflow. Aperture makes it a joy to sort through vast piles of shots and pick out the good ones with ease, something that was a bit of a chore with other software I've tried.

Managing large numbers of images was the area that gave me the biggest pain, so I decided in favour of Aperture even though BibblePro has better PP abilities in some cases.

Cheers
Steffen.

[MHD]

Or, if you are against spending money get GIMP + DCRAW + UFRAW...

That's what I use and I get good results

[edneeves]

MHD,

Do you use DCRAW and UFRAW as a utility in Gimp?

Could you explain what they do in a little more detail?