high grain with a Canon 30D

[mrlarter]

I've recently noticed that my photos coming out of my Canon 30D are fairly grainy when right out of the camera. You can only really notice it when zoomed in at 100% when you have a huge file.

The camera has been recently cleaned but I did pick up a new lens. Anyone else have this issue?

[Andy]

I've recently noticed that my photos coming out of my Canon 30D are fairly grainy when right out of the camera. You can only really notice it when zoomed in at 100% when you have a huge file.

The camera has been recently cleaned but I did pick up a new lens. Anyone else have this issue?

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/photos/14326054-L.gif

Give us some examples, with exif, and all details :)

[mrlarter]

[lol] I am doing that right now but I don't want to post a 3000px photo. Give me a moment.

[mrlarter]

Here is a photo. I can't find a good example on my laptop at the moment but I have some studio shots that are just very grainy when zoomed in.

http://brianlarter.com/images/grain.jpg (It's big so becareful, it may fall on you)

[Andy]

Here is a photo. I can't find a good example on my laptop at the moment but I have some studio shots that are just very grainy when zoomed in.

http://brianlarter.com/images/grain.jpg (It's big so becareful, it may fall on you)
It's not big at all. Post the full-rez file, this is downsized.

[mrlarter]

ah shoot sorry. I forgot the jpg out of my camera are small. I just converted the raw and am uploading it now. It's an unedited photo with no raw processing.

It will be uploaded in about 3 mins.

[William M Porter]

Here is a photo. I can't find a good example on my laptop at the moment but I have some studio shots that are just very grainy when zoomed in.

http://brianlarter.com/images/grain.jpg


Brian,

Hmmm. I have to confess that this pic doesn't look "very grainy" (noisy) to me. I assume you're complaint is directed not at the model's skin but at the dark background. Even there, while I can see a little noise zoomed in 100%, it's not bad, at least to my eyes. Looks like ISO was 100, and this is what I'd expect. Be interested to see what others have to say.

Will

[colourbox]

How was this shot and processed? The noise is in the dark areas. When shooting raw, noise will be amplified if you shot it underexposed and boosted it in post; noise will be suppressed if you exposed to the right and lowered brightness in post.

Note the difference in this example (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=148303&postcount=13). The underexposed sample looks more like yours. I wonder if exposure is part of the explanation?

[mwgrice]

Ooh! Ooh! What colourbox said. One way to maximize noise is to underexpose a bit at ISO 1600. If I'm going to convert to B&W I like it, since it gives a grainy feel.

[mrlarter]

ok I figured I was sort of just being picky. It was actually another photographer that was using my camera. she noted it seemed really grainy when zoomed in.

This photo was shot with studio lights so was around 320 to 250 shutter speed.

[Glenn NK]

ok I figured I was sort of just being picky. It was actually another photographer that was using my camera. she noted it seemed really grainy when zoomed in.

This photo was shot with studio lights so was around 320 to 250 shutter speed.

I looked at your photo in Lightroom - most of her hair has RGB values of 0/0/0.

The RGB vaues of the area in front of her run from 3.5 to 5.5 (all values being percentage).

Plenty of room for noise it seems.

[mrlarter]

I am going to ask the photographer who had mentioned it for a sample of the photo she took with the high grain and I'll post it here. I may take a day or so as she is currently in the middle of a move.

But me being overly picky is cheaper then buying a new camera.

[claudermilk]

Here's the full story of the EXIF:
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 30D
Image Date: 2007:06:09 14:04:35
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 127.0mm
CCD Width: 14.99mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual



Nothing especially odd (ok, well shooting at f22 in studio seems odd to me, but I assume that was deliberate). I'm tempted to point at processing, as I'm seeing serious posterization in the shadows that is not normal--check her hair and the shadows under her chin, drops right to black. It looks like a pushed exposure to me.

[mrlarter]

ok cool, I am new to studio lighting...I am not sure what I am doing just yet in the studio.

[Stu Engelman]

Here's the full story of the EXIF:



Nothing especially odd (ok, well shooting at f22 in studio seems odd to me, but I assume that was deliberate). I'm tempted to point at processing, as I'm seeing serious posterization in the shadows that is not normal--check her hair and the shadows under her chin, drops right to black. It looks like a pushed exposure to me.

Hi, there is something in your EXIF data that might explain the rather minor degree of grain in http://brianlarter.com/images/grain.jpg. Shooting at a tiny iris like F22 is great for DOF, but light can bend around the aperture into the sensor with such a small lens opening (this is called "diffraction"). I noticed this problem when I purchased my Olympus Evolt-500. I was able to resolve this, with almost no loss of DOF, by stopping up to F20, and compensating with a slightly faster shutter speed. Try this out and see if it helps. It made a very noticeable difference in my case. Stu