Why is my ISO800 8x10 pic so grainy??

[jimsloy]

I had my 10D set to ISO800 and used the in camera flash to snap a pic. When printer on 8x10 Matte Epson 960 paper...GRAINNNYYYYY. I can literally see the RGB dots. Is this normal? What's the deal?

I know I haven't given you much to go on, but I shot in RAW, converted to JPG, and sharpened in PS7, then printed from Epson's software. Something different I should be doing?

Thanks!

[Mark Kemp]

Tough to comment without seeing the print but the obvious possibility is that you just have too few pixels at some point in the process.

Was the picture taken at large resolution?

When you converted RAW to jpeg did you accidentally reduce the image size (number of pixels)?

Did you print out the picture at a decent resolution?


Another possibility, but less likely is that the sharpening has increased the grain. If you over sharpen a grainy picture it will emphasise the grain (noise) as it emphasises each little grainy dot.

[justme_dc]

It's likely not "grain" but noise. The 10D has a fair amount of noise at the higher ISO settings. There are a number of ways to reduce noise in photoshop and there are also several software solutions such as "Neat Image". If you are unhappy with the noise you could try neat image or try fixing it yourself in PS.

[barnold999]

higher iso = more grain, same as traditional film.

100iso is very low grain, as with film... 1600 (or especially "H" (3200) is extremely high grain. But, like others said, you can use programs to reduce the grain.

But, if possible, always shoot at lower ISOs, if light permits.

[CyberDyneSystems]

800 ISO usually looks pretty darn good on the 10D though, ... ?

I'd like to see the image before passing any judgement.

[henkbos]

There is no logic in shooting RAW and then convert to JPEG! Why not convert to TIFF and print from TIFF with something like QImage (outstanding results)?

[GenDEM]

henkbos wrote:
There is no logic in shooting RAW and then convert to JPEG!

There is no logic in that statement. If you're shooting RAW only to get a TIFF instead of a JPEG you are missing almost 100% of the advantages to shooting RAW (which I will not discuss here since it's been done to death already). I mention it here only to make sure anyone new to RAW doesn't form improper conclusions based on this statement.

To answer the question: 800ISO will generate a noisy picture, just like film (as was previously mentioned). There are ways to deal with it, and tools to reduce the visible noise, but for the most part, 800+ ISO will be noisy in any camera.

[henkbos]

Guess you missed my point. I always shoot RAW and am well aware of the advantages. I did not question the decision to shoot RAW. I asked the poster why he is converting to JPEG while there is a better format (TIFF) available.
I would suggest a conversion to TIFF and then print the TIFF.

[atkinson1]

I'm not sure if this has been said, but the higher the ISO, the more noise you'll get. And at ISO 800 there will be alot of noise. This is the same with film too. It's not a fault. Try shooting at ISO 200 or something.

[slejhamer]

atkinson1 wrote:
... at ISO 800 there will be alot of noise.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
800 ISO usually looks pretty darn good on the 10D though ...

Interesting statements, both of which can be correct.

Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape has documented that a digital image with "normal" exposure (and especially one that is underexposed) will show more noise than one which is slightly overexposed -- but not to the point where highlights are blown. His solution is to "expose right" (meaning expose to the right of the histogram) and then use RAW conversion software to add negative EC. See this article:
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Our own Roger Cavanagh has confirmed Reichmann's findings with his own tests, in his well-titled article "Is Expose Right Right?" (to which I have contributed a couple of high ISO 10D shots as well):
www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/28_exposeright.htm

As CDS says, we'd need to see the image(s) in question before drawing conclusions.

One other thought, getting back to the original post: some people have commented that their 10D prints appear to be sharper than when the same images are viewed on a computer monitor (and there have been good explanations as to why this is the case.) It seems logical, then, that ISO noise might also be more apparent in print than on the monitor. That is my experience anyway, but I caution that my old POS monitor has led me astray on many occasions... ;-)

[RichardtheSane]

If you're shooting RAW only to get a TIFF instead of a JPEG you are missing almost 100% of the advantages to shooting RAW

I get the impression you believe that jpeg is a better format that tiff, certainly from that statement.
Tiff is a far superior format because it uses lossless compression, wheras with jpeg you loose some of the image data.

I would also recommend converting to tiff and printing from that, as it is the only way to get the best out of a raw file.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Convert your RAW files to Tiff or .PSD for printing. Only make a jpeg for uploading or emailing.

[rockyc2]

I agree with shooting in RAW, and converting it to a TIFF. I have just started shooting in the RAW, and have found that my images seem to be MUCH SHARPER. Maybe it's the Beer gettin my Eyes in focus. :D:D:D:D:D It also seems like my TIFF prints are also sharper. My printer is a Canon i850. I also try and shoot with the lower ISO settings. Normaly I will shoot at ISO 100.
Rocky

[jimsloy]

Thanks for the replies. Basically, I've always been told to shoot indoors w/ flash at 800. Realizing the grain aspect part of it, however, I didn't think it would be this bad. I'm going to do a test print from TIFF via RAW without any sharpening in PS7, and then with 100,2,0 sharpening and let you know what happens. I will also post the picture - however, when I just converted it to JPG and 640x480 and zoomed up, I couldn't see the grain on my monitor.

If you want, I can post the full sized image via link and you can grab it and lemme know what you think.

Thanks,
Jim

[fotog]

I shot a night football game @ asa 800. Photos look and printed great. If I shot too fast and my flash didn't keep up I had underexposed shots that were grainy. That might be it.
Bill

[freelans]

It's hard to tell without seeing the photos but ISO 800 is quite usable most of the time in terms of noise.
You might consider how you sharpened the photo. Sharpening increases noise considerably especially at larger radii.

[tikkeltokkel]

henkbos wrote:
There is no logic in shooting RAW and then convert to JPEG! Why not convert to TIFF and print from TIFF with something like QImage (outstanding results)?

------------
Is printing from/with Qimage better than printing a Tiff from photoshop 7 ??? Advantages please and where do i get Qimage from ... i've still got a few days left of the trial of C1LE .. is the Pro version worht the extra dollars?
------------

Mike www.mikelambphotography.com

"Photographs only appear to those who are capable of taking them" - Kertesz

[design crusader]

On the troubleshooting and facts area of the EPSON web site, EPSON recommends that you print from a TIFF file to their printer(s) (such as the EPSON 2200).

And, I agree that it does not seem to make much sense to convert a RAW file to JPEG when the photo is going to print -- you would only convert to JPEG when converting a photo for web use. JPEG was created for the web, whereas TIF has always been a mainstay for print, especially for desktop publishing.

just mt 2¢

[mwinog2777]

[quote]jimsloy wrote:

Thanks for the replies. Basically, I've always been told to shoot indoors w/ flash at 800. ]


Who told you that? 400 is what I use.

[robertwgross]

design crusader wrote:
JPEG was created for the web, whereas TIF has always been a mainstay for print, especially for desktop publishing.

Sure, TIF has been around desktop publishing for a long time. However, from the beginning, you weren't trying to transport the digital image very far due to limitations of bandwidth.

Then the Joint Photographic Experts Group came up with a compressed file format to be used in distributed multimedia networks and for stills within teleconferencing where bandwidth was once expensive and hard to come by.

Now, at least in North America, there is excess network bandwidth availability. Too many network providers put too much fiber into the ground back before the Dot Com Bust. So now, bandwidth is much cheaper, and hence, JPEG compression is still used as a convenience, but not so much by necessity.

We digital photographers have come along at a good time. We can send our JPEGs here and there without much notice of bandwidth or cost.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

jimsloy wrote:
I had my 10D set to ISO800 and used the in camera flash to snap a pic. When printer on 8x10 Matte Epson 960 paper...GRAINNNYYYYY. I can literally see the RGB dots. Is this normal? What's the deal?

I know I haven't given you much to go on, but I shot in RAW, converted to JPG, and sharpened in PS7, then printed from Epson's software. Something different I should be doing?

Thanks!

Besides the other ideas that have been proposed, you might want to make sure that you have the Epson printer drivers in some kind of Automatic/Color/Photo mode for the correct paper. I know if I make printer driver selections for the wrong paper, it's my fault.

However, I have concern that oversharpening might have happened, which would be a user error.

---Bob Gross---

[GenDEM]

So, some of you think that TIFF is superior to JPEG I see. Questions I have for you:

1. Can you see the difference between a max quality JPEG and a TIFF on screen? in a print?
2. Do you work as a photographer? (not meant to be facetious, but to point out that a working pro has limitation that a non-pro doe snot have, like hard drive space)
3. How many photos do you keep on your hard drive at a given time?

Technically TIFF is a superior file format in every way except file size. Superior...but not by much and almost never to the naked eye if done properly. (And that is not counting the mess that is the TIFF header, from a programmer's POV. Yechh).

Most people in this forum are obsessed with metrics: the amazing number of focus test threads and MTF graph discussions are proof of that. But don't take my word for it (even though my thesis topic was raster image file formats). Give it a try if you like. Take a full res TIFF file, and save it as a max quality JPEG file. Then open the TIFF, copy the JPEG into a new layer in PS and choose "Difference" in the dropdown. Every time I do this I get an almost totally black result, meaning almost no difference.

I'm sure the purists around will say things like "don't know what he's talking about" etc. Fine. To them I say: Does it help you to understand my position better if I say that I convert my RAW files to 16bit aRGB tiff files? Then they are processed using photoshop scripts and saved to 600dpi 8bit sRGB JPEGs? But I'm still doing the wrong thing, right? A 16bit TIFF file from a 10D is a bit over 35 MB. A 100% quality JPEG of the same file after I'm done with it is ~3.4 MB for 4x6, ~5MB for a 5x7. Do the math.

The benefit of RAW is not that you get a TIFF file out of it. The benefit of RAW is that you can do things like exposure compensation, white balance adjustments, colour space choices, no in-camera sharpening, etc etc...all that stuff talked about ad infinitum in other posts, all after the fact. Not to mention that you can get all 12bits out of the camera's sensor, rather than 8 bits if you shoot JPEG.

Addressing the original question, if you're concerned with noise and if you have a reasonable external flash (420EX or better) you can shoot 100ISO if you're close enough, 200 otherwise. Shooting higher obviously gives you more ambiant light at a given F stop and shutter speed...but more noise. Such is the trade off. That said 800 is still very usable in the 10D and the Rebel I presume.

Qimage does a few really handy things. First of all it lets you arrange multiple pictures of various sizes on one page. Second is that it queues the images to the printer for you, either one page at a time or all at once. This is super handy if you print huge files (like I do). For me each page is about 160MB of data, so when I queue up a bunch of pages I send them to the printer one after the other at 10 minute intervals (an option in qimage) and go to bed.

Hope that helps.

...Mike

[jimsloy]

OK..I toned down the sharpening to just 100/1/0 in PS7 and printed and the grain has significantly reduced to almost near unnoticeable. I did TIFF and JPG and noticed zero difference as 4x6 and a slight grain increase in the JPG 8x10 - but only if you were viewing the pic at point blank range and knowing what you are looking for.

I've been using the in-camera flash and switching to ISO800 for indoors. Looking at some ISO200 and 400 indoor flash shots (b/c I forgot to switch to 800), there is noticeably less grain.

Being this, and understanding that 800 is more sensitive to light - why should I go above 400? Outdoor fast actions shots??

Thanks for the info...

[GenDEM]

jimsloy wrote:
Being this, and understanding that 800 is more sensitive to light - why should I go above 400? Outdoor fast actions shots??


800 is great for low light stuff where you either can't use a flash (such as pictures of wildlife at dusk) or it wouldn't help because you're too far away. It's also an interesting arty effect for black and white prints. Finally, if you don't have high end f2.8 lenses, 800 can be the only way to get the shutter speed fast enough to stop action in tough light conditions. I personally use it for interior church photos at weddings when the flash is not allowed. I'd say 40% of my time is in 100, 30% in 200, 25% in 400 and 5% in 800, but that's just me. Not counting the times I had flipped into 800 and forgotton to flip back again! :0