RAW noise...10D broken?

[sigler]

Hi,

Thanks to all those that helped with my recent noise problem. Here is another one...a Raw file converted with Photoshop CS. This time shot with my 10D, 24-70L, F4, 1/60th, at ISO 100:

http://homepage.mac.com/rsigler/noisy.jpg

Holy cow! What the heck is going on? :angry: Why is there so much noise at ISO 100? I know these are dark colors, but yikes!

I tried printing this, and it looks awful! I'm viewing the image on my Powerbook G4.

Help!

:) Rob

[robertwgross]

That looks like a standard input for Neat Image.

---Bob Gross---

[dtrayers]

Make sure you're not under-exposing and adjusting in the RAW converision.

See my latest reply on this thread with two examples.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25240

[Tom W]

It almost looks like there's a foreign substance on the sensor - like some kind of residue.

Then again, I'm on my laptop as well so its hard to tell.

[defordphoto]

Sigler: How did you post proces this shot? This is not what you see from a 10D at ISO100. As asked before, what this underexposed to begin with?

[ecobo]

Just convert the RAW in the Canon's RAW converter, not in PS an it will be OK.

[sigler]

Sigler: How did you post proces this shot? This is not what you see from a 10D at ISO100. As asked before, what this underexposed to begin with?

Hi! All I did was convert this from RAW with PS CS (camera default).

I didn't do any procession...ie shadow recovery, etc. I didn't even adjust levels or curves.

Thanks...perhaps it's time to call Canon?

[ilya]

Please list the Raw Conversion settings you've used

[defordphoto]

Sigler: How did you post proces this shot? This is not what you see from a 10D at ISO100. As asked before, what this underexposed to begin with?

Hi! All I did was convert this from RAW with PS CS (camera default).

I didn't do any procession...ie shadow recovery, etc. I didn't even adjust levels or curves.

Thanks...perhaps it's time to call Canon?

Nope. Time to adjust your post processing settings. PSCS has a reputation for being noisy.

[evilenglishman]

--

[Belmondo]

Well, now. There's a difference of opinion for you.

FWIW, I've been using PSCS almost since it was released, and I've had no such problems that I've ever noticed. Perhaps I'd better start taking a closer look.

[ilya]

It does infinity

Edit: But that doesn't mean that sigler's 10D is broken. It means he underexposed and pushed the comp in conversion. I could easily replicate that kind of noise, and its perfectly normal.

[sigler]

Hi Gang,

I didn't touch the image after the "camera default" RAW converstion. I didn't adjust levels or curves...this is what comes out of the camera :(

I just called Canon and sent them a few pics. I think there is something wrong with the camera.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks,

Rob

[evilenglishman]

--

[ilya]

Dr. Evil -

I'm happy that whatever process you use gets you no incremental noise.

I've personally experienced a little more noise through conversion using PS CS as compared to the FVU. I've heard the same thing from other users as compared to C1. This is mostly pronounced in shots that are on the underexposed side, mostly indoors, and high ISo to begin with.

Its not a trivial occurrence, in my mind.

I'm happy to have PS CS as it integrates Raw into the workflow. This is a big plus. Batch processing is also very fast and very efficient.

For those advantages, I could live with a little extra noise.

Perhaps you are the ultimate expert in Photoshop, which gives you the right to dismiss this as a non-issue. If that's the case, please share your knowledge with the rest of us.

Thanks
Ilya

[iwatkins]

Another thing to remember is that "Camera Default" is only the "real" default settings if you haven't "Set" the Camera Default at some point.

I.e. you can setup what the "Camera Default" should be, in fact I do this all the time.

Next time I use it my first preview shot will look horrible. This may be due to the fact that I used a Contrast settings of -35 last time around but this time all the shots need +10 etc.

If anybody expects Camera RAW in PS CS to produce great output everytime without having to put any effort in is very wrong or has been seriously misguided.

To get good results you need to tweak it everytime, although not necessarily for every image. E.g. One day I may shoot 50 shots of ducks on a pond in bright sunlight. First image will need the settings changed to get white balance and maybe contrast correct. All subsequent shots from that batch may need none of those changing and maybe not even Exposure.

Next lots of shots may be say all sunsets. Everything will need changing again but within this batch once settings are how I like them I may not need to change them again (I'll just use "Previous Conversion" to force same settings).

So, what am I saying (get to the point Ian) ? I'm saying that even though you may be using "Camera Default" it can and will give crappy output. "Camera Default", even the "real" defaults *IS ONLY A STARTING POINT* not the end.

Blaming the camera at this point, well, I would think it is a little early for that. I'll shut up now. :wink:

Cheers

Ian

[evilenglishman]

--

[ilya]

First of all (to repeat) I'm comparing to FVU not C1. And I have no issue with PS CS Color.

Second, I have experimented with all possible permutations of contrast/ exposure / sharpness / etc. in comparing with FVU.

Certain pictures definitely add more noise, on my computer, my screen, my PS CS.

I just have a problem when people refer to an issue whether perceived or real as imaginary or non-existent. There is a big difference.

Remember the 10D focus flame wars? Its not quite the same, but there is absolutely no doubt that a small percentage of 10Ds have a real problem that was corrected by Canon, that a greater percentage of complaints were caused by user error, that a large percentage of people with good 10Ds could not imagine that there is a small QC issue, and a couple of people that made it their life's mission to paint all 10D's as having a problem.

Point is I agree that one shouldn't take this to mean that PS CS is crap. I know the people you refer to over at Galbraith, and I agree. I'm particularly careful to call this a small issue, which it is, and it effects certain pictures already at high ISO and low light; and not as an epidemic.

Ilya

[dtrayers]

Ok, let's add a little fuel to the fire...

Here's the same two images as I posted above but converted with C1-Rebel. There are some slight differences in color cast between the two, I didn't try to get them exact. Also, the C1 added some sharpening.

To my eye, there isn't any significant difference between CS and C1. Both have no noise in the expose right images. Both added noise when adjusting the underexposed image. The CS may be a little noiser, but it could be that I pushed the exposure in CS more.

Oh yes, the ACR is version 2.1

EDIT: Oh shoot! 'expoise' :lol: :oops:

It's a 400K file:

http://home.comcast.net/~dtrayers/photos/expose-right-compare.jpg

[iwatkins]

Dave,

Nice demo. Can I ask how much Sharpness, Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction you had set for the PS CS conversion ?

I ask because I can easily get rid of the noise (from boosting underexposures) by making the changes here. I say easily, but sometimes I admit to having to resort to Neat Image, but that is usually down to high ISO.

Cheers

Ian

[sigler]

Here is the response from Canon, and the RAW data from my Pic:



Thank you for submitting that image for us to review. Image
"CRW_2597.CRW" was properly attached and we were able to retrieve the
following EXIF data from your image. Please note highlighted (in yellow)
lines.

CRW_2597.CRW EXIF Data:

File Name
CRW_2597.CRW
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 10D
Shooting Date/Time
2/14/04 5:18:58 PM
Shooting Mode
Program AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/60
Av( Aperture Value )
4.5
Metering Mode
Center-weighted averaging
Exposure Compensation
-1/2
ISO Speed
200
Lens
24.0 - 70.0 mm
Focal Length
35.0 mm
Image Size
3072x2048
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
0
Red-eye Reduction
Off
Shutter curtain sync
1st-curtain sync
White Balance
Custom
AF Mode
One-Shot AF
Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color saturation Normal
Color tone Normal
Color Space
Adobe RGB
File Size
6208KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:01-1
C.Fn:02-0
C.Fn:03-0
C.Fn:04-0
C.Fn:05-0
C.Fn:06-0
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-3
C.Fn:09-0
C.Fn:10-0
C.Fn:11-0
C.Fn:12-0
C.Fn:13-0
C.Fn:14-0
C.Fn:15-1
C.Fn:16-0
C.Fn:17-0
Drive Mode
Continuous shooting
Owner's Name
Camera Body No.
0620302191

Based on the EXIF data above there is no need to have your camera
serviced. I would have cancelled exposure compensation (currently set to
-1/2 stop). I would also have used the white balance mode of "Flash" and
I would recommend using "Partial" metering. I was easily able to correct
image through adding 3/4 + digital exposure compensation alone in Canon
File Viewer Utility. See attached converted "CRW_2597_RJ.JPG".
I hope this information is useful. Thank you for choosing Canon!

[defordphoto]

Hi Gang,

I didn't touch the image after the "camera default" RAW converstion. I didn't adjust levels or curves...this is what comes out of the camera :(

I just called Canon and sent them a few pics. I think there is something wrong with the camera.

I'll keep you posted.

Thanks,

Rob

Shoot a small/fine JPEG and post a link to the full image here. Don't post the photo, just the link. Actually you might post a few photos. Bright/contrasty photos and light-challenged shots. Let's wquit looking at that one photo and get some new, comparative examples here.

[defordphoto]

I have not seen anything to suggest that photoshop adds more noise than capture one, aside from a few people who have slammed it and to be honest, don't really have an idea what they are talking about.

For one thing no one here has slammed PSCS. Don't drag an argument from one board to another. We're all being civil here so let's chat about this and resolve it. Getting all over-excited about it solves nothing. We have some good samples posted here to discuss and I suggest that as the best approach rather than border on this flame-fest.

So, we have two issues here we're discussing in this thread: Noise in Sigler's camera (which is THE issue we need to resolve first here as this is HIS thread) and the PSCS issue.

I have suggested that we need to see a few more photos from Sigler's camera. A few shots at various ISO's at small/fine JPEG ought to do the trick. And then we can address the secondary, and lesser issue, about PSCS.

I think Sigler would apprecitae that since this is his thread.

[defordphoto]

Based on the EXIF data above there is no need to have your camera
serviced. I would have cancelled exposure compensation (currently set to
-1/2 stop). I would also have used the white balance mode of "Flash" and
I would recommend using "Partial" metering. I was easily able to correct
image through adding 3/4 + digital exposure compensation alone in Canon
File Viewer Utility. See attached converted "CRW_2597_RJ.JPG".
I hope this information is useful. Thank you for choosing Canon!

Good suggestions by Canon. You have underexposed the photo. When converted an underexposed photo will display more noise. There's been some awesome discussion here regarding underexposing and the resulting noise when converted.

[dtrayers]

Dave,

Nice demo. Can I ask how much Sharpness, Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction you had set for the PS CS conversion ?

I ask because I can easily get rid of the noise (from boosting underexposures) by making the changes here. I say easily, but sometimes I admit to having to resort to Neat Image, but that is usually down to high ISO.

Cheers

Ian

I used the defaults for the 300D: Sharp = 25, Luminance = 0, Color = 25.

I agree, I typically find that upping the Luminance Smoothing and reducing the Sharpness reduces noise. The Color Noise has a lesser affect on the image.

I'll also leave the dark areas a little underexposed in conversion, and then adjust the dark areas with the Shadow/Highlight adjustment tool.

[iwatkins]

I used the defaults for the 300D: Sharp = 25, Luminance = 0, Color = 25.

I agree, I typically find that upping the Luminance Smoothing and reducing the Sharpness reduces noise. The Color Noise has a lesser affect on the image.


Thanks Dave,

Yes, I tend to keep Sharpness and Luminance about the same, i.e. if I bump Sharpness to 50 so does Luminance. Of course, if you push it too hard you end up with a sharp picture but with soft edges (or so it seems).

Cheers

Ian

[defordphoto]

Also see: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25401

There is an update the the PSCS CameraRaw driver. Supposed to reduce noise. It'd be nice to see this sample photo re-processed under CR 2.1 to see if there any improvements.

[evilenglishman]

--

[Katie Piecrust]

You know what is really fun when your bored or feel like you just have to prove a point (or just feel like measurbating for the heck of it)? Converting the same image file in several different RAW converters and comparing the individual R, G, and B channels for each in Photoshop. I did this recently (included a 10D JPG image as well) and I promise it's an eye opener. Especially at higher ISO's. Have fun all! ;-)

[ilya]

You know what is really fun when your bored or feel like you just have to prove a point (or just feel like measurbating for the heck of it)? Converting the same image file in several different RAW converters and comparing the individual R, G, and B channels for each in Photoshop. I did this recently (included a 10D JPG image as well) and I promise it's an eye opener. Especially at higher ISO's. Have fun all! ;-)

Tell us more, Katie Piecrust :shock:

I only measurebate when its too cold outside to go get the real thing :lol:

[defordphoto]

For one thing no one here has slammed PSCS. Don't drag an argument from one board to another. We're all being civil here so let's chat about this and resolve it.


ahem :roll:
I have read several posts you have made recently saying that photoshop adds noise, has a reputation of adding noise etc etc and telling everyone how wonderful the software you use is.
As far as I'm concerned you are condeming photoshop because some other people "think" it adds more noise.
Therefore you are the one that has brought this issue over from another board.
I don't care what software people use, and at the end of the day it's up to everyones personal preference.
But you should not be frightening people by feeding them mis-information.

I have not told anyone what software I use, so you must be confused. Do you work for Adobe or something? You're acting like we're taking food off your table talking about this.

I have NEVER condemned Photoshop. I use it daily and swear by it, so please don't put words in my mouth. Again, backoff the flamefest a bit and talk reasonably about this. We still have a member with an issue here we need to resolve that takes precedence over your hyper-sensitivity about PSCS.

[defordphoto]

You know what is really fun when your bored or feel like you just have to prove a point (or just feel like measurbating for the heck of it)? Converting the same image file in several different RAW converters and comparing the individual R, G, and B channels for each in Photoshop. I did this recently (included a 10D JPG image as well) and I promise it's an eye opener. Especially at higher ISO's. Have fun all! ;-)

Yes., yes. Tell us more please. Share your experiences. We're all here to learn. Well, most of us anyway... (Welcome to the board, by the way...)

[evilenglishman]

--

[defordphoto]

I have not told anyone what software I use, so you must be confused. Do you work for Adobe or something? You're acting like we're taking food off your table talking about this.

I have NEVER condemned Photoshop. I use it daily and swear by it, so please don't put words in my mouth. Again, backoff the flamefest a bit and talk reasonably about this. We still have a member with an issue here we need to resolve that takes precedence over your hyper-sensitivity about PSCS.

Jim, you are correct and I appologise.
I do not work for Adobe.
I just saw this issue becoming over exagerated and I don't think people should tell others about alleged problems that are just rumors.

Apology accepted. I love PS and have just got PSCS and would love to see someone prove this either way. I have read some of the concerns from the other boards too, but I'd really like to see a good comparison using this photo that Sigler has been having problems with.

And now we have the new PSCS CameraRaw update so maybe that's fixed things.

One thing that we all need to remember is that we're producing photos here. No one goes into a studio with a magnifying glass to view photographic art. With the advent of digital cameras we can now magnify anything and (over?) examine our photos like never before.

In some cases this is a valid approach to solving problems with our photos, but in many cases it's a simple case of measurebating things to death. I'd like to see an 8x10 print of Sigler's example photo here. Could be that the print would look great and you'd never see the noise we see so clearly on that 100% crop.