Well, I tried shooting in raw, with horrible results.... [Archive]

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:34

This 100% crop is with the camera's choice of settings (ie. I did no post processessing other than saving it as a 16bit .tif, and then converting to jpeg in photoshop CS2.)

The tif file I saved from the raw looks the same, so it isnt from the conversion.

Anyway, the picture is horribly grainy. I took this shot as a test shot since I noticed that all the raw's I took came out grainy.

What am I doing wrong?

Camera was at ISO-400, and when I do the same pic with the camera set on jpeg, it comes out MUCH better.....

Even with the image shrunk down (like 50%) it is still so grainy that it looks horrible.

http://img298.imageshack.us/img298/8808/mg63985bh.jpg

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:41

What camera, what were the other settings and what SW did you use to convert from raw to TIFF and JPG?

I've never had images come out as grainy as yours. Even ISO 3200 with +2 exposure compensation on a 20d looks better than that.

Medic1

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:41

What kind of camera are you using? My Drebel had bad grain at 400.......but my 20D is perfectly fine at 400 and even higher

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:50

its a 20D

ISO 400
1/60th sec.
f/5.6
55mm

Ive tried a few more, including some outdoor test shots, and they are just as bad.

The jpegs look MUCH better, though it seems like my camera is recording more noise as of lately (possibly because of the 90+ degree temps)

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:51

What SW did you use to convert from .CR2 to TIFF and JPG?

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:53

Photoshop CS2 for everything

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:56

I'm not a CS2 user so I can't help you there. Your settings should get you better images than you've shown. If you want to private email me the CR2 file, I'll convert it using my workflow, Capture 1 and get it back to you to try to isolate the problem to HW or SW.

Looks to me like it's something in CS2 but then I'm no CS expert.

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:58

I have already deleted the files, but Ill post up a link to another one if I cant get these to look decent after this final try...

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:03

Here a reference point for you in terms of grain from a 20d. This shot was taken at ISO 1600 with no noise correction. The RAW workflow tool I use is Capture 1.

http://baysidepictures.smugmug.com/gallery/430052/1/16960912/Large

Good luck,

Darren

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:12

that picture is so much better than even my ISO100 pictures, in both JPEG or Raw

One sec, Im gonna post some stuff in about 2 minutes...

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:19

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:36

Whoa!!!!

I just downloaded the capture1 pro demo, and ran the .cr2 I posted above through it, and it simply blew me away!!

The quality is so much better than anything I have gotten out of my camera so far....

I am definitely going to need to purchase that program....

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:42

badrotation,

I looked at your last CR2 file and it doesn't look as bad as the first one. It's very slightly out of focus but the resolution and grain look fine to me. The JPG file also looks decent. This image looks a lot better than the 1st one I saw.

Did you do anything differently in CS?

Darren

tacos3

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:45

badrotation,

C1 is my tool of choice but then again, I can't afford CS or CS2 right now. I'd rather spend the $$ on an Epson P-2000.

Good luck with C1.

Darren

Bob_A

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:50

Tixeon

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:53

I downloaded the .CR2 & converted to 8 bit TIFF with Digital Photo Pro & the file looks just fine - nary a sign of grain. Sounds like maybe something whacky with CS2. I can't say just what because I use PSP8.1 (no snickers please) for all my work.

Good luck.

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:54

I've only see images as noisey as what you show with ISO 400 when the original was very underexposed requiring a lot of exposure compensation in post processing. I have tons of shots at ISO 400 that I've processed using ACR and they all show very little noise at 100%.

One thing I did notice though is that you set sharpening to 96% before conversion. Personally I set this to zero then apply sharpening using USM in PS. I also noticed that your sample is in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB which should be used for posting on the web.

The sharpness is wherever it was by default.

Basically I just opened it, and saved it as a tif without touching anything.

Yeah, it was on adobe rgb, since I was experimenting, but sRGB photos look the same in CS2.

Any other program I run them through, they come out fine, so I think I narrowed it down to the CS2 raw plugin.

tim

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 19:14

RAW/JPG will not affect the grain or noise of the photo, and JPG should actually be a little worse due to in-camera sharpening. It's most likely just that you need to learn a bit more about RAW.

I can't see any difference in grain between the CR2 and the JPGs you linked to. The JPG is sharper and looks a little better, which is because the camera did saturation, sharpness, etc, before saving it. Play with the defaults in the raw plugin, you can probably make it look as good as the JPG just in there. Personally I turn off RAW noise reduction and use Noise Ninja plugin, it's much better, and I use USM in PS. Contrast, shadows, saturation, and exposure I usually adjust in PS.

Can you give us the RAW file for the first photo you posted?

SkipD

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 19:17

There's nothing wrong with the raw photo. I opened it with Digital Photo Professional and converted it to a TIF. Then I opened that in PS7 and re-saved as a TIF. Looking at it there, it was fine.

The only problem that may cause it to look funky is that very little of the photo is in focus. Only the bumps on the red areas at the middle of the flower look like they are in focus. Everything else is out to varying degrees.

Bob_A

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 19:32

96% sharpening is not the fresh install default for sharpening in ACR ... I believe it's 25%. This may not help, but here's what I do for my ACR workflow (for images that don't need a ton of tweaking):

1. I always have auto adjustments turned off.
2. If I use a circular polarizing filter I add about 600K to the white balance, otherwise I leave as is and do any white balance correction in PS.
3. I increase Exposure so that the first of the three RGB curves is close to the right hand side.
4. Adjust brightness to get the brightness of the photo to look the way I want.
5. Typically I Leave Shadows and Contrast at the defaults (5, 25). Sometimes I adjust Shadows if one of the RGB curves is piled up or away from the left hand side.
6. Typically I leave saturation at 0, but I have no preference whether I adjust it in ACR or in PS.
7. Under the Detail tab I have Sharpness and Luminance Smoothing set to zero ... and I leave Color Noise Reduction set to 25 (ACR default). Unless I have a very underexposed image I have never needed noise reduction for ISO400 or lower, and if I do I use Neat Image. I do all of my sharpening in PS.
7. For color space I use sRGB, 8 bits/channel depth.

I haven't seen any difference in noise between EVU, DPP, RSE or ACR for ISO400 images. Also ... this probably won't make a difference, but there is a new version of Camera Raw that came out in May (version 3.1), but I believe it only provided support for more cameras (I upgraded anyway). The 20D is supported by version 3.0.

Edit: Just used ACR to convert your IMG_6407 to jpeg using the above and I see only a very small amount of noise ... nothing like the first image you posted. This was a really nice exposure that didn't need much tweaking.

badrotation

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 20:24

I reinstalled the raw plugin, and now it works fine :)

I dont know why sharpening was set at 96%, but now it is back at 25.

tim

11th of July 2005 (Mon), 20:27

There's a way to change the defaults, but it's obscure, something to do with advanced mode and a small triangle. Glad it worked out for you :)

Do you understand why sharpening did what it did? I don't mean to be condescending, just trying to help :)

mapollo

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 01:22

I also only sharpen within PS.

The way I deal with "sharpening" in CS2 Camera Raw is to apply it "to preview images only". ie NO sharpening is done to the converted file.

You can achieve this by opening an image in camera Raw, then click on the little arrow at the side of the settings box and choose preferences.

Change "apply sharpening to" "preview images only". I think the default setting is "all images" and you are good to go.

The problem is the "Detail" tab is tucked away behind the "adjust" tab. So at least I know that even if I alter the sharpness and forget to return to the default level it will still not affect my converted image.

Hope that helps David....

Salleke

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 03:42

Longwatcher

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 08:50

Since I upgraded to CS2 the Canon RAW conversion has gotten even worse then before. I don't have any idea why, but I use DPP for conversion and it works great. I can fix the photo in PS CS2, but I don't know why it is coming out of the ACR converter worse then it used to in CS, on the flip side the colors are coming out better now, but trading color for noise is not a good thing. So having read that you tried some other converters that worked better you seem to be finding the same problem I have recently discovered.

Note that if I get perfect exposure (not always possible) the noise problem doesn't crop up as bad.

Just my experience,

Loaded

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 08:59

You sound like me! I have come to realize that RAW is 100% PP if you want the P&S Sharp out of the camera photos, custom up your parameters to 2+ on every row and shoot JPEG. The the results will be what your thinking it should be. If you shoot in RAW dont ever think the shot wil be 100% You must post process.
I love raw after i learned howe to use it i will never shoot JPEG on important shoots. RAW is where it is at.
Yes your right he photo is caca. and needs PP....
Shoot the smae thing in JPEG and jack up your in camera parameters and your print out what you think it should be....I promise

AjP

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 09:01

I found similar problem yesterday when converted imaged in Adobe Camera RAW from CR2, suddenly so much grain and noise.
and my solution was to not use shaprpen at all in adobe camera raw, add some luminance smoothing and noice reduction... even if I convert images that has been shot in 1600-3200 ISO, they look much better, really less grain and noise.

BigRed450

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 09:51

It has been realized by many, that sharpening should not be done in RAW, rather, leave sharpening OFF and sharpen your images as the last step after conversion. Also came across an article by Scott Kelby that suggests turning all sharpening off for RAW convertion.
Personally I have been using PSCS2 for about a month and have had no such problems with noise. If you already have PSC2 stick with it, IMO it is far superior to the other converters, but you must learn how to use it...

Jon, The Elder

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 09:59

Wait til Photosguy sees this thread - Boy are you ever gonna' get a lecture !!

Nessus

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:01

The following picture was taken at ISO-400

Here is the .CR2 of a crappy pic I just took:

http://home.comcast.net/~jason8883/IMG_6407.CR2

The JPEG L(fine) version of the pic straight off the 20D is here:

http://home.comcast.net/~jason8883/IMG_6407.JPG

I ran this (very quickly) through CS with the CS plug-in and here is what I got. I think your CS is not operating proerly. If you get the latest RAW plug-in it should work fine.

Adam

lostdoggy

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:04

\Personally I have been using PSCS2 for about a month and have had no such problems with noise. If you already have PSC2 stick with it, IMO it is far superior to the other converters, but you must learn how to use it...

Have you tried PhaseOne Capture 1 Pro??? I can say that I've tried ACR, RSE, and DPP but I keep coming back to Capture 1.

CyberDyneSystems

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:06

I don't think that is "ISO noise" that we are seeing in the DVD label..

I think it's some sort of production print dot pattern, like you get when you scan a magazine photo with a scanner that does not have the built in "de-screen" filter to compensate.

The bag the DVD is sitting on seems to show next to no noise at all.. and it's darker.. typically (read "allways" ) the darker areas have more noise.. not less.

Nessus

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:07

I ran this (very quickly) through CS with the CS plug-in and here is what I got. I think your CS is not operating properly. If you get the latest RAW plug-in it should work fine.

Adam

Sorry - I couldn't get the photo to upload (I'm new at this site). If you will send me your email adress I will copy it to you directly.

Adam

lostdoggy

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:33

The problem has been resolved. Bridge Sharpen was boosted too high (95%).

AjP

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:43

My lesson was yesterday, Good lesson... No Bridge Sharpening, SET to 0%

zacker

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 10:45

i use Ps Cs2 for all my RAW images with the 350D without a hitch! I think it was the ISO that delivered the noise. Poor lighting and the such will all contribute to this. I recently shot a wedding in a poorly lit, dark hall with dark brown walls and ceilings.. i used the 350D with 420EX speed light and had more noise at ISO 400 than I ever had before and ever had again. It took a pass through the Noise reduction filter to fix it so it was not a problem. I havent tried to open the raw sample yet, i will try tonight to run it through PS CS2 and see what it looks like.
This is very interesting.
-zacker-

badrotation

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 13:04

Well, here is a picture I just took, and using CaptureOne, I think it came out great (though the composistion is kinda lacking, and I am still learning how to properly post process the photos)

Sorry it is so big, but I didnt want to lose any detail. I sized it down to 1500 pixels wide in photoshop.

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/8964/img64303fl.jpg

BigRed450

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 15:53

Have you tried PhaseOne Capture 1 Pro??? I can say that I've tried ACR, RSE, and DPP but I keep coming back to Capture 1.

You bet I have, but since RSE and PSCS2 have been out I haven't used anything else. Like any these programs you will get the most out of the one you learn to use the best. That however is only my opinion, based on my experiences testing and comparing the useability of these programs. CS2 especially seems to finally be a complete workflow package by itself.
It is getting to the point now that these programs all can certainly provide compariable results in the the hands of the experienced. My suggestion is choose the program that you're most comfortable with, learn it (there is lots to learn), and have fun.... Don't forget, the ultimate test for all your comparisons are quality print outs. What you see on the monitor is not neccessarily what your prints will look like especially with regard to sharpness/acutance...

tim

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 15:56

Well, here is a picture I just took, and using CaptureOne, I think it came out great (though the composistion is kinda lacking, and I am still learning how to properly post process the photos)

Sorry it is so big, but I didnt want to lose any detail. I sized it down to 1500 pixels wide in photoshop.

I'm not sure the point of your post. Are you just sharing, or are you comparing software?

Moriarty

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 17:32

Hold on a sec...

My workflow with PSCS goes like this (I own a 20D btw):

1) Open RAW file, make no adjustments in the initial window (sharpening is set to 25 by default). Hit ok.

2) Now with the RAW file open in photoshop, apply channel mixer, levels, and curves layers. Apply USM filter last.

3) Save as TIFF/JPG/Desired file format.

4) Save RAW file unchanged as a backup.

Now are you saying that I should swap steps 3 and 2? In other words, I should be converting to TIFF before applying layers and USM (or just USM)? I'm just getting started in PS so I think a lot of my confusion is with the vernacular.

It has been realized by many, that sharpening should not be done in RAW, rather, leave sharpening OFF and sharpen your images as the last step after conversion. Also came across an article by Scott Kelby that suggests turning all sharpening off for RAW convertion.
Personally I have been using PSCS2 for about a month and have had no such problems with noise. If you already have PSC2 stick with it, IMO it is far superior to the other converters, but you must learn how to use it...

Rigrider

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 17:38

Lot's of comments on here that I haven't read yet, so if someone has posted this already please excuse me:

I'm not sure why you're getting the grain you are but, as a "solution" try using the luminance smothing in the Details tab of CS2's Camera Raw converter. I've had some pretty bad shots get saved by that. You'll need to sharpen a little afterwards but it works.

L8r,

BigRed450

12th of July 2005 (Tue), 19:41

Hold on a sec...

My workflow with PSCS goes like this (I own a 20D btw):

1) Open RAW file, make no adjustments in the initial window (sharpening is set to 25 by default). Hit ok.

2) Now with the RAW file open in photoshop, apply channel mixer, levels, and curves layers. Apply USM filter last.

3) Save as TIFF/JPG/Desired file format.

4) Save RAW file unchanged as a backup.

Now are you saying that I should swap steps 3 and 2? In other words, I should be converting to TIFF before applying layers and USM (or just USM)? I'm just getting started in PS so I think a lot of my confusion is with the vernacular.

Almost..
Do all your color corrections i.e. levels, curves etc , in RAW as you did before, but make sure all sharpen setting are set to 0, convert to your favourite format, then apply USM to the TIFF, or what ever format you chose, once you're ready to print or after you have resized for web viewing.