Is my camera getting noisier or is it LR?

Check out this pic with 100% crop below and tell me that's not damned noisy for ISO200 on a 20D?

Whole pic resized for web (noise still blatant)

underexposed and shadows opened in PP??

That's noisy. But like John asked...did you recover an underexposure? Post the unraped version, assuming the crop isn't it.

I've recovered my 10D shadows a lot more than that just this morning from ISO100 and it didn't look that bad.

Yep, I admit there was a little recovery from underexposure, I guess that explains it.

Just checked, I had to raise the exposure in LR by 2pts, that would explain it. Thanks guys.

Great composition, anyhow.

Anke wrote in post #3432203
Just checked, I had to raise the exposure in LR by 2pts, that would explain it. Thanks guys.

Yeah that'll do it. 2 points is 2 full stops - quite a bit to recover.

Only 2 stops? The EXIF says f/16, 1/320th at ISO 200. That's 2/3rds of a stop under-exposed compared to the Sunny-16 rule. But the day looks pretty heavily overcast, so I'd say you should have been about 3 stops over-exposed compared to Sunny-16. Which would make your shout about 3+2/3rds stops under-exposed... No wonder it's grainy!

StewartR wrote in post #3435503
Only 2 stops? The EXIF says f/16, 1/320th at ISO 200. That's 2/3rds of a stop under-exposed compared to the Sunny-16 rule. But the day looks pretty heavily overcast, so I'd say you should have been about 3 stops over-exposed compared to Sunny-16. Which would make your shout about 3+2/3rds stops under-exposed... No wonder it's grainy!

Well according to LR it had to be advanced 2 stops to get it to this exposure. I guess your calculation is a bit more technical, but which ever way you look at it my little experiment went a bit wrong

Anke wrote in post #3435582
Well according to LR it had to be advanced 2 stops to get it to this exposure. I guess your calculation is a bit more technical, but which ever way you look at it my little experiment went a bit wrong

That is just exposure though correct? What did yo adjust your shadows and fill light sections?

Any use of fill light will accentuate noise... certainly one of the weaknesses of this tool in RSP, not realy had time to explore its use in LR... but assume that since it's a RSP read-across, the same applies.

So, basically, you're using the equivilent of ISO800? That right?

In2Photos wrote in post #3435646
That is just exposure though correct? What did yo adjust your shadows and fill light sections?

Absolutely, just changed the exposure and added no fill light or recovery or blacks.

EOSAddict wrote in post #3435654
Any use of fill light will accentuate noise... certainly one of the weaknesses of this tool in RSP, not realy had time to explore its use in LR... but assume that since it's a RSP read-across, the same applies.

I have a number of flower shots where most of the image is exposed not too badly, in fact many where the image is at incipient clipping in its RAW state.

But the shadows in the leaves behind the flower often require some Fill Light, and these areas look just like the pics posted by Anke.

Underexposure is a killer. But what to do when there is full DR in an image from blocking to clipping or incipient clipping?

Luckily I was just experimenting and I backed up with a decent image I was just surprised when I came across this one first.