Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon G-series Digital Cameras 
Thread started 18 May 2008 (Sunday) 05:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

grass noise / fluorescing

 
rogertb
Senior Member
Avatar
327 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Christchurch UK
     
May 18, 2008 05:45 |  #1

Hi chaps - well i've had my G9 a month or so now and am pretty happy, not had much time to use it as yet but with a holiday coming up (and a new underwater housing) am looking forward to getting some good images. I generally shoot in RAW and I'm still working on getting good results using DNG converter and Camera Raw - now to the point of the post. I am really disappointed with the way the camera (in Auto / jpg mode) treats foliage and especially grass - really noisy or fluorescing (or both) see attached. I had an ixus 800is which was far better ! I s there anything to do to improve things in 'auto' ? as I said , generally, I'll be shooting in RAW Av but now and then I'll switch to auto for some happy snaps. Best Roger


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 400L, Speedlite 580 EX, Canon SX 50 HS.
My Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sdommin
Goldmember
Avatar
1,206 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2002
Location: New Hampshire
     
May 18, 2008 06:59 |  #2

I'm don't see what the problem is - could you be more specific? There's no noise in the foreground grass, just blades of grass that the lens is resolving like it should.

Anyway, for fast, casual shooting, try the Program mode instead of Auto. Or even better, use AV with JPG.


Scott
http://www.pbase.com/s​dommin/favorites (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GordonSBuck
Senior Member
914 posts
Joined Jan 2003
Location: Louisiana
     
May 18, 2008 08:44 |  #3

Perhaps reduced saturation would be more to your tastes?


Gordon
http://lightdescriptio​n.blogspot.com (external link)
My 10 Best Photos: http://hornerbuck.smug​mug.com …187_MdCXA#56343​6691_UdXpt (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rogertb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
327 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Christchurch UK
     
May 18, 2008 08:52 |  #4

Thanks for getting back sdommin - but when I open up a shot like this it seems the grass is so nastily "sparkly" - I'm not sure how else to describe it - it looks too "processed" and "false" - maybe it's me. Regards Roger


Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 400L, Speedlite 580 EX, Canon SX 50 HS.
My Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rogertb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
327 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Christchurch UK
     
May 18, 2008 08:53 |  #5

Thanks Gordon - can I reduce saturation in "auto" ?


Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 400L, Speedlite 580 EX, Canon SX 50 HS.
My Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,740 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
May 18, 2008 13:45 |  #6

GordonSBuck wrote in post #5547218 (external link)
Perhaps reduced saturation would be more to your tastes?

And try reducing contrast a bit. In ACR I reduce the default contrast setting from 25 to 15 as a starting point for all of my G9 images.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kevan
Goldmember
Avatar
3,125 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Easton, MD
     
May 18, 2008 14:03 |  #7

I second the ACR solution. That photo has deep shade as well as the bright field of grass and I sense the camera was compensating.


kevan's lens (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rogertb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
327 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Christchurch UK
     
May 18, 2008 14:50 |  #8

Thanks chaps - I have no doubt you're right I just think the on-board tweaking is a little on the heavy side and wondered if there was any way to adjust the auto settings so that that the auto jpgs are more acceptable. Thanks for taking the time - Roger


Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 400L, Speedlite 580 EX, Canon SX 50 HS.
My Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GordonSBuck
Senior Member
914 posts
Joined Jan 2003
Location: Louisiana
     
May 19, 2008 13:13 |  #9

rogertb wrote in post #5547241 (external link)
Thanks Gordon - can I reduce saturation in "auto" ?

Sorry, but no. However, "Program" mode is nearly the same as full auto in many respects but offers additional features including adjustments to saturation. So you could customize "P" mode -- just remember that Auto is not changed.


Gordon
http://lightdescriptio​n.blogspot.com (external link)
My 10 Best Photos: http://hornerbuck.smug​mug.com …187_MdCXA#56343​6691_UdXpt (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maljunulo
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
     
May 19, 2008 14:16 as a reply to  @ GordonSBuck's post |  #10

I am still confused by your use of the word "fluorescing." I don't think grass fluoresces, nor do I see any in the photos. Can you enlighten me?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,740 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
May 19, 2008 15:11 |  #11

Maljunulo wrote in post #5555133 (external link)
I am still confused by your use of the word "fluorescing." I don't think grass fluoresces, nor do I see any in the photos. Can you enlighten me?

I think the OP was just referring to the G9 images creating overly vivid colors making the scene look unnatural (and it does make grass look a bit weird). This is pretty typical for most point and shoot cameras. Consumers tend to like saturation and contrast pumped up, so the manufacturers give them what they want, even if it doesn't truly represent the scene.

Film manufacturers have been doing this for years ... remember Kodachrome? :)


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
t_andersen
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
May 19, 2008 15:37 |  #12

I wonder whether the effect that Roger has in mind is the apparent lack of resolution in the grass. My suspicion is that the jpg compressor has a hard time coping with all the many fine details in the grass and ends up making it look grainy? That could also explain why you don't have the problem when shooting raw. Check your compressor setting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rogertb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
327 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Christchurch UK
     
May 22, 2008 00:12 |  #13

Thanks to one and all for the responses. Yes t-anderson you've summed it up so as I think we've established 'auto' is not the way to go as there seems to be no way of adjusting that grainy brightness. I'll check the settings in 'p' and set up a custom setting to use instead of 'auto' as I mentioned in my original post though my old ixus 800 didn't display grass quite this badly in auto, so I'm surprised that canon have seen fit to add that extra 'punch' in what is sold as a semi pro camera. Again, as I said, I shoot almost always in raw (which I couldn't do with the ixus) so not a big deal. Thanks again for your time. Roger


Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 24-105L, Canon 400L, Speedlite 580 EX, Canon SX 50 HS.
My Flickr (external link)
My Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
t_andersen
Mostly Lurking
15 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
May 22, 2008 13:53 as a reply to  @ rogertb's post |  #14

Maybe I wasn't quite clear. What I meant was that the "grains" in the grass are not pixel noise but come from the jpg-compressor that has a harder time coping with fine grass details than, say, a portrait, and I suspect that you may have had the compression set to "normal" and not "super fine", and possibly low resolution. Maybe you can try to take another pic of grass with "super fine" and a resolution of 3000x4000.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,740 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
May 23, 2008 08:24 |  #15

rogertb wrote in post #5572399 (external link)
Thanks to one and all for the responses. Yes t-anderson you've summed it up so as I think we've established 'auto' is not the way to go as there seems to be no way of adjusting that grainy brightness. I'll check the settings in 'p' and set up a custom setting to use instead of 'auto' as I mentioned in my original post though my old ixus 800 didn't display grass quite this badly in auto, so I'm surprised that canon have seen fit to add that extra 'punch' in what is sold as a semi pro camera. Again, as I said, I shoot almost always in raw (which I couldn't do with the ixus) so not a big deal. Thanks again for your time. Roger

I've never heard the G9 sold as a semi-pro camera. Even the XT (XXXD) DSLR's are not considered to be semi-pro. The G9 is a high end consumer P&S camera, but that's not to say that it's not capable and can't be used by pro's ... it's just a classification. :)

Semi-pro is the XXD line of DSLR's, with the XD line being their pro cameras.


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,813 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
grass noise / fluorescing
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon G-series Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is EBiffany
1603 guests, 103 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.