Grain and Digital Photography

[BexarWolf]

Ok, I'm about to give up. :giveup:

I love this shot taken this morning and my daughter said she'd love to have it blown up to frame. I thought it looked pretty good until I got home and looked at it closer and noticed how dadgum grainy it is. It'll never enlarge decently.

Is it my ISO setting? I'm shooting with a P&S digital 10mp Canon Powershot. It was set to manual mode and the only adjustment I made in-camera was stopping it down one full step on exposure. :doh:

Here are the settings:

Width = 2592 pixels
Height= 1944 pixels
Horizontal Resolution= 180 dpi
Vertical Resolution= 180 dpi
Bit Depth= 24
Frame Count = 1
Equipment Make = Canon
Camera Model= Canon PowerShot SD950 IS
Color Representation= sRGB
Shutter Speed= 1/101 sec.
Lens Aperature= F/4
Focal Length= 16mm
F-Number= F/4
Exposure Time= 1/100 sec.
ISO Speed= ISO-400
Metering Mode= Pattern
Exposure Compensation= -1 step


I'm posting it a little larger than I'd like to just to show the grain. :(

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2374/img1058u.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1058u.jpg)

[leadwolf]

Your ISO is fine. The higher the ISO the grainier the shots will be. However, at 400 ISO, you should be fine to enlarge to a certain degree. Poster might be pushing it a little.

I see two problems. 1) Low light will almost always provide grain unless you have a really fast lens. This would be your F-Stop. A lower number = faster lens.

2) You're shooting a 10 MP camera, but your resolution seems to be set low. By my calculation, you are shooting at 5MP based on the exif data you provided.

Of course, I'm an absolute newb when it comes to photography so take what I say with a little research of your own. I'm sure someone will come in shortly and spank me for spreading bad information. :doh:

[Wes]

Nice shot by the way. Put the photo in Photoshop, then blow it up to the correct size (average size is 24x36) and then get a look.

It probably won't look so bad. I take photos shot with a 7.2mp kodak 763 pocket camera (my favorite for bike trips) all the time and blow them up to 24x36. They look just fine. The Kodak is a often times grainier than my Nikon D-90 but the difference is so subtle compared to the convenience.

[Tracker]

I'm still sorting this out myself, but viewing the image and printing it will be different, as I understand it. Also, remember if you blow it up, you'll be standing back from it, too.
you might try shortrunposters.com. I did 3 pics from my fall NM/CO trip and I was happy with them. I had a sunrise picture that was more grainy than yours, and it came out pretty good, when you look at it from 3+ feet. At about a foot, you can seem some banding in the sky part of the pic. The enlargements are only $2, so not much to lose.

Here's what they say:
One of the misconceptions about printing is that it is possible to scale images to a larger size and they will print correctly. In fact, any digital camera that is less than 5 MegaPixels will not print an 18 x 24 poster without degredation of the image. This makes the poster seem pixelated or grainy. The best way to avoid having this happen is to use a digital camera rated at 5 MegaPixels or higher, and use the highest resolution setting.

The minimum resolution suggested for printing at 18" x 24" is 2700 x 3600, or 150DPI at 100% size (18" x 24"). "Rezing Up", or increasing the resolution with a program like IrfanView will make the image less pixelated, but generally just makes it blurry. Overall, this is better than not doing anything, but it will not solve any problems.

Haven't used these guys before, but they're running a special on 24 x 36's for $10: http://www.posterbrain.com

[BexarWolf]

Your ISO is fine. The higher the ISO the grainier the shots will be. However, at 400 ISO, you should be fine to enlarge to a certain degree. Poster might be pushing it a little.

I see two problems. 1) Low light will almost always provide grain unless you have a really fast lens. This would be your F-Stop. A lower number = faster lens.

2) You're shooting a 10 MP camera, but your resolution seems to be set low. By my calculation, you are shooting at 5MP based on the exif data you provided.

Of course, I'm an absolute newb when it comes to photography so take what I say with a little research of your own. I'm sure someone will come in shortly and spank me for spreading bad information. :doh:

Thanks for the input and insight. I think f-stop is one of the features that's not user-adjustable on this camera. I'll do some more reading in the manual to verify that.

As for the resolutions setting.......you're exactly correct. I had turned it down a little to save space on my card. THAT has now been changed so I can get all the useful pixels I can. I have plenty of SD cards so I really shouldn't have to worry about filling one up unless I'm photographing a crime scene or something. ;-)

[BexarWolf]

Nice shot by the way. Put the photo in Photoshop, then blow it up to the correct size (average size is 24x36) and then get a look.

It probably won't look so bad. I take photos shot with a 7.2mp kodak 763 pocket camera (my favorite for bike trips) all the time and blow them up to 24x36. They look just fine. The Kodak is a often times grainier than my Nikon D-90 but the difference is so subtle compared to the convenience.

I don't have PS. :( I use Irfanview for all my cropping and I very seldom do much of anything else as far as post-production fiddling. I looked at it full-size in Irfanview and to MY eyes, it looked horrible. I may just do the enlargement and see how it turns out.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment. We've had some awesome sunrises all this week!

[BexarWolf]

I'm still sorting this out myself, but viewing the image and printing it will be different, as I understand it. Also, remember if you blow it up, you'll be standing back from it, too.
you might try shortrunposters.com. I did 3 pics from my fall NM/CO trip and I was happy with them. I had a sunrise picture that was more grainy than yours, and it came out pretty good, when you look at it from 3+ feet. At about a foot, you can seem some banding in the sky part of the pic. The enlargements are only $2, so not much to lose.

Here's what they say:
One of the misconceptions about printing is that it is possible to scale images to a larger size and they will print correctly. In fact, any digital camera that is less than 5 MegaPixels will not print an 18 x 24 poster without degredation of the image. This makes the poster seem pixelated or grainy. The best way to avoid having this happen is to use a digital camera rated at 5 MegaPixels or higher, and use the highest resolution setting.

The minimum resolution suggested for printing at 18" x 24" is 2700 x 3600, or 150DPI at 100% size (18" x 24"). "Rezing Up", or increasing the resolution with a program like IrfanView will make the image less pixelated, but generally just makes it blurry. Overall, this is better than not doing anything, but it will not solve any problems.

Haven't used these guys before, but they're running a special on 24 x 36's for $10: http://www.posterbrain.com

:thumb: I'm headed there right now to see what I can see. I may as well get it blown up and see what it looks like. It's not like I'm going back out there to recreate the moment. :lol2:


Thanks to everyone for the input. This digital stuff............:doh::giveup::zen:

[Richard_]

BexarWolf,

As I understand it, the small sensor size of p&s cameras causes them to really struggle with noise (grain) at higher ISOs, especially at 400 and higher. DPReview recently did a test of super zoom cameras and discovered that even at ISO 100 some of the cameras produced noticeable noise and that all were bad at anything above 400. They wrote,

"However, at larger output sizes the limitations of these cameras become more obvious. Only by using a tiny imaging sensor is it possible to squeeze a 10x or 12x zoom lens into such compact camera bodies. The inevitable consequence are very tightly pixel-packed sensors that are prone to noise-reduction smearing even at base ISO and perform poorly at high sensitivities."

Compact Super Zoom Group Test (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/page16.asp)

I'm no expert but it may be a case that shooting a) in lower light b)at 400 ISO and c) at a lower resolution with d) your camera all worked together to give more noise than you care for. You might experiment with changes in a, b, & c and see how it affects your images.

Best of luck to you.

[BexarWolf]

Thanks for the input, Richard.

First, I have to correct myself. It's a 12mp, not 10. When I purchased it, I already knew there were going to major limitations between a 12mp P&S and a 12mp DSLR. I didn't really want that many but got a smoking deal on the camera and figured I'd work my way around any issues.

I'm finding the camera has some seriously cool features that I didn't expect to find in a P&S but then, there are some seriously poor limitations.

I've been taking pictures for 20+ years but have never really stopped to learn what each feature of a camera is. ISO, F-stop, evaluative metering......all of these things have been words and dials. I'm still finding I "spray and pray" when taking shots but I'm more deliberate in what I'm starting out with.

Like the shots this morning........I have on average three shots of each setting. Add exposure, less exposure, change the zoom, blah blah. I took some sunset shots last weekend.......holy cow! I didn't realize it but I shot 10 shots in a span of 6 minutes of one sunset. When I play them as a slide show, it looks like a flip-book as the clouds move. :lol2:

But, each shot was different somehow. Some setting was changed on the camera to give a different result. That's something I couldn't do with film.

Richard, I'm checking out the link you sent right now. :thumb:

[Squeaky]

I don't have a clue about the taking of the picture with the fancy-shmancy camera, but to try to improve the pic you already took, I'd recommend downloading Paint.net - it's free (donations appreciated) and works just like a cheap version of PS.

The adjustment for this would be the "reduce noise" option. You can use as little or as much noise reduction as you think looks best to balance the removal of grainy vs. the loss of slight detail in the edges of the tree tops. When I get home later I'll give it a try on this pic and see how you like it.

[BexarWolf]

I don't have a clue about the taking of the picture with the fancy-shmancy camera, but to try to improve the pic you already took, I'd recommend downloading Paint.net - it's free (donations appreciated) and works just like a cheap version of PS.

The adjustment for this would be the "reduce noise" option. You can use as little or as much noise reduction as you think looks best to balance the removal of grainy vs. the loss of slight detail in the edges of the tree tops. When I get home later I'll give it a try on this pic and see how you like it.

:haha:Hee hee hee. You said fancy-shmancy. :haha: :lol2:

I've seen paint.net thrown around the photo forum for a while. It looks like that will be my next stop. :)

[dutchinterceptor]

As I understand it, the small sensor size of p&s cameras causes them to really struggle with noise (grain) at higher ISOs, especially at 400 and higher. DPReview recently did a test of super zoom cameras and discovered that even at ISO 100 some of the cameras produced noticeable noise and that all were bad at anything above 400.


My experience with the Powershots show that to be true. The model I have is terrible at 400. Consequently, I try to keep it on 50 or 100 for best results but can still be an issue in low light.

When you get a great shot like yours don't hesitate to take several shots with various settings. :thumb:

Not sure I can do much but if you'd like I can tweak that shot in Photoshop or better yet Lightroom. Shoot me a pm if you do.

[BexarWolf]

Thanks for the offer, Dutch. In a span of 3 minutes, I took 20 shots at this location, each one either a different angle or a different setting on the ol' P&S. I was just down the street from my work and wish I could have sat there for another 30min but couldn't.

I sent my daughter 3 different ones so I need to check my work email to see which one she liked. I'd like to get it blown up and framed as a wedding gift. :trust:

I'll check my mail over the weekend and figure out which one it was and get back with you via pm. Thanks!

[bluedogok]

My 6mp does better pictures than my wifes 8mp camera, that is only a part of the equation. She has a P&S Nikon Coolpix L18 (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product-Archive/Digital-Camera/25596/COOLPIX-L18.html), mine is a DSLR type (you actually look through the lens but it does not have changeable lenses) Panasonic DMC-FZ7 (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012302panasonicfz7.asp) with a much larger lens and just does a better job. Hers is fine for many things like snapshots but when we want something that would "nicer" we use mine.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Digital-Camera/COOLPIX-L18/ColorVariants/25596-COOLPIX-L18/Views/353_25596_L18_34l.jpghttp://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/01/lumix_fz7.jpg

[BexarWolf]

Yeah, I've come to realize the compacts just don't hold up to the test that the DSLR's do even with a higher mp's. And I understand it's due to the reduced size of the sensor.

I can't remember which camera it was (I'd have to look at my back copies of Popular Photography) that had actual-size pictures of the sensors in some of the different DSLR's that are available. One was spooky huge. :eek2:

The crappy thing about DSLR's is the same as with any tech item (such as PC's). As soon as something new comes out, it's outrageously expensive. Then, the price starts to drop and by the time it's at a price I can afford, it's obsolete!
:giveup:

I bought a Kodak 5.0mp a little over a year ago. I think I paid $50 for it off craigslist and today, it's so obsolete I probably couldn't pay someone to take it off my hands (hold that thought.......I know what you're going to ask but I'm giving it to my daughter as soon as she comes out of the stone age and gets a computer :lol2:)

About 3 years ago, if you'd ask me if I'd shelve my two Canon SLRs in exchange for a compact digital, I'd have said you were nuts. Since I bought this camera, my SLRs hasn't been out of the closet. :doh:

[dixonduke]

Hows This?

Before?
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2374/img1058u.jpg

After?
http://duked.smugmug.com/photos/549674637_YZu3B-X3.jpg

Or This One???
[Deleted... Too Much Blackpoint & Contrast..... Going too quickly, Ignore it... (removed to link if your curious (http://duked.smugmug.com/photos/549676899_9tz7y-X3.jpg))]

Maybe This One???
http://duked.smugmug.com/photos/549683886_pUVTU-X3.jpg

[bluedogok]

About 3 years ago, if you'd ask me if I'd shelve my two Canon SLRs in exchange for a compact digital, I'd have said you were nuts. Since I bought this camera, my SLRs hasn't been out of the closet. :doh:
I have a whole bunch of Olympus OM System stuff that has just sitting in the camera bag for the better part of 8 years since I got a digital. I have only had it out a few times to shoot architectural photography with it, but I would use my digital now.

[M38A1]

Just remember to shoot as large a file you can stand. You can always make the picture smaller, but you have a hard time making it larger. SD memory is CHEAP compared to the trade-off you might get with that one in a million shot.

[BexarWolf]

Hows This?

You're finding the same thing I am. :giveup: Too much fiddling takes out the grain but really skews the colors and details. :doh:

I did a little test shot. After I reset the camera to 12mp, I took a shot of my dog laying on his blanket in our office using no flash and an unlit room....only light coming from a window with the shades closed. I looked at the picture in full size and saw some seriously bad noise (grain) in the section of wall. This is just a cropped section of the photo. I let the camera decide the shutter speed and got the "shake" warning. After looking at it, the shutter speed was 1/3 second:

Note: Ignore the floor for the purpose of this test. We'll eventually have tile in this room. This entire house is a "work in progress". :giveup::lol2:

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/4784/grainv.jpg (http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grainv.jpg)


Then I took the same shot, hand-held, setting the shutter speed at 1.3 seconds. Everything else was set by the camera, same as the first shot. Naturally, it's a little blurry because of the slower shutter speed but I was really surprised at the reduction of noise (grain):

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9946/nograin.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nograin.jpg)



The lesson learned? If I'm going to use this camera for low-light shots, I'm going to have to lengthen the shutter speed and use a tripod. :thumb:

[dixonduke]

You're finding the same thing I am. :giveup: Too much fiddling takes out the grain but really skews the colors and details. :doh:


Here is your sunset after just one pass through dFine 2.0 plugin for Aperture 2. You will have to excuse my hamfisted attempt at artistic expression last night. It has nothing to do with the amount of red wine consumed prior to posting... :trust:.

No other mods but the noise reducer.

http://duked.smugmug.com/photos/550304254_ghMRC-X3.jpg

[BexarWolf]

Here is your sunset after just one pass through dFine 2.0 plugin for Aperture 2. You will have to excuse my hamfisted attempt at artistic expression last night. It has nothing to do with the amount of red wine consumed prior to posting... :trust:.

No other mods but the noise reducer.

http://duked.smugmug.com/photos/550304254_ghMRC-X3.jpg

LoL @ the red wine.

That looks really nice. I'll find out tomorrow which pic it was my daughter liked and see what I can do with it in paint.net. Then I'll go from there. :thumb: