Janet445 Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Are there any reasons why an image would be noisy, other than user error (low light, high ISO, slow shutter, etc.)? The reason I ask is because I used to shoot tack sharp, but the last 6 months or so just about all of my images require noise reduction, no matter when or what or how I’m shooting. I’m not a licensed professional but like I said, I feel like my skills have gotten worse and not better. I don’t want to continue to blame myself for it if there’s another reason . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 What camera body? What lens? Could you post some sample photos with the settings used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha LaRue Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 All photos require some degree of noise reduction. that's not uncommon at all. But if you can post some examples like so, we can let you know if you're experiencing an unusual amount of noise: http://www.damiensymonds.net/2013/09/grabbing-700x700px-100-crop.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) Canon 5D Mk2 24-70mm f2.8L 1st image ISO 800, 70mm, f3.2, 1/500sec 2nd image ISO 800 63mm f4.0 1/500sec I don’t have an ton of experience with this lens but have pretty much kept it on the camera since I got it because I have 6 kids and is much more practical than my 85mm for grab and go. The filter on the lens was shattered shortly before I started noticing this difference. I wish I could tell you how it happened but I don’t know. I just pulled it out of my bag that way one day. I have wondered if the change in my images could have something to do with if the lens was banged against something hard enough to shatter the filter. It’s almost like a sandpaper look to skin and anything really. Thanks for your help. Edited March 11, 2016 by Janet445 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 These are great! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 So is the 85mm just sharper and I got spoiled with that before I switched to the 24-70? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 What are you talking about? These are razor sharp. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I'm really not seeing noise. Prime lenses tend to perform better the zoom lenses. The original Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is notorious for being soft, but your lens doesn't seem to be that bad. Honestly, you reaction is pretty much the same from others who went from a prime to a zoom. Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses perform better than others when it comes to skin. This all boils down to learning your gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 12, 2016 Author Share Posted March 12, 2016 Alright, thank you both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 So, show us the same two 100% crops after noise removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Here is just one of about a bazillion I went back and found that were taken before the aforementioned lens filter shattering. There is virtually none of that noisy sandpaper look to the skin. Obviously I trust you if you believe its user error/new lens learning curve and I will leave it at that and practice more. I just wanted to be sure and rule out what happened to my lens and the difference in the quality of my images compared to before. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Fantastic. But can you tell me what quality level you chose when saving those jpeg files for upload here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 Yeah, that's way too low for any web purpose, but especially when you're seeking feedback from peers about file quality. Can you take the last three 100% crops again, and save them at Level 10 for upload? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, Janet445 said: Obviously I trust you if you believe its user error/new lens learning curve and I will leave it at that and practice more. No, this is not what I'm saying at all! It's not user error, it's not even an error at all! These photos are PERFECT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, Janet445 said: Here is just one of about a bazillion I went back and found that were taken before the aforementioned lens filter shattering. There is virtually none of that noisy sandpaper look to the skin. Obviously I trust you if you believe its user error/new lens learning curve and I will leave it at that and practice more. I just wanted to be sure and rule out what happened to my lens and the difference in the quality of my images compared to before. Thanks again. Please also remember that this is ISO 500, compared with the other two which were ISO 800. It's not a huge difference, but it's not nothing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet445 Posted March 14, 2016 Author Share Posted March 14, 2016 Yes, true. I feel like something has changed about the quality of my images overall, but I can’t put my finger on it. Thank you for helping me with this particular issue. I really appreciate you taking a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damien Symonds Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 52 minutes ago, Janet445 said: Yes, true. I feel like something has changed about the quality of my images overall, but I can’t put my finger on it. Well, nothing you've shown us here presents any evidence of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 14, 2016 Share Posted March 14, 2016 At this point, you could send your lens in to have it cleaned / serviced. It's possible that some bits of the shattered filter got inside the lens, or more realistically, the AF mechanisms might be a little off. But from the images that we've been shown, there isn't a reason to be worried. Perhaps you are looking for problems now since the accident? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I'd say JPEG level 4 is causing more harm than good. You really want to be higher. "10" is fine, of course you could go a little lower if you wanted to for web usage. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now