Wedding photos are grainy and couple wants a refund.

<p>Hello! This is my first time posting to a forum :)<br /> I have a wedding couple who are un-happy with the grain in "all" the images. I did not meet their "National Geographic" standard, and so they are very un-happy with the results and want a refund.<br /> Here is what I did, and please I'd love to hear your input so I wont make the same mistake next time.<br /> It was inside a brick Catholic church. The plan was to shoot portraits outside, however, it was rainy and the sky was covered with dark clouds.<br /> The church was dark! I bumped up the ISO to 1600, btw I shot it with a 50mm w/ a Canon 60d, and used a flash. I figured shooting at a high ISO, the environment of the church would still be well lit and it wouldn't drain so much power from my flash, Canon Speedlite 580ex. Was that a good plan? I tried explaining it to the couple, but after they read about ISO, they told me I should have shot with a low ISO # since I had my flash. WAS I WRONG TO USE A HIGH ISO INSIDE A DARK CHURCH SINCE I HAD A FLASH?<br /> Anyways there is grain:( AND I also sharpen the images, whoops on my part, I should have known better.<br /> Couples printed 4x6 and they were not happy with the results. I apologized right away and offered to re-processes their photographs to soften the noise in RAW and not sharpen. BUT they want to hear "YES I can remove all the grain." And since they are not getting that response from me, they want a refund.</p>

<p>Please, I would love to hear everyones input and would love to get your feedback on the situation. I will take any advice!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you'd have to post some images to get a better opinion. Did you increase brightness/exposure in post? That's a sure way to introduce noise. You might have been better off shooting at 3200 in reality. 1600 ISO should be no problem. I just shot a concert mostly at 12800+ and there is some noise but it looks more like grain and the band was thrilled with the shots. If reducing exposure (especially shadows) is an option you will get rid of most of the noise without reducing sharpness. Converting to black and white may help. Using flash and ISO 100 would have made the photos look very flat and unflattering</p>

<p>They sound like chancers to me, out for a free ride. Doesn't matter if they're a well-off professional couple, I bet they want to keep the money and the pictures too. I cannot imagine grain from a modern camera like the 60D on 6 inch prints being obectionable unless you underexposed by a couple of stops. In future you'll learn not to give technical arguments that lets customers think they can argue better than you. Like that famous painter Hitler said, never admit a wrong ;)</p>

<p>Hi Cher,<br /> Some example pictures would be great to see so we have something to judge the noise. I shoot with a 60d as well and, so long as I don't need to push the exposure a whole lot in post I find 1600 fine, even 3200 occasionally. I just slightly reduce noise in Lightroom but not much. I have a feeling Nico might be right about the couples intentions.<br /> <a href="/photo/17433835&size=lg">This shot</a> was ISO 2000 and i put luminous noise reduction in Lightroom to around 25. Some noise but doesn't bother me or the bride at all. Is this similar to the amount of noise in your shots? If so then you are not at fault.</p>

<p>I am not necessarily disagreeing with what the other folks have said, but hopefully offering another perspective. That of a photographer who doesn't shoot weddings, but who has been through a wedding himself. Firstly, the word "whoops!" is not something you want your wedding photographer to have said. It's a bit like hearing your surgeon say that. Secondly, you say you adopted your approach so "it wouldn't drain so much power from my flash". That seems an unusual reason for an important decision. Thirdly, I suspect that most people want clear, sharp photos of their wedding. Most people have seen the dark backgrounds that you get with most flash shots, and I suspect they are more comfortable with them than most photographers.</p>

<p>Anyway, I hope I have not misunderstood any of your post.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>Here is my take on your situation. 60D is not the powerhouse 5D Mark III is, so 1600 is a bit high for that camera. Also I see no need to be shooting that high with a flash, may be 400 sounds more reasonable and much safer with the grain. In terms of the grain LR 5 does a very good job now or you can use Noise Ninja, it's pretty automated once you read a little of the instructions. Yes sharpening is a very bad idea with grain so stop that, but you can add some in NN. Or you can use some clarity in LR to help with some details. Finally in a situation where you want to show the details of the church as well as the couple. Shoot the church on a tripod in any exposure necessary on low ISO, use HDR if you want more detail. Then have the couple walk in front of the camera without moving it and pop them with a flash a few times. Combine in PS and presto! You now have a gorgeous church and a happy well lit, low noise couple. Collect your big tip on the way out.</p>

<p>Cher, you sound a bit unsure of yourself and unclear as to what settings would have been appropriate in the church. That tells me you are quite inexperienced and perhaps not ready to be charging for your services. A wedding is a very important event, after all. The person who determines the correct settings is the professional taking the pictures, not the clients. I have shot with a 60D and at ISO 1600 I would not expect to see much noise at all, so I'm a little surprised that your clients have noticed any, particularly in such small prints. As has been said, I wonder if you've been lifting the exposure during post-production.</p>

<p>You also mention sharpening, and you appear to be unsure as to whether or not the sharpening is appropriate. I have no idea how much sharpening has been applied, or why, but it could potentially increase the appearance of any noise so I would sharpen very carefully prior to output and if necessary apply some masking. Removing noise is very easy to do using software such as Noiseware, Noise Ninja, Topaz Denoise etc and if done properly will result in a noise free image which has not softened too much. So yes, at ISO 1600 on a 60 D I would certainly expect to be able to remove any noise during post-production. As has been said I would also suggest creating a set in black-and-white where a bit of noise can add to the atmosphere. It's very difficult to give an answer without seeing some of the photographs.</p>

<p>It's fairly easy to magnify the noise if you are cropping the photos. I also think that you can remove most of the noise with NN. Good luck.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>A Canon EOS 60D is capable of making high quality 6" x 4" prints, when used at ISO1600: My EOS 20D, regularly produced saleable 11" x 14" inch prints when used at ISO1600.</p>

<p>It is not necessarily wrong to use ISO1600 when shooting Inside a Church when using Flash.<br>

However, not know the reasons why one would choose to use ISO1600 (or any other choice) in that situation and not to execute the shoot correctly, are errors.</p>

<p>On the face of what has been disclosed one would guess that the “grain” lays in the ambient underexposure and that has been exacerbated by using ISO1600 and/or the Post Production work on the image files.<br>

<br>

If, (as is implied), the clients are printing the images themselves - then they have the files, so the Photographer is not controlling the printing process: or any further editing processes of the files.</p>

<p>Two sample images (with EXIF details) of the <strong><em>same shot </em></strong>selected from those which the client has complained about, would assist in providing more specific advice.<br>

One of the samples NOT post produced - and the other of the Post Produced image you supplied them.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Cher Please post or give a link to some images. I am sure they're not as bad as you lead on to be. You may just need some tips on the processing and then use Noiseware program to remove the noise. Not sure why you were not prepared for the rainy day or why you shot your portraits with just a 50mm lens. They obviously got a great deal from you and they are not right to ask for the money back based on something they read. You are the professional and are free to make your own decisions as to how you choose to shoot your images. You did not have a contract that stated that you would not shoot at 1600 iso or higher so don't worry about it.</p>

To help you, there are programs that will surely help get rid of the pixels. I think a friend uses a program call pixel magic. I've seen the remarkable demos. Anyway they should solve your problem. Your problem is not the 1600 setting, but most likely under exposed images.

 

I'm old school from the film days so I don't usually mess with shooting over an ASA/ISO of 640. I'm pretty much at 400.

 

Often with grain/pixels comes under exposed images. Even the best flash units have their limits to about 10 feet or less using the auto or dedicated setting. After 10 feet you really must go manual. I use very powerful flash units, yet the need to go manual at this 10 foot mark is a must.

 

We could all benefit and perhaps give you technical advice if you could post just 1 image. There are some photoshop masters here that will make the print better and tell you how they did it. Perhaps completely fix the image.

 

I will finish with this. Bring an extra flash with you and place it behind the B&G aiming it at back of the church. This lights up the church altar behind the couples and also the groups. If you use this extra flash unit your photos will look fantastic. You should get one of those ebay radio slaves that will trigger this second flash. Many years ago I bought several Pocket Wizards; radio slaves. They were expensive, however after 20 years they all work! Google White Lightning. This is a great company and they now sell slave units for less. White Lightning is by far my favorite company in photography. They fix their gear often after the warranty is over. They once fixed a powerful strobe they sell and I dropped the strobe. Dents everywhere. Broken tubes. The warranty was out of date.

Well no charge. I called them trying to pay them, anyway no charge.

 

OK, now that you are set up, you can actually shoot at a 60th of a second at 5.6 and an ISO rating of 400. Email me if needed.

<p>Plus 1 to what William and Bob have already said. </p>

<p>The pixels / grain that they are seeing comes from using a high ISO (1600). If you sharpened them without removing the noise first, then you end up with a hot mess. And yes, the prints are probably unacceptable. </p>

<p>To illustrate the point - I have taken an image that I shot at a Centennial Birthday and edited in different ways to illustrate the effects of sharpening and noise.</p>

<p>My image was shot with a Nikon D40 - which is roughly comparable with William's 20d in terms of ISO performance. The point isn't a camera vs. camera noise comparison, but rather to show you how post processing and noise reduction can alter image quality and take an acceptable image and make it trash. </p>

<p>There are several noise reduction programs available - Noiseware Pro, Noise Ninja, etc... All do about the same thing. The image I've submitted was processed with noiseware pro, and Alien Skin exposure 3 - focus sharpening - moderate - medium sharpness. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Next Image - sharpened with no noise reduction. </p><div></div>

<p>Sharpened with Noise Reduction</p><div></div>

<p>I recently ran a comparison of Lightroom 5 and DxO 8 with respect to RAW processing. My conclusion was that LR5 made a better job of extracting shadow and highlight detail and that DxO made a better job of noise reduction. In my experience, as others have said, underexposure gives more noise problems than high ISO itself. With both my Olympus OM-D and Nikon D7000 systems I routinely need +1 ev flash compensation to get the histogram in the right place. With white wedding dresses, even more positive exposure compensation can be needed (possibly up to a further +1EV).</p>

Dang, wish Cher would pop back in! Lot's of good info here.

<p>Sounds like you really are lost in this woods. You shoot at 1600 sharpened but did not check to see if you need to reduce any noise from underexposure and sharpening ?? Then you compound it all when they complain about noise - without check how specifically did they get to see this noise, not go do a couple of tweak files to them to check if this is what they want. When bad stuff happens work on fire fighting do not ask if they want you to do this or that. </p>

<p>David I don't see any improvement in your examples in fact the last picture looks the worst. Sharpening is something that needs to be used sparingly if at all. Smoothing and blurring can also take a picture down the wrong path. Learn to use photoshop instead of a one button push plug in.</p>

<p>Lots of useful info here by others. Noise reduction, additional flash, knowing what you are doing , doing a test print etc. I would think a refund would be a little extreme coming from the couple, after all you spent the time and it's not like you didnt have any pictures of it. You can offer to re-process it, and perhaps post process in such a way that looks good (e.g. B&W?)<br>

Often times we add noise/grain on purpose for the film look. I never had a client complain. ISO 1600 should be easy for modern cameras to handle.</p>

<p>Michael - </p>

<p>I agree 100% on sharpening - </p>

<p>In light of the fact that Cher didn't post any of the photos in question - I offered up a photo shot in low light, no flash, ISO 1600 with a body that isn't known for it's ability to handle high ISO's. </p>

<p>My examples were not intended to be getting better - the intent (if you read the post) was to illustrate the effects of various tools on an image. And to show the OP the effects of tools and combining them, often with not so good results. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Cher,<br>

Being an inexperienced in Weddings photographer myself. I recently got an offer to shoot one. To avoid a mishap like you are describing in such an important date, I am choosing to shoot with a professional photographer instead of shooting it by my myself. In other words, leaving the job to him/her while I learned from. So many different challenges can be thrown at you very quickly, only experience can teach you how to react and react correctly. Having said that, if your intentions are to grow as a photographer and in the business, then you want your customer to be happy. Let them have what makes them happy. Sounds like you have reached a point where you lost the customer and no matter how much you try , they already made a judgement of you. Imagine you bought a merchandise yourself and it came bad. you'd like your money back correct. ? well, that's what I think happened here. If your intentions are to make a quick buck and don't care about a career, that's a differen story.</p>

<p>She could even be sued , right ?</p>

 

<p>Ultimately you will have to work it out with the client. But, the client needs to be aware that shooting photos in a dark church is tricky even with the best equipment. That's just a law of physics. If the client is having prints made from the media you provided most labs would require to have the photographer's permission before printing so unless they use a service that doesn't require this you could withhold permission until an agreement is reached. If you are planning to do more weddings you may want to work out an arrangement if possible so your client won't tell others to avoid you. But whatever happens, don't let this experience put you off doing weddings. </p>

<p>You should be able to remove most objectionable digital noise with a program like Lightroom, where you should also color correct and sharpen before sending to them. Otherwise the quality of the prints will depend on their post-processing skills, and I'd assume they're minimal. Churches I shot in didn't allow flash during the ceremony itself, so noise is unavoidable.</p>

<p>I know this is an older post but I thought I would reply nonetheless in case it helps others as well.</p>

<p>With respect to using a flash at ISO 1600, it's not a crazy idea at all. By shooting at ISO 1600, you're opening the camera up to see a lot more light in the room. When you use the flash in conjunction with the high ISO, it adds the extra bit of light required to highlight your subject matter, yet doesn't create a black background, which can occur when shooting at ISO 400 with a flash. They both work, but create different results. I often like the spotlight effect with a lower ISO, but if I want to show the surrounding crowd as well with clarity, I'll bump up the ISO.</p>

<p>Also, with respect to the grain, try using Topaz Labs to remove the noise. Some software is more effective at doing that. I've had good results with Topaz Labs. </p>

<p>I suspect this couple looked at many images online prior to their wedding, shot with full frame cameras, external lights, etc. and thought that was the norm. That may very well be, at a cost though and I suspect you came in at a much more affordable rate. The 60D is a great camera but it will not deliver what a 5D will. I was using a 7D when I first started shooting weddings but was disappointed with the results in low light settings where a flash would be required. I switched to all Nikon equipment and have been extremely pleased with the results. I still prefer Canon's skin tone qualities though when shooting portraits. There's plusses and minuses to both.</p>

 

Hi Cher,

I know this is a old topics, but i thought i just comment on issues on how RAW converters are processing.

I just did a test on an close up image with high ISO3200

I am using Canon, so I testet the the process in Canons own program DPP and then Lightroom and Capture One Pro.

The winner was canons own DPP program where it has eliminated almost all noise.

capture One Pro comes in as number 2, but not as good as canon. However the colors was for sure better in Capture

One.

The worst result came in Lightroom. i mean that was terrible, so if you have used Lightroom, then you should have tried

DPP instead.

 

So conlusion on using high ISO, then use canons own DPP.

 

Just thought i would share for future viewers who might look.

 

ciao<div></div>