deusnap Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi, I'm currently using a Nikon D70 and as I have used it to take quite a number of shots in raw format, using ISO 200, my photos however turns out to be grainy and pixelated. Especially the blue skies in the photos. Is this a result of over processing in the digital sense? Many thanks!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I don't see it. The grain and pixels, that is. But then, I suppose you didn't upload a 100% crop. Do the look grainy and pixelated in print, or just on the monitor? What monitor are you using? Is it an LCD? What are you using for a RAW processor? Settings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronaldo_r Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Yes, you need to post a 100% crop... Also, try shooting the same scene in RAW and JPG. If the JPG is significantly less "grainy" than your RAW/NEF workflow is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustymadd Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 It looks by the example that you're shooting JPG and what I see is JPG compression artifacts. Try shooting in raw, or set your camera for the highest quality jpg setting. CLP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiro Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 it's cause you're shooting in the desert... of course it's gonna be grainy :) ...sorry, couldn't resist :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_horner Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Sounds like dust on the sensor to me. Point the camera at a very light and evenly lit area, like the sky, and you will see spots. I hope that I am wrong. http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_anon Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 If I look at your posted photo very closely, I can see some artifacts along the edges between the pyramids and the sky. It looks to me like a couple of problems - over processing and under-exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirne81 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 It looks underexposed to me, which will lead to grain. I'm guessing the jpg artifacting is due to the lo-res screen shot you're posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_foale Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hello Chong. Your photo looks oversaturated to me. Have you added saturation during RAW conversion or later processing? Your camera contrast control is set to 2. I would suggest 0 and add contrast during processing - if necessary. If none of the above. Your camera was set to auto exposure so it's possible that it was confused by the difference between sky and pyramid and, as others have mentioned, the result is slight underexposure. Also, it is difficult to tell with this image but you do appear to have very slight dust on your sensor. Keep watching in case it gets worse. Geoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi Chong, My .02 cents: You mention shooting in RAW but are you keeping them as 16-bit files while working on them? I don't convert to 8-bit jpeg unless necessary - posting to the web, etc. If it's not dust or under-exposure, you'll be surprised at how quickly an 8 bit file, (and all jpegs are 8-bit) with just a little manipulation, can start to fall apart - especially in "smooth" areas like blue sky. "16-bit" files can take much more manipulation without it showing and give much smoother tonal gradations. The downside? It'll eat up your storage space - but that gets cheaper every day. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 If you used a polarizer for that shot, that could be a contributing factor in the blotchy sky colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deusnap Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi guys, Many thanks for the response. I'm actually using Adobe Bridge for my raw workflow, and I'm working on a macbook. I've attached another photo, this time round in Adobe Bridge with the settings. And yeap I used a Polarizing Filter, but how does that contribute to the noise in the sky? If you look closely on the sky, top left expecially, you will notice the pixelation. Many thanks again!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Chong, What do you have loaded as your monitor profile? That last posted screenshot has an assigned generic ColorLCD profile which makes me suspect a display calibration/profile issue. That generic profile is the default profile Mac OS builds from info derived through the DDC of the display's ROM chip. It is the worst and most buggy default monitor profile in existance and can really create a crappy vLUT and cause all kinds of problems. I'm on Mac OS 9.2.2 and I trash this type of profile the first chance I get. I hope you calibrate with a puck based calibrator especially if using an LCD. Just want to take that out of the mix here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deusnap Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 Unfortunately, I didn't calibrate my monitor and I've checked I'm indeed using color LCD. But What settings would you recommend without having to purchase a Spyder as it is quite pricy. Also, I didn't use any external LCD displays, just using my macbook screen. Thanks for the tip though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I suggest you first test to see if it is the generic LCD profile causing this by having Photoshop open while you access the Display Control panel and choose several different canned profiles. I don't know what profiles are included in OS X installs, but try to select anything that says Apple Standard, sRGB-(not the 2.1 working space), Apple Multisync D65, D50 etc., then immediately click back to PS to see if it changes-(not necessarily fixes) the artifacts in the image. Your image needs to be in a working space like AdobeRGB or some other one besides MonitorRGB. Check Working Space settings in Color Settings pref dialog box in PS to be sure. It the artifacts don't change then it's not the calibration causing it. Other than that it's best you calibrate your display with something other than canned profiles anyway if you want to edit digital color and expect reasonable matching print results. The best eyeball calibrator I've used on the Mac is SuperCal. Google it. At the time I used it, it was going for $20. Or try out the default Apple Calibrator. Things may have improved since OS 9.2.2. The main issue about eyeball calibrators will be choosing the right phosphor set because the wrong ones can make PS CM previews of peachy light tan fleshtones look intense coral and skyblue turn purplish and/or oversaturated. You'll have to try out different ones. Start with ones that say LCD. My Hitachi tube CRT has been very close to the sRGB space and those phosphor sets worked perfect. I can barely see a change to CM previews switching from my EyeOne to the SuperCal profile. The EyeOne, though, noticeably reduces banding in gradients on my 8 year old CRT. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Can you post a histogram of the RAW image ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deusnap Posted January 16, 2007 Author Share Posted January 16, 2007 Hi Tim, Many thanks for the suggestions, I've changed to sRGB as you have recommended. But the grains persist. I guess it might not be the cause of it though. But I will try with superCal as you recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deusnap Posted January 21, 2007 Author Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hi Leszek Scholz, the second image I posted has a histogram. Does that work for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Well, the picture was shot at ISO200, f/8 and 1/500 sec - so it appears it should be well exposed (sunny 16 rule). Nonetheless, the applied corrections are: Brightness +100, Contrast +25, Exposure +0.35 - so my guess would be underexposure. The histogram looks OK (with the applied corrections), but it would be more educating to see it uncorrected - have a look if the histogram is bunched up to the left, if yes - then it is most likely underexposure. Funny as it sounds, underexposure happens frequently on sunny days, and it is really easy to overexpose a picture taken in the forest where the light is dim - it is just that the autoexposure system is not all that smart and tends to see everything as 18% gray. With a large portion of bright sky in the image - the camera may have the tendency to close down the aperture. My 2c. 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