What's going on here? Is it my sensor?

[shaloot]

<p>Hello!<br>

Last night I decided to wake up and check out the eclipse, and since the moon was going to be right above my house, I didn't have to go anywhere to take some shots. It wasn't too cold either and we had a clear sky in Raleigh. Besides, I don't start my new job until the new year so why not?<br>

Anyways, I took some test shots handheld, then put it on the tripod for the rest of them. I downloaded the photos today and was shocked to see this "noise" on the screen. Now I know the k10d is great at high iso, but this was only at 400, 200, and iso 160. But the kicker is that the previous night when taking night shots at 400 there was no sign of this. For the moon shots I used the 50-200 and the others I used kit lens. All shots were handheld. The moon shots at f/8 and varying b/w 1s to 3s.<br>

So is something going on with my sensor or just a bad case of noise?<br>

Here are the photos...</p>

<div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>another at iso 400...</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>then i got a few good ones at iso 200 but when cropping you can see the... lines..</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>then one at iso 160</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>then the last shot at iso 160 at 50mm.</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>Here are some photos from the previous night with iso 400. The first one is f/4.5 @1/3.</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>this one was at iso 400, f/7.1 and 5s. Longer exposure than the moon shots and no sign of noise/those red lines...</p><div></div>

[phule]

<p>With what software are you viewing the photos? Are the photos JPG or from RAW? <br /> The noisy images you posted look exactly like something I would expect from software that is automatically applying positive exposure compensation. Your skies are not black. What is your workflow after downloading your images?</p>

[shaloot]

<p>The last 2 photos are JPG, the moon ones are RAW. For all these images I just downloaded them onto Picasa and haven't done any editing. I usually download my photos onto my other computer that has Aperture, but I sometimes just download it onto my PC with Picasa for just a quick look-see.</p>

[ahanna]

<p>Somanna,</p>

<p>That is the one thing that I really dislike about Picassa. It tries to correct the exposure on everything (I don't think you can turn this "feature" off). So you end up with funny looking photos when much of the photo is dark or light.</p>

<p>Andy</p>

[pj_vesterback]

<p>You don't say what mode (Tv, Av, M?) you are using or how you metered. To me, they just look like poor exposure.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I think that the moon shots are grossly over-exposed. The moon is like the Earth, as it is lit in these shots directly by the sun, and so the correct exposure will be around 1/100 at f/11 or so, for iso 100 setting. You need to shoot in Manual Mode so you can set these values.........the camera can't make such adjustments automatically...YOU have to do it. Try it...You'll like it.....Robert</p>

[tom_price1]

Adobe ACR will try to do the same thing unless you choose different settings. Your photos look like what came out of my K200D (except no banding) when ACR tried to compensate by upping the exposure by 4+ stops.

[shaloot]

<p>So that seems to be the culprit! I took those last 2 images of the moon, converted them to jpeg in-camera and then downloaded them to picasa and they look clean, like the 2 photos of my house. So Picasa likes to mess with RAW files, good to know!<br>

So now I'll be downloading the RAW photos onto my Aperture computer. Thanks for the suggestion guys!<br>

@Patrick - I used M mode, and I'm hoping now that I've found the cause of the problem and convert the pics properly, you will change your opinion ;-)</p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p>Shake my head.......</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I guess I really have more to say: What's the point of asking when you don't pay any attention to answers that make sense?? You say you shoot the moon between 1-3 seconds at f/8.....at various iso's......and then wonder why the images are all blown out. Then some gobblegook about Aperture computer and RAW.<br>

The the exposure issue was addressed providing a viable, reasonable, and thought out answer<br>

</p>

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

[mountainvisions]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>Somanna usually doesn't post nonsense threads, so please try to keep it on track and not personal.</p>

<p>I have some issues with his asking advice in the first place after using Picasa. I didn't even know Picasa handled RAW, but I've never seen a really good photograph with the equipment caption stating "processed in Picasa". I guess what I'm saying is I'd be weary of it handling my RAW files, I'm sure it's fine for JPEGs.</p>

<p>And no, I'm not being elitist, I use various free RAW converters on my netbook for in the field processing and some work well, but if you have aperture why the heck not use it? I certainly always use Lightroom when I get back to my calibrated monitor and wacom tablet at home!</p>

<p>It seems most likely to me that even if the moon was perfectly exposed, Picasa auto lightened the images. If you've ever shot film and dropped it off at the 1 hour photo, unless the tech is in tune with what you are exposing, generally the same thing happens.</p>

 

[shaloot]

<p>Thanks for the vote in confidence Justin! Well I had no idea Picasa did this sort of thing to RAW files and the only reason I used it was it was (I thought) convenient for me to check out the photos I had shot. Picasa is on my laptop and it's on there cause it's easy for my wife to use when she takes photos with our point and shoot for her blog. Aperture is on my desktop, which is upstairs, so this one time I thought I would simply download on my computer while chilling on the couch! I had heard Picasa can "read" RAW files but obviously didn't know it tries to work it automatically, but now I do! <br>

@Robert - I was surprised with the banding/noise that was shown and since I hadn't seen anything like it before when using that program, I thought something had happened to my sensor. I knew I was pushing it with the exposure setting but I still think those were the best settings to use given the lens I had. I could barely see the image/moon on my lcd when I shot some shots at 1/4 and slower, hence I increased the speed. This eclipsed moon wasn't as bright as a normal full moon, and with my piddly 50-200mm, the moon wasn't filling out in my viewfinder. So here are the some of the same photos, after I downloaded them onto Aperture, and exported them as JPG. I haven't messed with the exposure settings or brightness.</p><div></div>

[shaloot]

<p>This is the same photo as the last moon shot in the original thread, where the clouds were brightened up by Picasa.</p><div></div>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I really have more to say</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Really Robert? You should not have said anything. You obviously do not know Somanna.</p>

[shaloot]

<p>They don't look "grossly over-exposed". I'm glad I asked my pointless question because I learned something new about Picasa. I had already learned to use M mode and set my own values a few years back, thanks to this forum actually.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Somanna, if you get into taking night photos, you probably will get some colored pixels where you'd expect to see nighttime blackness, but it should really not be that bad. I hope the other guys could help you, and that it was something about the math with the Picassa. There are some tutorials over at Sky and Telescope; I think you can look at them for free over there; almost everyone who does astrophotos pretty much has to do some heavy editing in digital. There are some old hands that like color film; but, some of those guys were packing $15K+ optics anyway. </p>

<p>A sprinkling of some red pixels would be normal. Type of thing you could edit out with a few mouse clicks. That big rash of noise all over everything is some other problem. </p>

<p>The amazing astrophotos that look so common now are usually painstakingly composed and edited composites.</p>

<p>Only other problem I could warn you about is the old eyecup thing. Sometimes light will leak in around the flap of the mirror; this will sometimes manifest itself as a curved-like glow near the top horizontal edge of the image frame; it has to do with imperfect seals, light coming in from the eyepiece of the camera, and some bouncing reflections off of the back of the glass to the sensor or film. When you see it, you'll know it right away; simply covering the eyepiece should generate a test that gets rid of it. </p>

<p>Those should be your common problems with the night stuff, besides tracking and mounting. I have no good idea where the rash of noise came from. </p>

<p>Really, for blaming a rash of noise, I usually turn to politics, but that's another thread! </p>

[pj_vesterback]

<p>Somanna - They are grossly over exposed. Whether it is in camera or the pp software. Look at how washed out the moon is. How did you meter your exposure? Would like to see the first few shots "fixed".</p>

[brooke_meyer]

<p>Photographing the Lunar Eclipse in Raleigh or next door in Cary where I live was trickier than photographing a typical full moon. A bright full moon is EV14 or 1 stop down from Sunny 16, I've shot that lots of times. <br /> This time, between my teleconverter and the thin, high altitude clouds, the Moon was about EV10 just before 2 AM EST. At f8, I left my shutter at 1/100 and ISO at 800. Near 3AM, by the time of the full eclipse, I was peeking through holes of low, thick clouds at a dim red Moon hardly visible to the naked eye. By trial and error, I found f5.6 (trying to keep sharp), 3 seconds and ISO 400. I was dressed for 20 degrees but after an hour, my brain was getting cold.<br /> All of this was on a tripod with a 2 sec delay, MLU and a remote release. In my case I was using a K20D, 100-300/4 + 1.5x TC but I cannot imagine trying to handhold a moonshot. I've tried with a DA*50-135 & a fast shutter speed and there is no way you can hold that and maintain focus. <br /> While travelling, I download SD cards to a laptop hard drive and an external USB drive each day while batteries are charging. I use Picasa for a quick look, it can read DNGs. Its good for deleting obvious clinkers and getting an idea but it all waits for Camera Raw back home. When you get into things with big amounts of black and small bright spots, the computer between your ears is best.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooke-meyer-photography/sets/72157625563768579/with/5298852237/<br>

<img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooke-meyer-photography/5299454024/in/set-72157625563768579/" alt="" /><br /><img src="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brooke-meyer-photography/5298852237/in/set-72157625563768579/" alt="" /></p>