calibration/ gear question

[gwenyth_m]

<p>Hello all,<br>

I have a couple of questions. The first, primary question is- I have my computer hooked up to our plasma tv in the name of space saving. I would like to get the tv calibrated so that my prints match what I am seeing on the screen. I am considering spyderpro or spyder express. However, I do not want to purchase on and have it not work. Is there a recommended calibration tool for use on a plasma tv?</p>

<p>Secondly, and I may need to go over the canon forums to ask this. I currently have an old, but steadfast canon t1i. I am desperate to upgrade, as the noise levels after ISO 800 are just terrible. And frankly, I need something that performs well in low light. I have done all the cleaning I am comfortable doing, is this something that may be helped by stopping by the local camera shop and having them do a more thorough sensor cleaning? I am saving to purchase the 6d, but I am not sure if it would be worth investing in some more glass before investing in the new body. I am just feeling terribly limited by the t1i. Right now I only have one lens that will fit with the full frame, the ever popular 50 1.8. So I am wondering if it may be more beneficial to expand my glass first. I would like the 100mm f2.8; possibly the 35 f2; an 85 and a decent longer zoom. (The t1i is at around 25k shutter clicks.)</p>

[phule]

<p>[[i am desperate to upgrade, as the noise levels after ISO 800 are just terrible. And frankly, I need something that performs well in low light. I have done all the cleaning I am comfortable doing, is this something that may be helped by stopping by the local camera shop and having them do a more thorough sensor cleaning?]]</p>

<p>I'm not sure where you read this, but sensor cleaning has nothing to do with sensor noise. </p>

<p>[[but I am not sure if it would be worth investing in some more glass before investing in the new body.]]</p>

<p>That would depend entirely on what lenses you have now and what your photographic needs are. </p>

<p>[[i am desperate to upgrade, as the noise levels after ISO 800 are just terrible.]]</p>

<p>How are you measuring noise levels? Are you shooting RAW or JPG? Are you doing any post-processing? What is your current workflow? How large are your prints? </p>

<p>[[is there a recommended calibration tool for use on a plasma tv?]]</p>

<p>http://spyder.datacolor.com/portfolio-view/spyder4tv-hd/</p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>Thanks!<br>

I am basing noise levels off what is visible on the lcd screen on camera and also how the image looks sooc in Lightroom. I normally shoot RAW and some large jpeg depending on what I am doing. I do, do some noise reduction in LR, but try to avoid photoshop as I have a tendency to make things look over smooth, if that makes sense. But I am most concerned about the noise that is visible even from the lcd, even cranking iso up to just 1600.</p>

<p>Normally I shoot, upload. Do basic corrections in LR and rarely in photoshop. I tend to print around 16x24 to 20x30 or so. I do usually change my resolution to 180ppi, from the 72 it is defaulted at. It could be my tv ‘monitor’ as it is quite overly large, in my opinion at 50inches. I am admittedly a little post processing software illiterate, so I try to get the best image I can sooc. I am learning and watching tutorials, but of course no one is great at it over night.</p>

<p>As for lenses. I have the 17-55 f4.5 kit, the 55-250 f4 and the 50 1.8. Right now I am a mixed bag, as I am learning, and learning more. (I am not using auto however, I have been shooting full manual for about 1.5 years and program or AV mode before that.) landscapes and more ‘street’ style are my goals.</p>

[danny_low]

<p>Spyder has a separate color calibration device and software for TVs. You need to get that. The current model is Spyder4TVHD. I used one for my TV but I do all my photo editing on a LCD monitor so I do not know how well a calibrated TV will work for photo editing.</p>

<p>As for the camera, I would get a new one right now. If money is tight I would get a t3i or t4i instead of the 6D. With film, the camera was really just a box that held the lens and the film which were what really determined the quality of the photo. With digital, the image quality is based on the lens and the internals of the body. </p>

<p>So more lenses on your t1i simply means more ways to get a mediocre photo as the t1i is the limiting factor in the quality of your photo. </p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[but I am most concerned about the noise that is visible even from the lcd, even cranking iso up to just 1600]]</p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand this response. The LCD is not your final output, so why worry about noise when you see it here? You should be judging the noise at the level of your output, whether it is 4x6 prints or wall-sized wraps or web-based images. If you're shooting RAW, the image you're seeing on the back of the LCD screen is just an embedded JPG that the camera has processed, and not a representative of final image quality anyway.</p>

<p>[[i do, do some noise reduction in LR, but try to avoid photoshop as I have a tendency to make things look over smooth, if that makes sense.]]</p>

<p>Any process can be taken too far, but you can always back off and not apply as much noise reduction to find a balance.</p>

<p>A T3i or T4i will have slightly better noise characteristics, but I seriously doubt you're going to notice any sort of huge "wow" factor here.</p>

<p>[[so more lenses on your t1i simply means more ways to get a mediocre photo as the t1i is the limiting factor in the quality of your photo.]]</p>

<p>Without more information about how the photos are being taken and processed, Danny's conclusion here is based on very little. Underexposed digital images,, when developed or adjusted, for example, can have noise levels significantly increased. In addition, faster lenses give you the ability to choose larger apertures at the same shutter speed allowing you to select lower ISO values. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If you're looking at your files on a 50-inch screen you're defnintely going to see digital noise and every other imperfectin in the image. That's the equivalent of looking at the image under "actual pixels" in Photoshop or one of the highest magnification levels in Lightroom. A 50-inch TV is intended to be viewed from across the room, but if you're that far away you are too far to judge anything critically. I would recommend getting a normal monitor to make it easier to assess what you're looking at on-screen.</p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p> Thanks for the input all. I will upload a sample picture when I am home, that may show better what I am experiencing.</p>

<p>I agree the 50inch “monitor” is extreme. I usually have the images much smaller and the various sliders and toolbars open in Lightroom. So I am probably viewing only 25-30 inches onscreen of the image, which is still gratuitously large I imagine. I tend to sit midway between the couch which is on the far wall and the screen (maybe 1.5- 2 feet away at most.) I have had a circular discussion with my husband for the last several years about needing an actual monitor, not the biggest tv screen possible. Obviously, I am losing thus far. : ) And with limited space in our apartment… I don’t have much of an option. I have considered a Wacom tablet to supplement what I see on the tv at a more normal size, but I am not sure that would do anything either.</p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>hello all,<br>

I am going to attempt to put an example in here. I adjusted the white balance slightly in LR4. It's not the most in focus shot, but it shows the noise that I am talking about.<br>

settings: SS: 1/100 F1.8 ISO 3200<br>

<img src="https://www.facebook.com/gwenyth.murphy/photos#!/media/set/?" alt="" /></p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p><a href="http://indysheart.deviantart.com/gallery/#/art/painting-372083699?_sid=24891100">http://indysheart.deviantart.com/gallery/#/art/painting-372083699?_sid=24891100</a></p>

<p>here is a post to a link. I can't get it to upload here. Thanks!</p>

[danny_low]

<p>What I see is not noise but poor resolution due to the low pixel count of your camera. I used to have a T1i and got the same problem. It vanished when I went to a higher resolution T3i. Basically what you need is a new camera with more pixels.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

[phule]

<p>Everything Danny has said in his latest reply is completely and totally wrong. The modest resolution increase in the T3i will not help you. </p>

[danny_low]

<p><em>"Everything Danny has said in his latest reply is completely and totally wrong. The modest resolution increase in the T3i will not help you."</em></p>

<p>A bold statement with <em><strong>no details</strong></em> as to why I am wrong and <em><strong>no details</strong></em> about what is actually wrong and <em><strong>no details</strong></em> on how to fix the problem.</p>

<p>And as I stated, my reply is based on my experience with my T1i and my T3i. </p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

[phule]

<p>The pixel count between the T1i and the T3i represents a maximum,<em> theoretical</em>, 10% increase in resolution. Realizing that increase would, of course, require nearly perfect conditions.</p>

<p>But your claim regarding regarding the OP's photo, a single 1600 x 1600 pixel image, is absurd. The image has been down sampled. The image has been shot at ISO 3200 and is out-of-focus, shot at f/1.8 on a lens that can be soft at that aperture. The image cannot possibly tell you anything that would allow you to conclude the ONLY possible solution is to buy a new, higher resolution, body. Resolution is not the problem.</p>

<p>Numerous suggestions have been given already. Given the single photo, and not knowing how representative it is of the types of photos needed, I would add that such a situation would benefit from a tripod and cable release (or the 2 second timer). A tripod would not only allow one to use a lower ISO, hence less noise, but also utilize Live View with the 5x zoom view and manual focusing.</p>

<p> </p>

[danny_low]

<p><em>"...the OP's photo, a single 1600 x 1600 pixel image, is absurd. The image has been down sampled. The image has been shot at ISO 3200 and is out-of-focus, shot at f/1.8 on a lens that can be soft at that aperture. The image cannot possibly tell you anything that would allow you to conclude the ONLY possible solution is to buy a new, higher resolution, body. Resolution is not the problem."</em></p>

<p>The OP wrote in the posting that it was not a technically good photo but it did show off well the "noise" problem that the OP was seeing in the photos. So your criticism of the photo misses the entire point of it. It is not to show off the quality of the photos from the T1i but the one specific problem that the OP was seeing.</p>

<p>Based on my own experience with the T1i and T3i, the only thing that I saw in the photo that could be considered "noise" is simply the "fuzziness" that comes from having too few pixels in the original image file. I ignored all the other problems with the photo because they were not relevant.</p>

<p>Being out of focus would not affect the noise. Tests reported in various magazines such Digital Photo Pro show that with digital SLRs, the ISO does not correlate well with noise. Noise in a DSLR comes from the processing algorithm built into the camera. It does not monotonically increase with ISO but can have sweet spots in high ISO settings where it is better than in lower ISO settings.</p>

<p>Regardless of whether the "noise" is due to low pixel count or high ISO, this all means that solution is a better camera with a high pixel count and a newer better ISO algorithm. All of which I got when I went to the T3i.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[so your criticism of the photo misses the entire point of it]]</p>

<p>I was not criticizing the photo, Danny. I was criticizing your conclusion that you managed to draw from viewing it. </p>

<p>[[based on my own experience with the T1i and T3i, the only thing that I saw in the photo that could be considered "noise" is simply the "fuzziness" that comes from having too few pixels in the original image file]]</p>

<p>No, it is not. The image shown is not the original full-sized 15MP image. It is a re-sized 1600 pixel image. Your conclusion is wrong. That you've missed this fact is what I have taken issue with. </p>

<p>[[Regardless of whether the "noise" is due to low pixel count or high ISO, this all means that solution is a better camera with a high pixel count and a newer better ISO algorithm. All of which I got when I went to the T3i.]]</p>

<p>The T2i, which uses the same sensor design as the T3i offered one thing that the sensor design on the T1i did not have: gapless microlenses. It is this physical change that gives a very slight reduction in noise in the final image. I already acknowledged this in a previous response. It is very easy to completely negate any net gains in lower image noise by how you capture, process, and ultimately display the images from the camera. There is no sudden giant "oh, wow, noise is gone" factor between these two cameras. The image noise can be slightly less in some cases. Not in all cases and not all the time. Therefore, your conclusion: "buy a new camera" is a ham-fisted, and frankly wrong, approach to the problem. Eliminating variables, improving workflow, image capture, and looking at output requirements is the best course of action. </p>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>Ok, I will attempt to post some more images. I uploaded the files here to photo.net first. It could very well be my eyes are playing tricks on me and I am just not used to what low light images can look like, as until recently I tried to avoid low light.<br>

<img src="/photo/17371724" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="/photo/17371722" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="/photo/17371725" alt="" /></p>

<div></div>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>and here is one more...</p><div></div>

[gwenyth_m]

<p>and please forgive the generic watermark, I need to improve on that. :-)<br /> The technical details are listed on the pictures in my portfolio here. For the statue image all I did was open in LR4, add watermark and save. The same for the harley can, though that one I tweaked a little bit, to bring out what was brighter.</p>

[stefan_pop_lazic]

<p>First pic is underexposed, that is why You have so many color noise blotches, and shaken due to camera movement on longer exposure. Second one has grain, but it is 3200 asa pic. And this grain looks ok to me. Have You tried to print it?</p>