Bizarre Noise On My K7 Images!!!!

Peter Zack · 07-10-2009, 08:25 AM

May I ask why you want 2-3 stops underexposed images anyway? Pushing the chip this way is going to show problems and that's true of any brand. If the idea is to take low ISO high shutter speed images and later use any number of PP tools to 'recover' the image, you're kidding yourself and will get poor results every time.

Take a properly exposed image of the same scene in the same light and the "Problem" disappears.

Christopher M.W.T · 07-10-2009, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by slomojoe

Don't worry about pic noise in underexposed shots: CLEAN UP YOUR ROOM, man!

(Sorry for channeling your mom.)

It's my girlfriends side of the bed, its a mess lol.

Ok last one....then this was just taken outside with an old 50mm Ricoh at 1.7

Bottom left corner where the forklift and tail lights on the white commodore.

Where its really dark there appears to be a lot of noise, running it through noiseware professional gets rid of this, but it just bothers me.

I'm taking the camera with me tomorrow to the melb exhibition centre so will see how i go.

But heres the last one....

Excuse me all for my paranoia but it's not everyday I go buy a brand new SLR lol.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3707486582_9c6ba0b734_o.jpg

Peter Zack · 07-10-2009, 08:35 AM

Just for the heck of it, I copied your image to Photoshop. To get close to a proper exposure you are at least 5 stops underexposed. This is crazy.

Name: Capture.JPG
Views: 600
Size: 71.6 KB

Name: Capture.JPG
Views: 600
Size: 71.6 KB

Christopher M.W.T · 07-10-2009, 08:37 AM

Thanks for everyones feedback and advice.

I am still relatively new to the DSLR arena and this is my first ever semi-pro camera.

Peter Zack · 07-10-2009, 08:40 AM

Fair enough. but what you are getting is perfectly normal for exposures like this and that doesn't matter what camera you would be using. Get the correct exposures and the "problem" disappears. Remember that at a certain point the scene is just to dark for a good handheld image no matter what ISO you use. Either a flash or tripod is needed.

slomojoe · 07-10-2009, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

It's my girlfriends side of the bed, its a mess lol.

Yeah well, your mom was right then - she's no good.

Christopher M.W.T · 07-10-2009, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by slomojoe

Yeah well, your mom was right then - she's no good.

Lol. She's good at many other things that make up for it, plus she compensates for my faults.

Wheatfield · 07-10-2009, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3706575375_59a8a26be3_o.jpg

Yes I have deliberately underexposed the photo, I have never noticed this sort of noise on my K100D look around the black areas.

Well, if you are going to deliberately underexpose you images, you are likely not going to get good images.
Perhaps what you should be doing is exposing your images correctly. I have almost 2k exposures on my K-7 and haven't seen any issues with noise, but I strive for proper exposure.

Christopher M.W.T · 07-10-2009, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Fair enough. but what you are getting is perfectly normal for exposures like this and that doesn't matter what camera you would be using. Get the correct exposures and the "problem" disappears. Remember that at a certain point the scene is just to dark for a good handheld image no matter what ISO you use. Either a flash or tripod is needed.

Cheers I was getting very paranoid as I never encountered this sort of effect on the K100D

eva2000 · 07-10-2009, 08:48 AM

honestly don't see the noise much either here.

how about a shot with the exposure properly set instead of underexposed ?

Mister Guy · 07-10-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

Excuse me all for my paranoia but it's not everyday I go buy a brand new SLR lol.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3707486582_9c6ba0b734_o.jpg

It's okay, but you need to realized it IS just paranoia. Your K100D is giving different results partially because it's not even ABLE to capture that much detail so it's throwing more away, and you aren't able to zoom in as close on it because the resolution is lower. There's actually a seriously impressive amount of dynamic range in the images you're showing us, you've got to expect some amounts of noise that under exposed, zoomed up to 1:1.

Keep in mind that your resolution on that K7 14.6 MP compared to the K110D's 6.1MP. That's the difference between being able to print a picture of you life size without any significant loss of quality versus being able to print a picture of you half size. That also means when you pixel peep looking for issues on the K7, you get to look much, much closer for problems.

nostatic · 07-10-2009, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

Lol. She's good at many other things that make up for it, plus she compensates for my faults.

You mean she over-exposes her shots?

Christopher M.W.T · 07-10-2009, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Mister Guy

It's okay, but you need to realized it IS just paranoia. Your K100D is giving different results partially because it's not even ABLE to capture that much detail so it's throwing more away, and you aren't able to zoom in as close on it because the resolution is lower. There's actually a seriously impressive amount of dynamic range in the images you're showing us, you've got to expect some amounts of noise that under exposed, zoomed up to 1:1.

Keep in mind that your resolution on that K7 14.6 MP compared to the K110D's 6.1MP. That's the difference between being able to print a picture of you life size without any significant loss of quality versus being able to print a picture of you half size. That also means when you pixel peep looking for issues on the K7, you get to look much, much closer for problems.

Cheers, well thankyou makes me feel a hell of a lot better now.

Originally posted by nostatic

You mean she over-exposes her shots?

Oh ha ha very funny

good cheap shot.

I've been playing with the video mode on the camera, so far I like the quality of it, figured out how to lock exposure and all, only annoyance is the flickering caused by 50hz lighting here in australia, I seem to have found a way around it.

Gotta love the shallow DOF, using my 1.7 Ricoh manual lense and really really impessed, must say the shake reduction is amazing.

deadwolfbones · 07-10-2009, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by nostatic

You mean she over-exposes her shots?

Mister Guy · 07-10-2009, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes

Cheers, well thankyou makes me feel a hell of a lot better now.

Oh ha ha very funny

good cheap shot.

I've been playing with the video mode on the camera, so far I like the quality of it, figured out how to lock exposure and all, only annoyance is the flickering caused by 50hz lighting here in australia, I seem to have found a way around it.

Gotta love the shallow DOF, using my 1.7 Ricoh manual lense and really really impessed, must say the shake reduction is amazing.

I'm really trying to work in a way to imply you should post correctly exposed pictures of your attractive girlfriend instead of under exposed pictures of computer equipment and machinery, but in a funny and non-pervy sounding way. You'd think I'd be able to, with the obvious "over exposed" double entendre just hanging out there, and the easily misconstrued comment about her side of the bed and things she's good at. I'm going to have to work on it, and get back to you. I haven't had my coffee yet, so it's more difficult than usual to be cheeky.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Bizarre AF Lens?	Swift1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-18-2010 07:22 AM
Bizarre K20D operation	FruitLooPs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	06-28-2010 07:24 PM
Help - *istDS stuck in some sort of bizarre loop	peetucket	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	07-06-2009 01:08 PM
HELP PLEASE !!! Bizarre K10d exposure problem!!	StephenG	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	10-02-2008 12:52 PM
cs3 noise filter vs. noise ninja vs. ???	reknelb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	03-04-2008 04:55 PM

07-10-2009, 08:25 AM	#16
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	May I ask why you want 2-3 stops underexposed images anyway? Pushing the chip this way is going to show problems and that's true of any brand. If the idea is to take low ISO high shutter speed images and later use any number of PP tools to 'recover' the image, you're kidding yourself and will get poor results every time. Take a properly exposed image of the same scene in the same light and the "Problem" disappears.

07-10-2009, 08:33 AM	#17
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Originally posted by slomojoe Don't worry about pic noise in underexposed shots: CLEAN UP YOUR ROOM, man! (Sorry for channeling your mom.) It's my girlfriends side of the bed, its a mess lol. Ok last one....then this was just taken outside with an old 50mm Ricoh at 1.7 Bottom left corner where the forklift and tail lights on the white commodore. Where its really dark there appears to be a lot of noise, running it through noiseware professional gets rid of this, but it just bothers me. I'm taking the camera with me tomorrow to the melb exhibition centre so will see how i go. But heres the last one.... Excuse me all for my paranoia but it's not everyday I go buy a brand new SLR lol. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3707486582_9c6ba0b734_o.jpg

07-10-2009, 08:35 AM	#18
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Just for the heck of it, I copied your image to Photoshop. To get close to a proper exposure you are at least 5 stops underexposed. This is crazy.

07-10-2009, 08:37 AM	#19
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Thanks for everyones feedback and advice. I am still relatively new to the DSLR arena and this is my first ever semi-pro camera.

07-10-2009, 08:40 AM	#20
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Fair enough. but what you are getting is perfectly normal for exposures like this and that doesn't matter what camera you would be using. Get the correct exposures and the "problem" disappears. Remember that at a certain point the scene is just to dark for a good handheld image no matter what ISO you use. Either a flash or tripod is needed.

07-10-2009, 08:40 AM	#21
slomojoe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 788	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes It's my girlfriends side of the bed, its a mess lol. Yeah well, your mom was right then - she's no good.

07-10-2009, 08:41 AM	#22
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Originally posted by slomojoe Yeah well, your mom was right then - she's no good. Lol. She's good at many other things that make up for it, plus she compensates for my faults.

07-10-2009, 08:42 AM	#23
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3706575375_59a8a26be3_o.jpg Yes I have deliberately underexposed the photo, I have never noticed this sort of noise on my K100D look around the black areas. Well, if you are going to deliberately underexpose you images, you are likely not going to get good images. Perhaps what you should be doing is exposing your images correctly. I have almost 2k exposures on my K-7 and haven't seen any issues with noise, but I strive for proper exposure.

07-10-2009, 08:42 AM	#24
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Originally posted by Peter Zack Fair enough. but what you are getting is perfectly normal for exposures like this and that doesn't matter what camera you would be using. Get the correct exposures and the "problem" disappears. Remember that at a certain point the scene is just to dark for a good handheld image no matter what ISO you use. Either a flash or tripod is needed. Cheers I was getting very paranoid as I never encountered this sort of effect on the K100D

07-10-2009, 08:48 AM	#25
eva2000 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 239	honestly don't see the noise much either here. how about a shot with the exposure properly set instead of underexposed ?

07-10-2009, 08:51 AM	#26
Mister Guy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 244	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes Excuse me all for my paranoia but it's not everyday I go buy a brand new SLR lol. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3707486582_9c6ba0b734_o.jpg It's okay, but you need to realized it IS just paranoia. Your K100D is giving different results partially because it's not even ABLE to capture that much detail so it's throwing more away, and you aren't able to zoom in as close on it because the resolution is lower. There's actually a seriously impressive amount of dynamic range in the images you're showing us, you've got to expect some amounts of noise that under exposed, zoomed up to 1:1. Keep in mind that your resolution on that K7 14.6 MP compared to the K110D's 6.1MP. That's the difference between being able to print a picture of you life size without any significant loss of quality versus being able to print a picture of you half size. That also means when you pixel peep looking for issues on the K7, you get to look much, much closer for problems.

07-10-2009, 09:02 AM	#27
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes Lol. She's good at many other things that make up for it, plus she compensates for my faults. You mean she over-exposes her shots?

07-10-2009, 09:05 AM	#28
Christopher M.W.T Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,689 Original Poster	Originally posted by Mister Guy It's okay, but you need to realized it IS just paranoia. Your K100D is giving different results partially because it's not even ABLE to capture that much detail so it's throwing more away, and you aren't able to zoom in as close on it because the resolution is lower. There's actually a seriously impressive amount of dynamic range in the images you're showing us, you've got to expect some amounts of noise that under exposed, zoomed up to 1:1. Keep in mind that your resolution on that K7 14.6 MP compared to the K110D's 6.1MP. That's the difference between being able to print a picture of you life size without any significant loss of quality versus being able to print a picture of you half size. That also means when you pixel peep looking for issues on the K7, you get to look much, much closer for problems. Cheers, well thankyou makes me feel a hell of a lot better now. Originally posted by nostatic You mean she over-exposes her shots? Oh ha ha very funny good cheap shot. I've been playing with the video mode on the camera, so far I like the quality of it, figured out how to lock exposure and all, only annoyance is the flickering caused by 50hz lighting here in australia, I seem to have found a way around it. Gotta love the shallow DOF, using my 1.7 Ricoh manual lense and really really impessed, must say the shake reduction is amazing.

07-10-2009, 09:06 AM	#29
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Originally posted by nostatic You mean she over-exposes her shots?

07-10-2009, 09:16 AM	#30
Mister Guy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 244	Originally posted by C.W Tsorotes Cheers, well thankyou makes me feel a hell of a lot better now. Oh ha ha very funny good cheap shot. I've been playing with the video mode on the camera, so far I like the quality of it, figured out how to lock exposure and all, only annoyance is the flickering caused by 50hz lighting here in australia, I seem to have found a way around it. Gotta love the shallow DOF, using my 1.7 Ricoh manual lense and really really impessed, must say the shake reduction is amazing. I'm really trying to work in a way to imply you should post correctly exposed pictures of your attractive girlfriend instead of under exposed pictures of computer equipment and machinery, but in a funny and non-pervy sounding way. You'd think I'd be able to, with the obvious "over exposed" double entendre just hanging out there, and the easily misconstrued comment about her side of the bed and things she's good at. I'm going to have to work on it, and get back to you. I haven't had my coffee yet, so it's more difficult than usual to be cheeky.