What did I do wrong???

dingnecros · 06-25-2007, 11:01 PM

How come I ended up with so much noise.
Very much a beginner but just trying to see if there is a better setting I can use. I cud get a lot of the noise out using the surface blur filter in PS but I dont think that low iso performance is this bad. btw this is the original unedited photo

Removed the link to the inline image

Also made multiple resolutions available for dial up users please use the updated link

noisy

Please use the drop down box on the upper right corner to select the resolution you want to see

Last edited by dingnecros; 07-02-2007 at 12:48 PM. Reason: more dialup friendly

little laker · 06-25-2007, 11:16 PM

very interesting picture dingnecros, the noise actually works with that pic

ISO 1600 is way too high. I can't see why you couldn't use 200 for such a photograph.
Then the noise will be minimal.

Personally I only take my camera off ISO 200 if I'm photographing moving subjects where I don't want any blur.
I'm even shooting flying birds on 200 now, with good results.

Good luck and have fun with it

wlachan · 06-26-2007, 03:51 AM

Camera jpegs are noiser especially with high iso. RAW with proper convert will be much better.

attack11 · 06-26-2007, 05:32 AM

jpgs are smoother than raws. they have a smoothing applied, raw is sharper and will produce noise once it's processed; looks kinda like film grain.

i'd buy a tripod or a faster lens, 180mm @ f5.6 @ iso1600 seems like you were hand holding it.

wlachan · 06-26-2007, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by attack11

jpgs are smoother than raws. they have a smoothing applied, raw is sharper and will produce noise once it's processed; looks kinda like film grain.

Not quite. Different raw converters apply different amount of sharpening by default, some cannot be turned off completely even with sharpening set to 0. For example, ACR is able to convert iso1600 raw much better than Silkypix which is again better than RSE.

jeffkrol · 06-26-2007, 06:13 AM

Noise wouldn't be so bad but you have that VPN thing going on. Anyone care to tell me how that can be corrected short of reshooting at a better iso (which I agree is the best option) .......?????

RiceHigh · 06-26-2007, 06:29 AM

Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo?

p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-)

RiceHigh · 06-26-2007, 06:35 AM

I have downloaded also your provided direct link for your pic and this time I can inspect the EXIF.

As for the K10D at ISO 1600, I would say nothing was wrong and this *is* *normal*. Do note that noise are usually more a problem at shadow areas and that's the case of your sample.

It's actually a problem of 10MP+ DSLRs with a small sized CCD/CMOS of APS-C. That's physics for the physical limitation. Unless there is some kinds of technology breakthrough, I can't see the high ISO pictures of those DSLRs can be better, frankly speaking.

I notice that you have the latest firmware version 1.20 installed too. So, this would be the best result you can get already with the in-camera jpeg when you shoot under such severe condition.

Originally posted by RiceHigh

Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo?

p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-)

KennJ · 06-26-2007, 07:17 AM

Bottom line , there is no reason in the world for you to be shooting in ISO 1600 or most of the time even 800, it's overkill.When you do need it the noise is the trade off with digital cameras. Keep you ISO low and the noise will be no problem.
And please resize for the forum to around or bellow 800 width so it is not a problem for folks with slower connections.
Kenn

dingnecros · 06-26-2007, 07:24 AM

I was just roaming around and didn't have a tripod with me this twig was very different from the rest of the vegetation in the area. I have nothing against tripods but sometimes they are just an overkill especially with the SR system in camera body. Here are some more photos I took on the same day. Just playing with white balance and color temps. These are all hosted off my home server so might get slow with multiple people accessing the files at the same time.

http://hexen.game-host.org:1212/main.php/v/addygoel/Creve+Coeur+Lake/

Also I do realize raw shooting would help in many cases and but being the total n00b I am at this point I would be a bit hesitant to use raw all the time as I dont have the patience or expertise to develop each and every raw photo. I would really like to settle for a few in camera settings that give me acceptable jpegs to begin with and then work from there to raw images. This was also the primary reason I got the K10d . I had the nikon D40x but it felt too basic same with the k100d. I fell in love with the K10d as it actually makes things easier and helps you learn the system and the photograph rather than just do everything for you

attack11 · 06-26-2007, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

Not quite. Different raw converters apply different amount of sharpening by default, some cannot be turned off completely even with sharpening set to 0. For example, ACR is able to convert iso1600 raw much better than Silkypix which is again better than RSE.

quite. you need to look into the jpg format more; but a hint... jpg isn't lossless, it'll be smoother.

attack11 · 06-26-2007, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by RiceHigh

Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo?

p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-)

there's a couple of exif extensions for firefox. you should install one; very handy.

wlachan · 06-26-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by attack11

quite. you need to look into the jpg format more; but a hint... jpg isn't lossless, it'll be smoother.

Actually I know the shortcoming of jpeg pretty well. But with Pentax at least, in-camera jpeg processing is still behind good RAW convert and it shows with high iso. The noise with the OP picture is not really the result of jpeg compression, but more of camera processing.

mutley · 06-26-2007, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

Noise wouldn't be so bad but you have that VPN thing going on. Anyone care to tell me how that can be corrected short of reshooting at a better iso (which I agree is the best option) .......?????

Buy the replacement "K10D Super" in a couple of months that fixes this.

answerdude · 06-26-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by mutley

Buy the replacement "K10DS" in a couple of months that fixes this.

Or hold out for the K18d in september!

06-25-2007, 11:01 PM	#1
dingnecros Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Middle Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 15	What did I do wrong??? How come I ended up with so much noise. Very much a beginner but just trying to see if there is a better setting I can use. I cud get a lot of the noise out using the surface blur filter in PS but I dont think that low iso performance is this bad. btw this is the original unedited photo Removed the link to the inline image Also made multiple resolutions available for dial up users please use the updated link noisy Please use the drop down box on the upper right corner to select the resolution you want to see Last edited by dingnecros; 07-02-2007 at 12:48 PM. Reason: more dialup friendly

06-26-2007, 03:26 PM	#14
mutley Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: LI, NY Posts: 313	Originally posted by jeffkrol Noise wouldn't be so bad but you have that VPN thing going on. Anyone care to tell me how that can be corrected short of reshooting at a better iso (which I agree is the best option) .......????? Buy the replacement "K10D Super" in a couple of months that fixes this. Last edited by mutley; 06-27-2007 at 06:15 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Something has gone wrong with the 77!	barondla	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-14-2010 09:25 AM
What's wrong with my A 28/2.8?	Rense	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	01-10-2010 06:16 AM
Am I doing something wrong...?	imwillb	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	12-10-2009 11:49 AM
What did I do wrong?	Allan	Photographic Technique	19	04-24-2008 01:37 PM
What's right and what's wrong?	dws1117	Photo Critique	2	01-08-2008 09:13 PM

06-25-2007, 11:16 PM	#2
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	very interesting picture dingnecros, the noise actually works with that pic ISO 1600 is way too high. I can't see why you couldn't use 200 for such a photograph. Then the noise will be minimal. Personally I only take my camera off ISO 200 if I'm photographing moving subjects where I don't want any blur. I'm even shooting flying birds on 200 now, with good results. Good luck and have fun with it

06-26-2007, 03:51 AM	#3
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Camera jpegs are noiser especially with high iso. RAW with proper convert will be much better.

06-26-2007, 05:32 AM	#4
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	jpgs are smoother than raws. they have a smoothing applied, raw is sharper and will produce noise once it's processed; looks kinda like film grain. i'd buy a tripod or a faster lens, 180mm @ f5.6 @ iso1600 seems like you were hand holding it.

06-26-2007, 05:37 AM	#5
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by attack11 jpgs are smoother than raws. they have a smoothing applied, raw is sharper and will produce noise once it's processed; looks kinda like film grain. Not quite. Different raw converters apply different amount of sharpening by default, some cannot be turned off completely even with sharpening set to 0. For example, ACR is able to convert iso1600 raw much better than Silkypix which is again better than RSE.

06-26-2007, 06:13 AM	#6
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Noise wouldn't be so bad but you have that VPN thing going on. Anyone care to tell me how that can be corrected short of reshooting at a better iso (which I agree is the best option) .......?????

06-26-2007, 06:29 AM	#7
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo? p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-)

06-26-2007, 06:35 AM	#8
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	I have downloaded also your provided direct link for your pic and this time I can inspect the EXIF. As for the K10D at ISO 1600, I would say nothing was wrong and this is normal. Do note that noise are usually more a problem at shadow areas and that's the case of your sample. It's actually a problem of 10MP+ DSLRs with a small sized CCD/CMOS of APS-C. That's physics for the physical limitation. Unless there is some kinds of technology breakthrough, I can't see the high ISO pictures of those DSLRs can be better, frankly speaking. I notice that you have the latest firmware version 1.20 installed too. So, this would be the best result you can get already with the in-camera jpeg when you shoot under such severe condition. Originally posted by RiceHigh Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo? p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-)

06-26-2007, 07:17 AM	#9
KennJ Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Norfolk , Va. Photos: Gallery Posts: 132	Bottom line , there is no reason in the world for you to be shooting in ISO 1600 or most of the time even 800, it's overkill.When you do need it the noise is the trade off with digital cameras. Keep you ISO low and the noise will be no problem. And please resize for the forum to around or bellow 800 width so it is not a problem for folks with slower connections. Kenn

06-26-2007, 07:24 AM	#10
dingnecros Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Middle Island, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 15 Original Poster	I was just roaming around and didn't have a tripod with me this twig was very different from the rest of the vegetation in the area. I have nothing against tripods but sometimes they are just an overkill especially with the SR system in camera body. Here are some more photos I took on the same day. Just playing with white balance and color temps. These are all hosted off my home server so might get slow with multiple people accessing the files at the same time. http://hexen.game-host.org:1212/main.php/v/addygoel/Creve+Coeur+Lake/ Also I do realize raw shooting would help in many cases and but being the total n00b I am at this point I would be a bit hesitant to use raw all the time as I dont have the patience or expertise to develop each and every raw photo. I would really like to settle for a few in camera settings that give me acceptable jpegs to begin with and then work from there to raw images. This was also the primary reason I got the K10d . I had the nikon D40x but it felt too basic same with the k100d. I fell in love with the K10d as it actually makes things easier and helps you learn the system and the photograph rather than just do everything for you

06-26-2007, 09:20 AM	#11
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	Originally posted by wlachan Not quite. Different raw converters apply different amount of sharpening by default, some cannot be turned off completely even with sharpening set to 0. For example, ACR is able to convert iso1600 raw much better than Silkypix which is again better than RSE. quite. you need to look into the jpg format more; but a hint... jpg isn't lossless, it'll be smoother.

06-26-2007, 09:26 AM	#12
attack11 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 658	Originally posted by RiceHigh Why there are no EXIF info for the edited original photo? p.s. Your attached image is too large to fit in the post box! Why not just post the link - we can download the pic if like. :-) there's a couple of exif extensions for firefox. you should install one; very handy.

06-26-2007, 02:13 PM	#13
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by attack11 quite. you need to look into the jpg format more; but a hint... jpg isn't lossless, it'll be smoother. Actually I know the shortcoming of jpeg pretty well. But with Pentax at least, in-camera jpeg processing is still behind good RAW convert and it shows with high iso. The noise with the OP picture is not really the result of jpeg compression, but more of camera processing.

06-26-2007, 03:37 PM	#15
answerdude New Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 13	Originally posted by mutley Buy the replacement "K10DS" in a couple of months that fixes this. Or hold out for the K18d in september!