Canon 60D | Photo quality

davidryandavidryan Registered Users Posts: 306 Major grins
edited December 10, 2010 in Cameras
Hello all--

Its been ages since I've posted here last but recently I got a Canon 60D. In general I like the thing, but with one major issue-- all of my photos come out grainy. Any ideas? I've tried many different settings-- low ISO, low F-stop, long shutter-- you name it and every single time they come out with grain in places it should be smooth. I'll try posting some examples....

Dtps%20Tying%20Shin%20Smart.jpg

This is one of the orchids I grow and in real life it doesn't look this pixelated or grainy.

Has anyone else any experience with the 60D? Am I doing something wrong?

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited December 5, 2010
    What is your shooting and processing workflow? Please try to be specific.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • davidryandavidryan Registered Users Posts: 306 Major grins
    edited December 5, 2010
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    What is your shooting and processing workflow? Please try to be specific.

    Sorry I meant to post this info but I guess my 16 m/o did it for me!

    Ok so what I did was I started off shooting with a low ISO-- just to test-- I believe I used 200. I composed the shot, put the f-stop at 32 to minimize the DOF as I wanted most of the flower to be in focus and adapted the shutter as needed-- I do not remember the speed off hand. I then did the max 6400, which allowed me to take a shot with very quick settings even at f-stop 32. I've never done this before but keeping the f-stop the same, the shutter speed was much faster. I did a few shots in between to compare. The lower ISOs are noticeably cleaner looking but still there is grain!

    Is that enough info on the shooting process? I'll do a shoot tomorrow to show a legitimate test. Oh and I shoot in RAW.

    As for post process, I use Photoshop CS3. I do very minimal changes-- if needed I'll correct the exposure and temp of the shot while in RAW and then I run some of my photos, if they have a lot of grain like this one, through Neat Image -- using the auto sampling. I'll also check Levels to make sure I have a crisp, color photo, too. I tend to under expose, despite knowing this, and so Levels has helped me a lot.

    Thats about it. Again, I'll work on doing a proper test tomorrow time-permitting. But any help you could offer, I'd really appreciate it. thanks!
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,703 moderator
    edited December 5, 2010
    What was the ISO of your posted image, the exif data has been scrubbed from it.

    ISO 6400 guarantees to have quite high noise.

    Try ISO 100, and see how those images look.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,078 moderator
    edited December 5, 2010
    davidryan wrote: »
    ... if needed I'll correct the exposure and temp of the shot while in RAW and then I run some of my photos, if they have a lot of grain like this one, through Neat Image -- using the auto sampling. I'll also check Levels to make sure I have a crisp, color photo, too. I tend to under expose, despite knowing this, and so Levels has helped me a lot.

    ...

    I suspect that the tendency to underexpose could be part of the problem. Depending on the degree of underexposure it could be a major source of the problem.

    Also some lighting conditions and color temperature can cause problems during WB correction because you basically have to expand some color channels more than others, and sometimes a lot more.

    I suggest using appropriate lighting to get exposures accurate and try to use base ISOs as much as possible for flowers where one color channel can get very saturated, leaving the other channels lacking.

    Whatever you can do to fill the histogram without clipping is a good thing. I believe that you can enable a 3-channel histogram on the 60D so that's probably best, but do some experiments so that you understand how the in-camera histogram correlates with the software's histogram. There is no such thing as a "standard" histogram but I tend to trust the Photoshop histograms best.

    Enable the "Highlight Alert" (blinkies) so that overexposure is more noticeable, although again I recommend some testing to show just how far you can push the exposure without software clipping.

    I also tend to use ACR to interpolate the image to at least 25 MPixels and then run Neat Image from within Photoshop against the extra pixels which seems to give more desirable results. You can always downscale the image back to "factory" pixel counts later.

    For what it's worth, the image you posted doesn't look all that grainy on my Mag CRT monitor. LCD monitor's tend to exaggerate grain so be sure to do some test prints at size to determine whether further attention to problematic grain is required. (In other words a computer monitor can make grain much more noticeable than a print, so if a print is to be your final output media use a test print as the determinant and not your computer display.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited December 6, 2010
    f32 is something I gave up trying on my Canon. Going above f16 gives a lot of noise.
  • RidgetopRidgetop Registered Users Posts: 214 Major grins
    edited December 6, 2010
    Definitely try a tripod shot, F8, ISO 100, and a nice bell curve histogram shot. I think you'll be find it's a little cleaner. If I shoot at F32 with any of my lens on my Canon I'm guaranteed not to have a perfectly clean shot or perfectly sharp shot.
  • rpcrowerpcrowe Registered Users Posts: 733 Major grins
    edited December 10, 2010
    Iso 6400?
    Wow! pretty nice imagery from that fantastically high ISO!

    Try using a tripod and keeping your f/stop somewhere around f/11. The smaller f/stops, although the depth of field is wider, do not give the very best definition due to diffraction.

    Diffraction: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/diffraction-small-apertures.html

    Using a tripod will allow you to shoot at a slower shutter speed and still get sharp results. ISO 100 will give the optimum results but, your 7D should be capable of shooting at ISO 400 with almost no noise whatsoever. Ensure that your subject is not moving...

    If you cannot get the depth of field that you need for an image shooting at f/11 or so - you can try focus stacking to increase DOF.

    Focus stacking: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37218282/Art-of-Focus-Stacking

    That all said, adding some additional light to any close-up or macro shot will usually help. I use a Siegelite flash bracket with an off camera flash cord. My flash is the 550EX and the diffuser is a Lumiquest mini softbox (there are Chinese knock-offs of the Lumiquest available on eBay for five to ten dollars.

    534962940_vHUiM-L.jpg

    Often it is not possible to get the entire subject in focus when shooting head-on...

    534963710_2RFDA-L.jpg

    However by re-framing so that the subject is across the frame, you don't need as deep a depth of field to get the subject in focus.

    534963697_iD4GG-L.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.