What am I doing wrong?

scottcolbath

These pics are taken with my Canon 30D with the 28-135 EF-S IS lens.

The first is shot in RAW format, apeture priority, ISO 1000, and is very grainey. I have adjusted the white balance to the "cloudy" setting in this pic using Canon Digital Pro. Exif data is there for your viewing pleasure.


I'm sure I don't have to mention it, but the original is viewed here:
http://wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/240569443-O.jpg

After a bunch of shots in AP, I switched to the action setting and just clicked off the rest of the day and got results like this with no PP at all:


And once again, the original:
http://wookiee.smugmug.com/photos/240570919-O.jpg

What the hell am I doing wrong? I thought that I'd shoot wide open, or close to it to get the faster shutter speeds in AP. I understand the problem with white balance, but not the grain in the pic.

S.C.

JenGrace

High ISO's usually give a grainy look. Try ISO 200.

bauerman

Yeah - if you are shooting in full daylight - why have an ISO setting anywhere near 1000? Anything above ISO 800 even on a 30D you will notice the grain start to creep into the shots.

scottcolbath

It was very overcast, with rain, hence the higher ISO setting.

I've been told by many people that you can shoot up to 1600 with next to no grain or noise.

BUT..........Why do the pics shot in action mode look just fine? They were also shot in RAW at ISO 1000.

S.C.

Vickster

Yep ISO!
I bet too that it was the ISO...
Hey, where is this? It looks like Moab with the red rocks . . .

pathfinder

We need the EXIF data from these two images if we are to answer your question why the baked in camera jpg looks better than your shot in RAW.

This could have to do with proper exposure, RAW editing settings, ISOs used, etc.

Ok, I got the exif data from your smugmug site

The first image was shot at ISO 1600 f3.5 1/1000th The second image was shot at ISO 400, f5.6 1/500th

I think the answer is very clear here - ISO 400 images have less grain than ISO 1600 images, even one captured in RAW.. F5.6 will have more Depth of Field than f3.5

Vickster

Action not at same ISO
When you took your camera off maual settings it picked a different ISO... your action shots were at 400 not 1000 like your manual shots. 30D won't let you pick settings when you are in any of the "modes"...

LiquidOps

scottcolbath wrote:

It was very overcast, with rain, hence the higher ISO setting.

I've been told by many people that you can shoot up to 1600 with next to no grain or noise.

BUT..........Why do the pics shot in action mode look just fine? They were also shot in RAW at ISO 1000.

S.C.

According to the EXIF, your second shot was only shot at ISO 400...

Steven

Vickster

yep 400
His action shots were at 400 because that is the ISO that the camera picked. Once he slipped into "action" mode he lost any selection of settings. He may have thought he was in RAW 1000 ISO but EXIF says different.

bauerman

Vickster wrote:

His action shots were at 400 because that is the ISO that the camera picked. Once he slipped into "action" mode he lost any selection of settings. He may have thought he was in RAW 1000 ISO but EXIF says different.

Exactly - once you move into "no mans land" on the mode dial you lose control in too many areas.

scottcolbath

Vickster wrote:

I bet too that it was the ISO...
Hey, where is this? It looks like Moab with the red rocks . . .

Congress, Az.

S.C.

scottcolbath

OK, I now know I fcuked up a bit.

#1) I thought I had the ISO set to 1000 in AP mode.

#2) I didn't even stop to think that once in an auto setting, the ISO would change. If course it would.

S.C.

RogersDA

scottcolbath wrote:

OK, I now know I fcuked up a bit.

#1) I thought I had the ISO set to 1000 in AP mode.

#2) I didn't even stop to think that once in an auto setting, the ISO would change. If course it would.

S.C.

ISO400, f/5.6, 1/500 is roughly equivalent to ISO 1600, f/3.5, 1/4000. You were letting in way too much light with a shutter speed of 1/1000.

Also, set your camera to show the image histogram when shooting in order to see if you are blowing (or grossly underexposing) the image. Catch the mistakes early.

scottcolbath

RogersDA wrote:

Also, set your camera to show the image histogram when shooting in order to see if you are blowing (or grossly underexposing) the image. Catch the mistakes early.

I need to learn about this histogram subject.

S.C.

jfriend

scottcolbath wrote:

These pics are taken with my Canon 30D with the 28-135 EF-S IS lens.

The first is shot in RAW format, apeture priority, ISO 1000, and is very grainey. I have adjusted the white balance to the "cloudy" setting in this pic using Canon Digital Pro. Exif data is there for your viewing pleasure.

There's a lot of talk about the different ISO between the two and that is certainly a difference that contributes to some grain, but the real issue is that the first image is:

• Significantly overexposed (most white things are 255,255,255) and the rocks are way too bright.
• The white balance is off (see how different the rock color is in the two shots)
• The focus point is way behind the car.

The first shot can be made fairly similar to the second one with post processing, though you can't get detail back in the whites and it's a lot less work to get it right in the camera rather than post processing.

For these kinds of images, I first decide what depth of field I'd like. If you were really at 30mm focal length, then wide open would have given you enough depth of field is you had the focus point right.

Then, decide what shutter speed you think you need to stop motion blur. My guess is that as long as you aren't trying to stop a spinning wheel, you could have made do with 1/500th because these vehicles generally move slowly except for a quick burst. Then, figure out what's the minimum ISO you need to achieve these settings. If you keep the ISO at 400 or below, you will likely never see any significant noise effects on a properly exposed image. Some of the newer cameras can go somewhere in the range of ISO 640-1600 with minimal noise effects, but not all.

Then, take a test shot of the scene and study the camera histogram to make sure you aren't over or under exposing. There are lots of helpful articles on the net for interpreting the histogram, but basically you don't want to see a spike in the histogram on either end because that probably represents clipping or shadows or highlights.

Lastly, develop a strategy for nailing focus. In something like this, you can probably aim the center sensor at the focus target, lock focus and then frame the image. If they move faster, then you will want to use a dynamic focus mode and track a focus target with an appropriate sensor.

scottcolbath

jfriend wrote:

There's a lot of talk about the different ISO between the two and that is certainly a difference that contributes to some grain, but the real issue is that the first image is:

• Significantly overexposed (most white things are 255,255,255) and the rocks are way too bright.
• The white balance is off (see how different the rock color is in the two shots)
• The focus point is way behind the car.

The first shot can be made fairly similar to the second one with post processing, though you can't get detail back in the whites and it's a lot less work to get it right in the camera rather than post processing.

For these kinds of images, I first decide what depth of field I'd like. If you were really at 30mm focal length, then wide open would have given you enough depth of field is you had the focus point right.

Then, decide what shutter speed you think you need to stop motion blur. My guess is that as long as you aren't trying to stop a spinning wheel, you could have made do with 1/500th because these vehicles generally move slowly except for a quick burst. Then, figure out what's the minimum ISO you need to achieve these settings. If you keep the ISO at 400 or below, you will likely never see any significant noise effects on a properly exposed image. Some of the newer cameras can go somewhere in the range of ISO 640-1600 with minimal noise effects, but not all.

Then, take a test shot of the scene and study the camera histogram to make sure you aren't over or under exposing. There are lots of helpful articles on the net for interpreting the histogram, but basically you don't want to see a spike in the histogram on either end because that probably represents clipping or shadows or highlights.

Lastly, develop a strategy for nailing focus. In something like this, you can probably aim the center sensor at the focus target, lock focus and then frame the image. If they move faster, then you will want to use a dynamic focus mode and track a focus target with an appropriate sensor.

Thanks John. Great advice.

S.C.

101red808

scottcolbath wrote:

Thanks John. Great advice.

S.C.

Scott,
you had also mentioned people shooting up to 1600 ISO without the grain. In your custom function settings there will be a reduce noise function. If you ever do any night shots you will definitely notice the difference. It takes longer for the images to process so if you are shooting action shots or a sequence you might want to skip this function.

jneal

Scott, first as a rock crawler myself I love the shots. I will be making some trips to Tellico this year to get some action pics myself

everyone else: is there a tut on readin and interpreting histograms anywhere?

scottcolbath

101red808 wrote:

Scott,
you had also mentioned people shooting up to 1600 ISO without the grain. In your custom function settings there will be a reduce noise function. If you ever do any night shots you will definitely notice the difference. It takes longer for the images to process so if you are shooting action shots or a sequence you might want to skip this function.

Noise reduction is on.

It was also on when I took this shot. Look at the lines.


I'd say that each of the shots I took consumed as much time as the shutter was open as they did processing the noise reduction.

I read somewhere that the lines are caused by the additional voltage running through the sensor at higher ISO settings.

S.C.

OsirisPhoto

In addition to the exposure / ISO issues.. doesn't the 30D only shoot JPEG in a 'basic zone' mode? In which case, the camera is applying several 'post processing' steps before it writes the file, e.g. contrast, saturation, white balance and sharpening.

You mention only correcting white balance to your RAW file, but you have to work on them a little more to get the best out of the image.

DJ-S1

The first image also had +1/3EV exposure compensation dialed in which contributes to the overexposure. Obviously changing to action mode resets that to 0EV for the subsequent shots.

Cuong

jneal wrote:

Scott, first as a rock crawler myself I love the shots. I will be making some trips to Tellico this year to get some action pics myself

everyone else: is there a tut on readin and interpreting histograms anywhere?

Here's a good tut on histogram from luminous landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

Cuong

jneal

yukio wrote:

Here's a good tut on histogram from luminous landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

Cuong

great tut! thanks yukio!

Glenn NK

scottcolbath wrote:

I need to learn about this histogram subject.

S.C.

And use the RGB histogram.

In some situations, only one channel may be close to blowing out. A closeup of a red flower or a shot of a blue sky are examples - try it.

Also set the Contrast to -2 (minus two) and shoot only RAW; the 30D (and others) produces a JPEG for viewing on the LCD which doesn't match all that closely with the actual RAW you will see in CS3 or Lightroom (for example).