Problem with noisy RAW images from Canon 30D

marino420td

marino420td

Premium Member
I posted this in a topic on fredmiranda but also thought I would ask here since there are so many knowledgeable people in this forum.

Since I started shooting sports photos in RAW, I have noticed grainy images, even at low iso's.

I shoot with a Canon 70-200 F4 L lense which is a sharp copy. I usually use center point focus, A1 servo mode, Manual mode.

Here are some examples straight out of the camera.

SEMO-59.jpg


100% crop
100-noise-crop-2.jpg


SEMO-67.jpg


100% crop
100-noise-crop.jpg


Some suggested in the other forum that the 30D has noise issues, especially at the intermittent iso settings. Both photos above were shot at 500 iso.

Any help or suggestions is much appreciated.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14886162#post14886162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
:confused:It's ISO 500, what exactly do you expect at a 100% crop in a shadow:confused:
Click to expand...

A crisp, clear image. Are my expectations too high? I didn't think iso 500 is all that high. I see other photogs post images at iso 1600 straight from the camera that have less noise.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14886193#post14886193 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marino420td
A crisp, clear image. Are my expectations too high?
Click to expand...
Yes
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14886193#post14886193 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marino420td
I see other photogs post images at iso 1600 straight from the camera that have less noise.
Click to expand...
Were they using a medium format hasselblad complete with heat sinks to keep noise down or something lol? Keep in mind you aren't even shooting 35mm. It makes a big difference if you want to pull a magnifying glass and nit-pick. ISO 500 is supposed to do that. ISO 1600 is supposed to be a lot worse. Expecting a noiseless 100% crop of a shadow shot @ ISO 500 straight from a RAW file with absolutely no noise reduction is a goal of ignorance. It just isn't going to happen. I wouldn't even expect a usable image from many point and shoots.
Now with a little care in post processing, yeah you could make that noiseless with minimal detail loss. It's not going to happen right out of a RAW file thuogh.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the post Titus. I am still somewhat new to photography (2 years) and very new to shooting RAW. So I don't know what to expect in a lot of cases.

But shouldn't I be able to shoot at 500 iso and get images that do not need a lot of processing to be usable? That's where my real ignorance comes into play. I know very little about post processing and frankly, I don't enjoy it. I want to get the best possible images right out of the camera.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14887917#post14887917 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marino420td
Thanks for the post Titus. I am still somewhat new to photography (2 years) and very new to shooting RAW. So I don't know what to expect in a lot of cases.

But shouldn't I be able to shoot at 500 iso and get images that do not need a lot of processing to be usable? That's where my real ignorance comes into play. I know very little about post processing and frankly, I don't enjoy it. I want to get the best possible images right out of the camera.
Click to expand...


There are a number of things wrong with your assumption.

First, to get any benefit from shooting RAW, you need to do MORE processing not less. If you're not planning on processing your images more thoroughly; shoot JPG. Seriously.

Second, for 500 ISO, that looks fine, It's a lot cleaner than a 400 ISO film image would be.
 
I agree with those above. What you're getting is par for the course. You may want to consider noise ninja to clean it up a little bit, but when the image is taken as a whole it looks fine. 100% crops are for people seeking out disappointment. Having said that, I do tend to look at all the detailed image studies of cameras and lenses to make a purchase decision, but once the credit card is swiped, I don't ever go there.
 
I guess I should point out that the reason I look so closely at the images is because at some point, I want to have photos sharp enough to print at poster size. I take a lot of baseball shots from my son's 12 year old little league games and the parents love seeing the images. I want to be able to offer them larger prints but my confidence just isn't there yet. I haven't learned enough about post processing to correct some of my mistakes. I am totally self taught and there just isn't enough hours in the day.
 
I'm not sure what the max size of print you can get from a 35mm format camera, or even that there should be such a thing, however I think it is accepted that A3 is max (11x17 approx) for most printing applications...

Of course there are NO printing police, so you can print it on the side of a 10-story building if that suits your fancy... (also, 30D is not 35mm, but that was pointed out above)...

I've printed on A3 from my 20D and been pleased enough with the results.... I'm sure some would find issue, but that's ok, I'm printing for me :) and I like it... (Epson R2400 printer)

The issue is pixel-size in proportion to the print size... on the side of a 10-story building your individual pixels will be about 1 foot in diameter... and therefore quite obvious... haha... On 4x6, they are not discernible... everything else is in between...

If you have a photo where grain is part of the 'art' or 'effect' you'll likely get onto much bigger prints and still have acceptable end-results.... I've seen bill-board size images printed with 1-foot diameter "pixels" that look awesome, done for effect... (though I still doubt a 35mm was used but you get my point)

That said, your OP is looking at accepted levels of grain, so I assume you want your final prints in the "OMG sharpness" and therefore I think your 30D will be stretching beyond A4 size... (A4 is 1/2 of A3 or approx 8.5x11)

I do not do a whole bunch of printing so I stand to be corrected by those with more experience...
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14889835#post14889835 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Hookup
I'm not sure what the max size of print you can get from a 35mm format camera, or even that there should be such a thing, however I think it is accepted that A3 is max (11x17 approx) for most printing applications...
Click to expand...

For a 6mp camera maybe. :lol:

I've printed and sold 20 x 30" prints from an 8mp RebelXT.

The thing that you have to realize about large prints is viewing distance. If you press your nose up against the print you'll see problems. People don't look at posters that way. From a normal viewing distance it works just fine.
 
I've printed 20x30 and 24x36 from my 40D many times. I think they looked great, even a couple inches away. Everyone else thought they looked great to.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14887917#post14887917 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marino420td
Thanks for the post Titus. I am still somewhat new to photography (2 years) and very new to shooting RAW. So I don't know what to expect in a lot of cases.

But shouldn't I be able to shoot at 500 iso and get images that do not need a lot of processing to be usable? That's where my real ignorance comes into play. I know very little about post processing and frankly, I don't enjoy it. I want to get the best possible images right out of the camera.
Click to expand...
If you are determined to get the best possible images right out of the camera, you are going to have to accept the fact that your best possible image won't be as good as someone who takes their time with editing's best possible image. That is just reality. We wouldn't pay $1000 for editing software, much less perfect our skills with it and use those skills on every image, if it was possible to match the quality in the camera without it. I don't understand why people say "image wasn't edited" when they post them...unless they are embarrassed because they know the image could be better with editing, but then why post it? I dunno I just roll my eyes whenever people say that.:rolleyes:

As Doug said above, RAW is all about editing after the fact. Having an easier time editing an image is the sole purpose of shooting RAW. Of course the single hands down best quality of a DSLR is the ability to easily edit your images. If you don't want to edit your images you could get MUCH better film equipment for a MUCH lower cost and have someone else develop everything. Then again no film cost is another great thing about Digital....not as great as the editing part though.
 
Great discussion, thanks everyone for your points of view.

By the way, I really like the shot with the catcher and the dustcloud from catching the ball. Excellent timing. I can hear the ball hitting the mitt.
 
One other suggestion. If you have a flash with High Speed Sync (HSS) capabilities i.e. Canon 580 or 430 using it in this type of situation by providing some fill in the shadow areas and will cause the colors to "pop" more.
 
Sorry, my last post was unclear, I shouldn't type before the coffee has fully kicked in. What I meant to say was:

If you have a flash with High Speed Sync (HSS) capabilities i.e. Canon 580 or 430 using it in this type of situation MAY HELP IMPROVE THE PHOTO by providing some fill in the shadow areas and allowing the colors to "pop" more.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14894286#post14894286 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Bass
By the way, I really like the shot with the catcher and the dustcloud from catching the ball. Excellent timing. I can hear the ball hitting the mitt.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Anytime I'm shooting a baseball game with backlighting on the catcher, I try to get a good dust cloud shot. I just really think they look cool.

Ok guys, I think I get it now. I must apply some PP to my shots.

Now, who is giving lessons on Lightroom and Photoshop? :)
 
I'm still waiting on TS for his "don't ever use the brightness and contrast sliders" writeup on another thread, assuming he survived his boys' night out... :)
 
Actually, the B/C slider can be used quite effectively, just not the way that you think. :)


I use them a lot to bring out contrast in low contrast images. The key is that I convert to LAB mode and apply the adjustments to the Lightness channel only. The result is a high contrast image without any color shift.

I used that technique here:

http://images.hopdog.com/yos_7125-Edit.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Full tank video with Canon 7D--can't get it to look good
Replies
4
Views
2K
motohead400
M
dutch27
canon lens question
Replies
12
Views
1K
Reef Bass
Reef Bass
tdb320reef
DSLR help with SPS and LED Lit Tank.
Replies
16
Views
4K
aye89
aye89
Tinpanva
Just a couple of questions
Replies
6
Views
697
noy
N
B
Narrowing the dslr field
Replies
14
Views
595
Misled
Misled
Back
Top