Flowers in the winter time

[jlykins]

We have a conservetory in Cincinnati that is open to the public, so I thought I would spend a couple of hours there today playing with my "new to me" D70. These are the pics that I came up with. Everything was shot in manual mode, manual focus at an ISO of 200.

 

[Yahoozy]

cuz theres some grain on #1 and #4 which is wierd with a low ISO...

 

[jlykins]

Yes I used digital sr. I don't think it's grain. I think it's just likely bokeh.

 

[Yahoozy]

but my cameras DSR does that to the pic too

 

[jlykins]

but my cameras DSR does that to the pic too

I know what you're saying. That was the one thing that I didn't like so much about the pic, but then I remember back to the book "Understanding Exposure" and some of his pics were just like that so I assumed that it may be normal for some shots. I don't really know. I'm a noobie still, that's why I love others comments and suggestions.

 

[astrostu]

Heh ... I looked at the photos before reading what you wrote, and when I saw the second I thought, "That's the Krohn Conservatory." Then I looked at your location.

As for the grain in #1 & 4, that's not bokeh, that's color noise. Ensure that you're camera is saving them at its highest quality (RAW or best JPEG). Make sure you have your ISO to its lowest setting (should be 100 for that camera, I think). Then double the exposure length (assuming you're now using ISO 100 instead of 200). I've brought a tripod there during off-hours (like weekday mornings) and never had problems. If your originals look better, then it's probably very low-quality compression when you saved them for web display.

 

[jlykins]

Heh ... I looked at the photos before reading what you wrote, and when I saw the second I thought, "That's the Krohn Conservatory." Then I looked at your location.

As for the grain in #1 & 4, that's not bokeh, that's color noise. Ensure that you're camera is saving them at its highest quality (RAW or best JPEG). Make sure you have your ISO to its lowest setting (should be 100 for that camera, I think). Then double the exposure length (assuming you're now using ISO 100 instead of 200). I've brought a tripod there during off-hours (like weekday mornings) and never had problems. If your originals look better, then it's probably very low-quality compression when you saved them for web display.

When I printed them they didn't look too bad as far as noise goes. I have the iso on 200 which is the lowest the D70 goes I do believe. I used a tripod, but I think that it could be due to the lens that I used. I was using a 55-200vr for the close up stuff and the waterfall shots I was using an 18-55 "kit" lens. I want to get a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 depending on money. We'll see if this helps out as far as the grainyness goes. Like I said though when I printed them today they looked fine.

 

[niforpix]

The first photo is definately way too noisy for 200 iso. If you look at my post, I accidentaly shot mine at 800 iso! And even before I used Noise Ninja on them, they weren't even close to what yours is.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109904

I used Canon XTi and 100mm macro lens.

Other shots tho are quite nice

 

[astrostu]

When I printed them they didn't look too bad as far as noise goes. I have the iso on 200 which is the lowest the D70 goes I do believe. I used a tripod, but I think that it could be due to the lens that I used. I was using a 55-200vr for the close up stuff and the waterfall shots I was using an 18-55 "kit" lens. I want to get a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 depending on money. We'll see if this helps out as far as the grainyness goes. Like I said though when I printed them today they looked fine.

Yeah, my bad, the D70 only goes down to ISO 200. I still think they're fairly noisy, though, and that it's not due to the lens (except in #1 with the green leaf). Just look at the purple flower ... in-focus but a lot of color noise. Did you use too fast of an exposure and so have to bump the light levels up later in post-processing?

 

[jlykins]

Yeah, my bad, the D70 only goes down to ISO 200. I still think they're fairly noisy, though, and that it's not due to the lens (except in #1 with the green leaf). Just look at the purple flower ... in-focus but a lot of color noise. Did you use too fast of an exposure and so have to bump the light levels up later in post-processing?

Yeah I bumped the light levels in PP as well as the contrast. I was kind of in a hurry so I didn't do it selectivly I just did it to the whole photo. I'm off today so I'm going to take some time and see if I can make that picture look better.

 

[mstephens]

overlooking the noise. good comp!!! i like the coloring

 

[jlykins]

overlooking the noise. good comp!!! i like the coloring

Thanks! For the most part I was really happy with the way these turned out.

 

[jlykins]

So I figured out the issue. When I took the photo I had the shutter speed set way too high and the picture came out underexposed. But I liked the color of the flower so much that I decided to bump the brightness as well as the contrast to make it "pop". When I did that it introduced the noise. So I went back and took one of the shots that was the correct exposure and did some post on it. Here is the outcome. It doesn't have quite the deep purple color that the first one has, but overall it's a better pic IMHO.

 

[astrostu]

So I figured out the issue. When I took the photo I had the shutter speed set way too high and the picture came out underexposed. But I liked the color of the flower so much that I decided to bump the brightness as well as the contrast to make it "pop". When I did that it introduced the noise. So I went back and took one of the shots that was the correct exposure and did some post on it.

Yes, much better.

The noise was introduced because digital photos record distinct "hits" of light - photons. Photons are governed by discrete counting statistics, which are Poisson statistics. This says that the uncertainty in the count - or the noise level - is the square-root of the number of counts. So, let's say that in your original photo, you only recorded 100 photons per pixel. That means that each pixel has a noise level of ±10%. When you bumped up the brightness, you also bumped up the noise so it was still ±10%. When you re-took the photo, let's say that you now recorded 1,000 photons per pixel. This gives you a noise of ±3%, which is why it looks so much better in terms of color noise.

I need to remember to go back to the Krohn next time I'm in town.

 

[jlykins]

Yes, much better.

The noise was introduced because digital photos record distinct "hits" of light - photons. Photons are governed by discrete counting statistics, which are Poisson statistics. This says that the uncertainty in the count - or the noise level - is the square-root of the number of counts. So, let's say that in your original photo, you only recorded 100 photons per pixel. That means that each pixel has a noise level of ±10%. When you bumped up the brightness, you also bumped up the noise so it was still ±10%. When you re-took the photo, let's say that you now recorded 1,000 photons per pixel. This gives you a noise of ±3%, which is why it looks so much better in terms of color noise.

I need to remember to go back to the Krohn next time I'm in town.

Yes everyone that has the opportunity should check it out. The butterfly show is april through june. The photo nights are May 18th, May 23rd, and June 7th from 5:30pm to 7:30pm. The entry fee is $10. They also have a contest, (best photo) first place is $125 second is $75, third is $50, and 4 horerable mentions of $25. If anyone wants more info on that the website is www.butterflyshow.com. I know I'll be there, hopefully not too many people from this site show up (so I have a fighting chance).