Help with grain.

NikonDude · Sep 30, 2011

I guess all cameras are not created equal.

I recently returned a Panasonic digital camera to HSN for poor indoor pictures.

I bought an Olympus FE at radioshack on clearence. I knew Olympus made good film cameras, but horrible digital cameras I assume from the pictures it took.
With regular indoor lighting, anything black would blend together.

So back it went. This time I used my head and read reviews, people seemed to like Casio cameras. Radioshack had one on sale for $89.99, so I picked it up.

This takes somewhat better inside pics, but now outdoor seems crappy.

Take a look at this picture of my Directv dish that I took. This was on a clear day, the background is very grainy.

WesternGuy · Sep 30, 2011

Welcome to the forum. I am not sure what you want or mean by the title of your posting - help with grain, because you make no mention of anything to do with "grain" in you posting. Are these images straight out of your camera with no post-processing? Anyway, to carry on...

You are definitely right - "all cameras are not created equal" and like anything else in the digital world, you get exactly what you pay for. I can't really comment too much on the cameras of your choice as I am not familiar with them, but I am assuming they are point and shoot (P&S). It is always a good idea to tell us what camera model, etc., that you used, because then anyone familiar with your model or a similar one, can comment from experience. As far as getting what you paid for, an $89 camera takes $89 images.

What you have posted is a nice snapshot, but you also gave your camera's meter something to "contend with" - darker green trees and grass, and a bright, partly cloudy, sky. Really too much of a dynamic range for most cameras to capture without underexposing the shadows and blowing out the sky. I would suggest that you read up on the exposure triangle - Google it on the web and you will find more than you can read, or maybe even want...

to read. Alternatively, Bryan Peterson has written a book - Understanding Exposure - which is recommended reading, well more like required reading, for anyone just starting out. As well, he has a more recent book - Learning to See Creatively which looks at the "composition" side of photography. Maybe you could expand a little on what you were expecting, by posting this image...

Cheers,

WesternGuy

NikonDude · Sep 30, 2011

Well...take a look at a photo of a tree I took. The trunk has "grain" to it. This again was on a normal day.

Netskimmer · Sep 30, 2011

It could just be that I am really tired (it's past my bed time) but I don't see any grain. Could it be pixelation rather than grain (image noise) that you are seeing?

PatrickJamesYu · Sep 30, 2011

In the digital world, it's called Noise,
i think that's why there was confusion.
In the film world it's grain.

Check in the camera menu settings.
If you're familiar with film, digital cameras also have ISO.
Except with digital, you can easily change the ISO.
On film, you always had to put different speed film in.

Your ISO is probably set on AUTO right now.
And the problem your camera is having is probably that its setting the ISO in the higher ranges, allowing for a faster shutter speed
(which tends to be more family friendly).
Try to drop the ISO lower, as low as it can go, to see an improvement and work from there to see what fits your needs.
Maybe try 200 or even 100 if possible.

cgipson1 · Sep 30, 2011

The size of the images precludes a really good look for noise (grain)... so maybe if you were to do a heavy crop and post that, so we can evaluate it better? Although Patrick is probably right about the ISO issue.. most cameras like that are designed to take control away from the user, so that shots come out reasonably well exposed, but seldom anywhere close to perfect. Cameras in the price range you mention have their limitations, unfortunately.

I didn't even know Casio made cameras... lol! I used to like their watches... but cameras?

NikonDude · Sep 30, 2011

I think I'm going to return this camera and get a Canon A3100IS

Sw1tchFX · Sep 30, 2011

Why not upgrade to film? You can get something like a Nikon N75 with a lens for under $100 now. That will blow away ANY point and shoot and compare well to a DSLR, and in some ways out perform them (of course depending on the film).

Netskimmer · Sep 30, 2011

PatrickJamesYu said:
In the digital world, it's called Noise,
i think that's why there was confusion.
In the film world it's grain.

Check in the camera menu settings.
If you're familiar with film, digital cameras also have ISO.
Except with digital, you can easily change the ISO.
On film, you always had to put different speed film in.

Your ISO is probably set on AUTO right now.
And the problem your camera is having is probably that its setting the ISO in the higher ranges, allowing for a faster shutter speed
(which tends to be more family friendly).
Try to drop the ISO lower, as low as it can go, to see an improvement and work from there to see what fits your needs.
Maybe try 200 or even 100 if possible.

His ISO is set to 100 for both pics. Here is the exif data for them:

1.
Camera Maker: CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.
Camera Model: EX-ZS5
Image Date: 2011-09-28 16:06:01 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 4.7mm (35mm equivalent: 26mm)
Aperture: f/7.9
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: 1.00

2.
Camera Maker: CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.
Camera Model: EX-ZS5
Image Date: 2011-09-28 16:06:10 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 4.7mm (35mm equivalent: 26mm)
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Exposure: program (Auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: 1.00

cgipson1 · Sep 30, 2011

Netskimmer said:
His ISO is set to 100 for both pics. Here is the exif data for them:

hahaha... thats funny! I almost always check Exif.. but didn't this time. I guess I am a subconscious P&S snob or something. Good call, Netskimmer! I would say that they are underexposed then....

KmH · Sep 30, 2011

I took a close look at both photos you posted.
There is nothing wrong with the camera.

Your expectations exceed what the camera and lens are capable of.

Under exposure makes noise more visable, and because the signal-to-noise ratio is smaller, darker areas of a digital photo will alsways show more noise than the bright areas of a photo.
The camera you have is likely metering an average of the light in the scene. when ther is bright sky and darker aras, the image sensors dynamic range can't record the scene accurately.

gsgary · Sep 30, 2011

Could it be that the person holding the camera has not go a clue what they are doing, There was nothing wrong with the first 2 cameras and what the **** do you expect from an $89 camera

thereyougo! · Sep 30, 2011

gsgary said:
Could it be that the person holding the camera has not go a clue what they are doing, There was nothing wrong with the first 2 cameras and what the **** do you expect from an $89 camera

I'm new here, but the poor guy is asking for help, and you've shot two people down in the space of a few minutes. We all start somewhere with a cheap camera, and them move forward with our ability and as our budget allows.

I suspect that the OP is getting as much from the camera as it is capable of doing. I would suggest looking at used bridge or DSLR cameras if he wants more control - a Bridge camera would be a good start. But try and keep the zoom range sensible as otherwise distortion creeps in. Generally in digital, the bigger the sensor the better it handles noise. it all depends what you want from your photography.

gsgary · Sep 30, 2011

thereyougo! said:
gsgary said:

Could it be that the person holding the camera has not go a clue what they are doing, There was nothing wrong with the first 2 cameras and what the **** do you expect from an $89 camera

Click to expand...

I'm new here, but the poor guy is asking for help, and you've shot two people down in the space of a few minutes. We all start somewhere with a cheap camera, and them move forward with our ability and as our budget allows.

I suspect that the OP is getting as much from the camera as it is capable of doing. I would suggest looking at used bridge or DSLR cameras if he wants more control - a Bridge camera would be a good start. But try and keep the zoom range sensible as otherwise distortion creeps in. Generally in digital, the bigger the sensor the better it handles noise. it all depends what you want from your photography.