Issues with photos, not sure if it's the camera or the lens

[foresteronw]

Recently I've noticed my photographs have been very grainy or pixelated (not sure what the correct word for that is).

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. If you look around the edge of the moon you will see pixels.

Canon T3i, Lens Tamron 75-300mm with 2X teleconverter on tripod
Settings - F Stop F/11, Exposure Time 1/50 sec., ISO-100, Exposure Bias O Step, Focal Length 600mm, Max Aperture 6.875, Metering Mode Pattern, No Flash

The second example is of a dog I took sitting on the couch. The dog looks clear but when you open the image in photoshop and view in actual size the leather, especially above her back, is very pixelated.

Settings - F Stop F/5, Exposure Time 1/200 sec., ISO-400, Exposure Bias O Step, Focal Length 42mm, Max Aperture 4.625, Metering Mode Pattern, Flash Compulsory

One thing I want to add is that a couple months ago my camera was bumped and fell off of the table. I'm honestly hoping that you guys see some setting that I'm messing up and can change and all is better though.

 

[480sparky]

The reason you see pixels is that is what is used to display the images..... they're made up of pixels. If you enlarge ANY digital image enough, you'll see the individual pixels.

The moon photo is blurry, due to either movement or poor focus. Not sure what you're seeing in the dog image.

 

[foresteronw]

The reason you see pixels is that is what is used to display the images..... they're made up of pixels. If you enlarge ANY digital image enough, you'll see the individual pixels.

The moon photo is blurry, due to either movement or poor focus. Not sure what you're seeing in the dog image.

Should you see pixels when viewing it at "actual size"?

 

[480sparky]

Should you see pixels when viewing it at "actual size"?

What is 'actual size'?

 

[snowbear]

Should you see pixels when viewing it at "actual size"?

What is 'actual size'?

3,474 meters across for the moon. If you want apparent size, it's about the width of a dime held at arm's length.

 

[480sparky]

3,474 meters across for the moon. If you want apparent size, it's about the width of a dime held at arm's length.

IMSMC, I think it's more like 10 feet.

 

[bratkinson]

As Sparky noted above, if you enlarge any image enough, the individual pixels will show up. Given the shot of the moon, with the moon filling the image posted here, I'm guessing you've cropped the image down to the center 10% of so of the shot and posted it here. Even with a high-pixel full frame camera, taking the center 10% will oftentimes result in seeing the individual squares (pixels, if you will) of the image.

The shot of the dog looks fine, in my opinion.

 

[foresteronw]

Should you see pixels when viewing it at "actual size"?

What is 'actual size'?

Sorry, what I mean by that is the "100%" option in Photoshop. When I load the photo to photoshop, click "view" then select "100%" that is where I see the pixels. I'm not trying to blow the photo up more than 100%.

My concern is if I were to try and have a photo printed at 100% would it look terrible.

 

[480sparky]

.....My concern is if I were to try and have a photo printed at 100% would it look terrible.

How big would 'printed at 100%' be?

 

[Designer]

Also, for large prints, apparent sharpness will depend on the viewing distance.

 

[Didereaux]

No one has asked what ISO you are using for these shots? All of the comments are legit, but the ISO really needs tot be known.

 

[waday]

Don't look at the pictures at 100%.

I don't see the issues with the pictures, aside from the moon not being in focus.

No one has asked what ISO you are using for these shots? All of the comments are legit, but the ISO really needs tot be known.

It's in the OP. Moon: 100; Dog: 400.

 

[EIngerson]

Was the moon shot on a tripod? With 600mm at 1/50th of a sec breathing is going to disturb the camera. It's just a soft image.

 

[pgriz]

A few technical points: on a moon shot, an aperture of f/11 is not needed as the moon is effectively at infinity as far as the lens is concerned. An effective focal length of 600mm requires really steady support AND a fast shutter, as the moon's apparent motion will be apparent at that focal length with a shutter speed of about 1/100 sec or less. Your metering mode should probably be "spot", and your focus can be manually set using the 10x live-view. If you underexposed the original image, then compensated in post, you'll see the noise boosted, especially in the dark areas. If you've also cropped the image, then the image pixels will also appear larger.

 

[sashbar]

No one has asked what ISO you are using for these shots? All of the comments are legit, but the ISO really needs tot be known.

No one asked about the ISO because they actually read the original post, I think.