noisy image at low iso

[fordfulkerson]

I seems like I am getting noise even at low iso levels. I am using a canon 60D with 18-135mm lens.
Am I doing something wrong?

Image 1: raw jpeg
Imge 2: raw jpeg

Also, I am a newbie and any suggestions on how to improve the photo will be much appreciated! Thank you!

 

[kcvpr]

The noise that you're referring to in my opinion is probably from the haze that is presant in the two pictures. Some of things I noticed - Image 1: the horizon isn't level - Image 2: the horizon isn't quite level but better than #1, and too much sand in the foreground for my taste.

Practice makes perfect! All the pros started with one shutter release...

 

[jaomul]

Ya more likely haze than noise

 

[Didereaux]

I took the liberty of making one adj to your photo #1 I applied a +25 dehaze to it. Dehaze is a useful thing, BUT is very very easy to over apply.

 

[Braineack]

fwiw,personal store sites like dropbox are banned at most worksites. so i was unable to view the images.

dont mistake noise for atmospheric junk.

 

[fordfulkerson]

Thank you all for your replies! I am sure I am going to learn something new everyday on this forum!

@Braineack Is there any recommended way to upload photos? Initially when I used the upload photo option, it gave an error saying the file size was above the allowed limit. Hence I used dropbox.

 

[dxqcanada2]

How to post pictures and use forum functions: A pictoral guide to using TPF

 

[KmH]

Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

 

[Ysarex85 80]

Noise looks appropriate to me. You exposed with the camera set to ISO 100, but arguably you could have used a little more exposure. The lighting is side to backlight and as such high contrast. That's considerably mitigated by the haze, but you are still left with the question, are the highlights in the water diffuse or specular. Your exposure has retained full detail in all the highlights with some room to spare. So you could have used some more exposure. Noise is really a function of exposure and not ISO.

It's a nice photo -- you basically did a good job. You asked for tips. Your camera software didn't do a stellar job processing the photo. See what you think of this; I normalized the tone response.

Joe

 

[fordfulkerson]

@Ysarex The edited image looks amazing! Out of curiosity what all post processing did you do to get such a image?

Also, in such cases where it might be hazy, cloudy, etc may be I should take photos at different exposures? Or do you recommend always taking photos at different exposures.

Also, what do you think about the focus? I was trying to have as much of an image in focus as possible.

 

[fordfulkerson]

I realized we are not supposed to have photo critique over here. so you can disregard my question regarding the focus.

 

[KmH]

Fog, not haze.

 

[Ysarex85 80]

@Ysarex The edited image looks amazing! Out of curiosity what all post processing did you do to get such a image?

Also, in such cases where it might be hazy, cloudy, etc may be I should take photos at different exposures? Or do you recommend always taking photos at different exposures.

Also, what do you think about the focus? I was trying to have as much of an image in focus as possible.

Your focus looks good. You probably could have done the same at f/8. I'm impressed in fact that that zoom lens did as well as it did.

Exposure can be a tricky business. You basically left it to the camera to make the exposure call. I'm not sure but I suspect you had your camera metering mode set to Evaluative. Because you posted the raw file (good idea to keep saving those!) I was able to check your raw sensor exposure and that's why I said you could have exposed more. Different people with different goals will make that exposure call differently. Sounds like you're at a point where you need to learn more before you just start blindly making changes. Here's something to read: http://photojoes.net/class_notes/chapter01.html

What I did processing your photo was avoid the mistakes that your camera software made. I started from scratch with the raw file. There's nothing wrong with your camera there are just limitations to what the automated software in any camera can do. In simple terms, you and I can see and your camera can't.

The differences between your camera's version and mine are all apparent in these two graphs:

The biggest difference is in the left side of the graph. That's the dark side with the left corner representing black (read that link above). Notice how the bulk of the graph in your camera's version ends far from reaching that left corner of the graph. There's just a small thin line that extends to the corner -- basically a full 1/4 of the available tone range (dark side) is not being utilized by your camera's JPEG. That's the biggest change I made and accounts for most of the difference you see.

A similar but not as extreme situation is taking place at the right end of the graph. Notice how your camera's version ends abruptly before reaching the right corner (white) and then a thin line extends up to the corner. I also corrected that problem. I was able to do what I did because you saved the raw file. It would not have been possible to do the same trying to repair the camera JPEG. The raw file contains all the data your camera recorded. Keep saving them and in time you can learn to process your photos to better results than your camera's automated software. Folks here at TPF can help.

Joe