Convert adjusted Raw-s Image to JPEG

[zenscape]

I used a 40D to take Raw-s images and thereafter downloaded from camera to PC and opened images via Digital Photo Professional ver 3.1 (DPP). Adjusted RGB curve and sharpness. Thereafter I converted adjusted Raw-s images to JPEG and save to 'my picture'. However, the JPEG saved is really noisy.

Why is it so? The images were clear right from LCD of camera and before and after adjustment via DPP. :dunno:

 

[USM]

Yo Bro, it is not right to judge sharpness / clear based on camera's LCD? It is not accurate.

Many a time, images look good on LCD screen but when you have downloaded onto your computer, it is another story.

You may want to post the before / after image so that we can see what's happening.

 

[zenscape]

Thanks for your prompt reply, bro.

Not only on LCD of camera, but after downloading on PC, the images were sharp and clear. It became grainny after images converted to JPEG.

This is the 'After' JPEG image. I am still struggling on how to download raw-s image to gallery. So sorry. Newbie here.

 

[justanut]

I can't see your exif details... What ISO were you on? Shutter? Focal Length?

 

[zenscape]

I can't see your exif details... What ISO were you on? Shutter? Focal Length?

Oh, sorry, left out these details:-
1/30sec, ISO 640 (on iso auto), f2.8 (AV mode). No flash and relying on room FL light.

 

[ultrazoom]

What's the quality you saved as for the JPG?

 

[catchlights]

shooting raw will not able to save badly exposed images.

if you image is underexposed, you up the exposure in post, will make the image even more noisy.

 

[megaweb]

What will cause more noise to the photo ?
- increase brightness for underexposed shot
- increase contrast
- increase sharpness
- high ISO

 

[calebk]

First, you used an in-between ISO value. Better to control your ISO value.

Common photography sense dictates the following:
ISO 100: Bright sunny day/long exposure at night
ISO 200: Cloudier, dimmer day light
ISO 400: fast paced action on a cloudy day/bright indoors
ISO 800: Dimmer indoors/largely still a lot of available light
ISO 1600: Very dim lighting

Don't use the inbetweens on the xxD series, as they have a higher noise level than the full ISO stops.

Secondly, we don't know what you did to the image, and also what noise reduction settings you used.

 

[zenscape]

First, you used an in-between ISO value. Better to control your ISO value.

Common photography sense dictates the following:
ISO 100: Bright sunny day/long exposure at night
ISO 200: Cloudier, dimmer day light
ISO 400: fast paced action on a cloudy day/bright indoors
ISO 800: Dimmer indoors/largely still a lot of available light
ISO 1600: Very dim lighting

Don't use the inbetweens on the xxD series, as they have a higher noise level than the full ISO stops.

Secondly, we don't know what you did to the image, and also what noise reduction settings you used.

Ok, I will watch out ISO next time instead of choosing ISO auto.

What's the quality you saved as for the JPG?

I don't know the quality. I merely converted original Raw-s size to JPG and then reduced the size down 40% to upload gallery for this site.

shooting raw will not able to save badly exposed images.

if you image is underexposed, you up the exposure in post, will make the image even more noisy.

Roger and noted. I believe it was underexposed as I had to up the curve to brighten it up. I suspect so :think:

Could anyone point to me the way to reduce the size of raw-s image so that I could upload on gallery of SC?:lovegrin:

 

[zenscape]

I was using Tamron 17-50 f2.8, fully zoomed in for the snap. Would I get a cleaner image if I get a 50mm f1.8 to take close up shots of my dog like the one above given the same conditions? Pardon me, trying to learn from sifu here :lovegrin:

 

[mervinb]

Don't use the inbetweens on the xxD series, as they have a higher noise level than the full ISO stops.

Do you have some specific source for this advice? I remember reading a test report that indicated the opposite -- that noise at iso160, 320 and some other values gave better noise compared to iso125 and 200, 250 and 400 respectively.

 

[calebk]

Do you have some specific source for this advice? I remember reading a test report that indicated the opposite -- that noise at iso160, 320 and some other values gave better noise compared to iso125 and 200, 250 and 400 respectively.

I cannot remember where I saw it already. It was a graph drawn out that showed the signal/noise ratio at these different ISOs. Because the inbetween ISOs are software based, the noise levels are higher. For instance, ISO 640 is actually ISO 800 -2/3EV

 

[mervinb]

I cannot remember where I saw it already. It was a graph drawn out that showed the signal/noise ratio at these different ISOs. Because the inbetween ISOs are software based, the noise levels are higher. For instance, ISO 640 is actually ISO 800 -2/3EV

After lots of searching, I've found the posts, and as I read them, 160/320/640 actually produce the least noise (see http://forums.canonphotogroup.com/showthread.php?t=958). There is some lowering of maximum clip point, but overall it appears that the consensus is to use these values, or to stick for full iso values, but to avoid 125/250/500...

This thread has an even more detailed explanation: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=25086574&page=4

 

[Canto]

Thanks for your prompt reply, bro.

Not only on LCD of camera, but after downloading on PC, the images were sharp and clear. It became grainny after images converted to JPEG.

This is the 'After' JPEG image. I am still struggling on how to download raw-s image to gallery. So sorry. Newbie here.

did u saved ur jpeg in maximium file size (12) or smallest file size? (1 - 5)? :think: try save in max file size. try use photoshop.