Typical?

[dgrogers]

http://image.pbase.com/u/ronhep/upload/432428.Pa183423.jpg

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this particular camera have problems?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

IMHO it's a little on the noisy side, I wonder if the ISO was set to 80?

http://image.pbase.com/u/ronhep/upload/432428.Pa183423.jpg

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is
the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this
particular camera have problems?

 

[Jim N'AZ]

I have to agree, it is not typical and shows a bit more than I am used to seeing/having in my own 80 iso exposures. Regards, Jim N'AZ

http://image.pbase.com/u/ronhep/upload/432428.Pa183423.jpg

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is
the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this
particular camera have problems?

 

[dgrogers]

IMHO it's a little on the noisy side, I wonder if the ISO was set
to 80?

He said he used ISO 80. Shutter speed is 640 and aperture is f/8 @9mm. You can check it out in this link.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&page=1&message=1651314

I think I'd be bothered too much if I spend $1,200 plus $$ for accessories if the camera had this much noise. I'm really hoping it's not the case, eitherwise I may wait until next year before buying another camera or possibly spend another $1000 on a D30 (which is doubtfull).

http://image.pbase.com/u/ronhep/upload/432428.Pa183423.jpg

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is
the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this
particular camera have problems?

 

[Kelly Vann]

Take a look at this. Took this picture at ISO 80 and did a very moderate, yet quite effective post process action in PS to de-noise and sharpen. Didn't require much to achieve this level:
http://www.melonhawg.com/kvpics/PA064881.jpg

Hooray for PS and the digital darkroom! Regards, KV

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is
the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this
particular camera have problems?

 

[dgrogers]

Take a look at this. Took this picture at ISO 80 and did a very
moderate, yet quite effective post process action in PS to de-noise
and sharpen. Didn't require much to achieve this level:
http://www.melonhawg.com/kvpics/PA064881.jpg

Hooray for PS and the digital darkroom! Regards, KV

I'm not going to spend hundereds of dollars on PS, though Paint Shop Pro is looking good. That is extremely smooth, did your PS actions destroy detail?

 

[Jim N'AZ]

Kelly, What a terrific shot! It just screams COLOR! I like the composition as well. Good job! Regards, Jim N'AZ

Hooray for PS and the digital darkroom! Regards, KV

I found the link to this shot from an E-10 in another forum. Is
the amount of noise in this shot typical of the E-10 or does this
particular camera have problems?

 

[Kelly Vann]

I've tested umpteen PS noise reduction actions and found this one to be outstanding. Not only does it not destroy detail, it's the only one I've seen that actually appears to enhance it. I've used it on many images with differing lighting, exposure, etc. parameters and so far it works weill with all of them. Most striking, of course is the blue sky. Again, though the image did not start out with a great lot of noise. The action does a nice job at what it's supposed to do, but none of them work miracles. The photo was pretty darn smooth to begin with. Regards, KV

Take a look at this. Took this picture at ISO 80 and did a very
moderate, yet quite effective post process action in PS to de-noise
and sharpen. Didn't require much to achieve this level:
http://www.melonhawg.com/kvpics/PA064881.jpg

Hooray for PS and the digital darkroom! Regards, KV

 

[Kelly Vann]

Thanks Jim, that was a fun day. I've got a lot of really good shots from the fair. I plan to put some of the best ones up on a website pretty soon and then I'll post. Glad you like! Regards, KV

Kelly, What a terrific shot! It just screams COLOR! I like the
composition as well. Good job! Regards, Jim N'AZ

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

He said he used ISO 80. Shutter speed is 640 and aperture is f/8
@9mm. You can check it out in this link.

Well he SAID that, however, I find it odd that the images have been turned into bitmaps from JPGs (at least that one you referenced is). I can't image in why. I'd like to have a look at the EXIF information from both images.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&page=1&message=1651314

I think I'd be bothered too much if I spend $1,200 plus $$ for
accessories if the camera had this much noise. I'm really hoping
it's not the case, eitherwise I may wait until next year before
buying another camera or possibly spend another $1000 on a D30
(which is doubtfull).

I can also tell you that there is a borderline exposure problem with that particular image. I suspect that the camera was "maxing" -- i.e. flashing 1/640 because actually it was too bright for that exposure setting. A ND filter or polarizer would have helped, as would have closing down the aperture some.

Until I see some EXIF info, I can't really help much more.

 

[dgrogers]

http://pbase.com/ronhep/e10_6900

I see them as jpg. Try the link above, I don't have an exif viewer. Something could be wrong with his E-10 too. I'm just about ready to order the camera, but I want to be sure I'm not going to regrette my decision. I can't afford to regrette it.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

http://pbase.com/ronhep/e10_6900

I see them as jpg. Try the link above, I don't have an exif
viewer. Something could be wrong with his E-10 too. I'm just
about ready to order the camera, but I want to be sure I'm not
going to regrette my decision. I can't afford to regrette it.

They > SAY
I tried to read the exif data so I noticed this.

As your regretting your decision ... you shoud be buying the E-10 primarily for other reasons. The Fuji imaging system is excellent, and IMHO the E-10's imaging system is fine too. However the E-10's SLR form factor, features and functionality are its biggest assets over the Fuji.

 

[Breck57397]

Kelly,

I've just read this thread and the one you posted with this image. It looks absolutely great. Amazing in reference to the noise issue.

That said, would you be so kind as to share the specific action you took to enhance -- reduce noise and sharpen image -- in PS. PLEASE.

I would like to be able to refine my pictures as well.

Thanks so much,
Breck

Take a look at this. Took this picture at ISO 80 and did a very
moderate, yet quite effective post process action in PS to de-noise
and sharpen. Didn't require much to achieve this level:
http://www.melonhawg.com/kvpics/PA064881.jpg

Hooray for PS and the digital darkroom! Regards, KV

 

[Rich L.]

Kelly,

I've just read this thread and the one you posted with this image.
It looks absolutely great. Amazing in reference to the noise issue.

That said, would you be so kind as to share the specific action you
took to enhance -- reduce noise and sharpen image -- in PS. PLEASE.

I would like to be able to refine my pictures as well.

Thanks so much,
Breck

I'd like to second this request. I would love to know what PS action you use to achieve that wonderful result. I took a photo today and even after using the PS action from dpreview, am not happy with the noise reduction.

here is the original

RAW -> TIFF + unsharp 500-0.3-10 -> JPG 12 -> SuperJPG to resize to 1280 x 1024 95% quality
http://www.pbase.com/image/433265/original

Here is the noise reduced version using dpreview atn

RAW -> TIFF + dpreview noise reduction + unsharp 500-0.3-10 -> JPG 12 -> SuperJPG to resize to 1280 x 1024 95% quality
http://www.pbase.com/image/433269/original

I know I used a bit to much CP on the photo. shrug live and learn.

Rich L.

 

[Erik Ehudin]

Make that three calls for this action. Does it work in 5.5, or just 6? Results look great, and I've just got finished manually removing noise from 175 underexposed shots from a dance recital. TIA.

 

[Erik Ehudin]

Noise does increase with distance from a correct exposure, and this one does look a bit blown out. I'd also be interested in knowing the JPEG compression setting used. I've never had a shot like this outdoors in good light. Sometimes have to slap on a polarizer to keep from overexposing, though. You will certainly not regret buying an E-10.

 

[Brian Semotiuk]

Internet Explorer does that sometimes - does not allow you to save a JPG loaded on-screen and you have to go to the preceding page to download it.

I downloaded the jpg and checked the EXIF - it is in fact ISO80!

Try right-click and save this (you also may have to add the .jpg extension in windows explorer afterwards) and you will be able to see the EXIF.

http://pbase.com/image/432428/original

BTW, I see the noise but it is easily removable in post-editing and either way probably would not show up on a print!

http://pbase.com/ronhep/e10_6900

I see them as jpg. Try the link above, I don't have an exif
viewer. Something could be wrong with his E-10 too. I'm just
about ready to order the camera, but I want to be sure I'm not
going to regrette my decision. I can't afford to regrette it.

They > SAY
I tried to read the exif data so I noticed this.

As your regretting your decision ... you shoud be buying the E-10
primarily for other reasons. The Fuji imaging system is excellent,
and IMHO the E-10's imaging system is fine too. However the E-10's
SLR form factor, features and functionality are its biggest assets
over the Fuji.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Wow, that's really a new one on me! I didn't know about it. And believe me, I've "borrowed" a LOT of on-screen jpegs from various places in the last year. Is it something to do with the fact that it's from a photo album site?

Anything else you see in the EXIF that might point to the culprit? I am at work so I can't check it right now. All i know is that image seems to have an inordinate amount of noise ... it reminds me of pics I've seen from a Kodak DC4800!

Dr G/

Internet Explorer does that sometimes - does not allow you to save
a JPG loaded on-screen and you have to go to the preceding page to
download it.

I downloaded the jpg and checked the EXIF - it is in fact ISO80!

Try right-click and save this (you also may have to add the .jpg
extension in windows explorer afterwards) and you will be able to
see the EXIF.

http://pbase.com/image/432428/original

BTW, I see the noise but it is easily removable in post-editing and
either way probably would not show up on a print!

 

[Brian Semotiuk]

Ok, after I posted this I notice a couple of things...

The image has been rotated 90 degrees. Also the jpeg filesize is only 974 KB where an SHQ would be approximately 2.3 MB. This size difference could be caused by several things - a lower quality setting in camera (which could result in more noise) and lossless jpg rotation, or post-editing to rotate and re-saved using jpg re-compression which may add more noise. Since most moder utilities preserve EXIF header we cannot presume that this is original from the camera in this case.

 

[Erik Ehudin]

Okay, I downloaded the pic, as well, and the compression is 8:1 JPEG (1/640, f8, full wide, auto WB). This certainly doesn't help.