FotoMark wrote:
does seem noisy for iso 100

that's what I was thinking. 

FotoMark wrote:
does seem noisy for iso 100

Moon Pix Photography wrote:

+1

did you do any post before reducing, sometimes that can create unintended textures.

Southern Glamour wrote:

+1

did you do any post before reducing, sometimes that can create unintended textures.

that's how it's showing up in raw.  All I did was export a smaller size for the web, but I've done nothing else to it, other than as mentioned white balance, but even then the master has the same amount of noise.  Looking through a lot of the rest of what I've shot they're all looking similar.

Solstice Retouch wrote:
Or is that .jpg or re-size compression issues rather than noise? Full resolution to compare?

trust me, it's not .jpg or re-sizing compression issues.  that's for all intense purposes the raw file.  I'm willing to email the .cr2 to anyone willing to confirm

fine art nudes by paul wrote:
going through some of the pics from last night and I noticed that a few of them were having some pretty bad noise issues.

here is an example that shows it fairly well:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/17366241
(the shot is a nude btw)

tech info: iso 100, metered via sekonic 758, pw trigger. I've done nothing but some raw color correction/wb but the master still exhibits the same

You probably ought to mark the photo as +18 in your portfolio.

KB9NDF wrote:
You probably ought to mark the photo as +18 in your portfolio.

i would if I thought I was going to leave it up.  I won't get into it but I personally think that marking it as 18+ is silly.  First of all, you don't have to be 18 to view it, nor technically 18 to create it.  but, that's a different thread

fine art nudes by paul wrote:

trust me, it's not .jpg or re-sizing compression issues.  that's for all intense purposes the raw file.  I'm willing to email the .cr2 to anyone willing to confirm

I trust. By the way, how long have you had the camera? Is this the first time it is happening I am assuming?

Another question, after metering for the shot, was the exposure raised in post just a bit or was it exported directly as is? I ask since raising exposure via raw can increase noise, in case that may be a plausible scenario.

Solstice Retouch wrote:

I trust. By the way, how long have you had the camera? Is this the first time it is happening I am assuming?

Another question, after metering for the shot, was the exposure raised in post just a bit or was it exported directly as is? I ask since raising exposure via raw can increase noise, in case that may be a plausible scenario.

like I said, the only thing that's been done was the wb.  no adjustments to anything else, including exposure.  The camera is getting old, in terms of 'doggie' years, i.e., digital camera years.  this photo is the 58,089th shot I've taken with the camera per my records.  the camera is coming up on 6 years old (when was the 20d released?  I got it that October).  As for it happening before, no I've never noticed anything like this at iso 100 before.  But, I am noticing it in shots from earlier in the day as well.  I'm going to start going back in time shoot by shoot for the recent stuff I've done, to see if I notice anything different.

I am curious though if it's something wrong with the raw processor, and would love someone to confirm/deny it on their system

Brian Ziff wrote:
I don't see any noise.

bottom right of the image, in the shadows of the legs.

Mearle wrote:
I wouldn't mind looking at the RAW file w/o any auto adjustments. But off-hand it appears that what noise you have is due to underexposure (which may well have been your intent).

i could understand if it was seriously underexposed and/or underexposed and then brought back up in raw, but I honestly don't think that it's underexposed enough to produce that amount of noise, and definitely not in the range where the noise is showing up.

pm me our email or whatever and I'll drop it in the mail for you to take a look at

Philipe wrote:
The picture looks a little under exposed, in comparison to your other pictures. Where the other images have more contrast with high lighting.. It depends on the other settings on your camera too..... What was the speed and Fstop?

iso 100 f5.6 1/160.

meter read at 5.6 when pointed towards the main light (to camera right) at the models position.

fine art nudes by paul wrote:

iso 100 f5.6 1/160.

meter read at 5.6 when pointed towards the main light (to camera right) at the models position.

What kind of light? Hot? Strobe? whats the ws?
It looks like you needed more light.... Lower the shutter speed is one way... Is there a reason your shooting at 1/160?

Philipe wrote:
What kind of light? Hot? Strobe? whats the ws?
It looks like you needed more light.... Lower the shutter speed is one way... Is there a reason your shooting at 1/160?

strobe, 750 from the one on camera right, 300 from the one on camera left...  I don't remember their specific settings or powers though. 1/160 is less then the sync speed of the camera but faster than the ambient?

Images by MR wrote:
Honestly I think you're crazy cuz the image looks amazing & even more so considering it's not edited........

But hey that's just me

~ MR

as much as I appreciate that, I guess I'm just being a bit picky about iso 100?

Philipe wrote:
Do test shots and remember your settings..
Experiment with lights and settings... It may be an old camera and showing wear...
Has anything been replaced in your camera?

the light on the right was aprox. 3/4 power, maybe a little less.  I didn't pay attention to what the power was on the head, only what the light meter read at the subject mark.  granted, the light was behind her and there wasn't a 'main' light.  there are others from the shoot that exhibit the same noise pattern, this one just really caught my eye.

quit sure it's just an old camera starting to show it's wear, and no nothing has been replaced

Mearle wrote:
OK, I looked at the RAW pretty closely. I needed to add 2 stops of exposure to the histogram to allow it to just touch the right side, so yes, there is some underexposure here. But brightening the image further I can see the mottling on her right thigh is distinctly a different pattern from the shadow background noise. So I honestly think her skin itself is the problem. The top of her hip in brighter light has that same mottling. It reminds me of the spray tans some gals get, an uneven skin tone.
I don't see any sensor problem at all. I'd just open your lens more for these shots to help get your best shadow detail, then drop your exposure back in post processing for effect.

interesting...  would you mind exporting and posting for comparison.  I'm wondering now if I've got something wrong with the raw processing on my machine.  it's possible that there is something that's corrupt because I'm not seeing anything that I would consider 'mottling' and I don't remember her skin being anywhere as uneven as what I'm seeing.  this is looking to be some serious noise issues on my side, so I'm very curious to see how it's looking on your computer

fine art nudes by paul wrote:
interesting...  would you mind exporting and posting for comparison.  I'm wondering now if I've got something wrong with the raw processing on my machine.  it's possible that there is something that's corrupt because I'm not seeing anything that I would consider 'mottling' and I don't remember her skin being anywhere as uneven as what I'm seeing.  this is looking to be some serious noise issues on my side, so I'm very curious to see how it's looking on your computer

I'm backing up 2TB of files in the background right now, so I'll have to wait until morning to post anything, when I am able to access my web site files on a drive that's off-line right now. I'll email you privately a screen capture of what I'm seeing though.

fine art nudes by paul wrote:
as much as I appreciate that, I guess I'm just being a bit picky about iso 100?

Plz note I'm just a rookie

Most of my work is strobist style "using speedlights"   & I was told to never shoot less then iso 200. Something to do with the native iso is 200?

Here's a link I found.  Not sure if helpful but interesting.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/30791 … ive-sensor

Post from link..

** If the quantization of the data were not an issue, this would be true.
Imagine, however, that if by some magic, all of a sudden the camera had
ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.5625, etc. All of the super-low ISOs
have the same limitation; the bit depth of the image, which breaks up
the shadows, by posterizing them. It's not noise, per se, but it might
as well be. Once you visualize this, then it is easy to see how the
"noise" in the shadows at ISO 200 is not twice as bad as the noise at
ISO 100, even though it is about twice as strong, in the sensor itself.**


Cheers ~ MR

Edit :  I use the nikon D80.

Images by MR wrote:

Plz note I'm just a rookie

Most of my work is strobist style "using speedlights"   & I was told to never shoot less then iso 200. Something to do with the native iso is 200?

Here's a link I found.  Not sure if helpful but interesting.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/30791 … ive-sensor

Post from link..

** If the quantization of the data were not an issue, this would be true.
Imagine, however, that if by some magic, all of a sudden the camera had
ISO 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.5625, etc. All of the super-low ISOs
have the same limitation; the bit depth of the image, which breaks up
the shadows, by posterizing them. It's not noise, per se, but it might
as well be. Once you visualize this, then it is easy to see how the
"noise" in the shadows at ISO 200 is not twice as bad as the noise at
ISO 100, even though it is about twice as strong, in the sensor itself.**


Cheers ~ MR

Edit :  I use the nikon D80.

I've heard similar arguments before, but honestly I've never seen in practicality anything but an increase in noise by moving from iso 100 to 200, granted not terribly noticeable, but never have I seen a decrease in noise with an increase in iso.

Mearle wrote:
I just emailed 2 screen shots, exposure boosted,  to Paul, one w/o noise reduction, and one with noise reduction.
The noise essentially goes away, the skin problem remains.
Maybe he can post them here.

got the files and I'm looking at them now.  The one you marked as having no noise reduction looks 'cleaner' than what I was seeing, so I'm reinstalling the raw processor right now and once that's done I'm going to give the file another look.  BUT, even with that being the case, I am having a hard time accepting that level of noise at an ISO 100 file in that area of the dynamic range.  Personally, it looks more like I shot the camera at 1600 than at 100.

I am still curious an apples to apples comparison, since you say you upped the exposure a bit

fine art nudes by paul wrote:
quit sure it's just an old camera starting to show it's wear, and no nothing has been replaced

Something may go, it will most likely be the shutter..... Have Canon check the sensor.
I have not used the 20d in years and the shutter went out, long before yours...

Also have the same settings on both film camera and your dslr and meter it. It should have the same read on your meter.
I did this once and the pictures did not look the same...
Meaning what once worked for film did not quite work for digital..
There was a little bit of exposure difference.
Remember, your light meter is telling you the recommended settings for your camera.
Which is nice, but its not the law.....
I always break the law...

fine art nudes by paul wrote:
got the files and I'm looking at them now.  The one you marked as having no noise reduction looks 'cleaner' than what I was seeing, so I'm reinstalling the raw processor right now and once that's done I'm going to give the file another look.  BUT, even with that being the case, I am having a hard time accepting that level of noise at an ISO 100 file in that area of the dynamic range.  Personally, it looks more like I shot the camera at 1600 than at 100.

I am still curious an apples to apples comparison, since you say you upped the exposure a bit

2 1/2 stops exposure added for the screen shots, in Adobe LightRoom, camera raw, v. 2.7

... Yawn. Bedtime. I have a shoot in the morning.

Philipe wrote:

Something may go, it will most likely be the shutter..... Have Canon check the sensor.
I have not used the 20d in years and the shutter went out, long before yours...

Also have the same settings on both film camera and your dslr and meter it. It should have the same read on your meter.
I did this once and the pictures did not look the same...
Meaning what once worked for film did not quite work for digital..
There was a little bit of exposure difference.
Remember, your light meter is telling you the recommended settings for your camera.
Which is nice, but its not the law.....
I always break the law...

since it's strobe, metering in camera versus metering with a handheld is going to be drastically different.

That being said, I'm quite sure that my camera is getting quite old and is probably having some issues right now.  I'm surprised it's lasted this long.


in all honesty, it's probably time to win the lottery and replace the camera

Mearle wrote:
I'd just open your lens more for these shots to help get your best shadow detail, then drop your exposure back in post processing for effect.

Yes.