I have been loving this camera! but i have been noticing a graininess when i look at the images 100%. (which is actually about 3x the screen resolution)
it is prounounced in the sky for day shots and was very apparent (to me) when i shot the dawn patrol it was very aparent even after post processing:
I was shooting with a non vr 70-300 zoom, and I'm pretty sure it was wide open, shutter around 250-500ish maybe a tad faster.
ISO was set to 500
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#1. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 0km6xz Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Thu 20-Jun-13 05:51 PM
I would be very surprised if it didn't with a capture that is rather under exposed. The camera can't invent light when it is not there, particularly when viewing greatly magnified at 100% A 24mpx campers with tiny pixels is going to show more grain than low res cameras of the same sensor quality because 100% is looking at a small space of a much larger image. If viewed normally, at intended distance and print size, it will have less noise than any other DX camera.
This begs the question, what camera does not have grain viewed with that much magnification with that much under exposure? Surely not any model I have ever used, including my D800.
St Petersburg Russia
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 1
#3. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 2JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Thu 20-Jun-13 08:22 PM
Artistically you did the right thing to underexpose since your goal was silhouettes. However, underexposing does bring out the noise. (Everything is a compromise....) A little noise reduction in your post processing will clean it up quite nicely.
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
#4. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 2dm1dave Nikonian since 12th Sep 2006Thu 20-Jun-13 08:45 PM | edited Thu 20-Jun-13 08:46 PM by dm1dave
>> “i guess with the rising sun in the photo I should ahve dialed in an ev adjustment but I wanted sillouettes”
Stan is correct that - from a technical point of view the image is underexposed. On the other hand a sunrise shot like this needs to be underexposed or you lose the color in the sky and you don’t get the silhouettes that you wanted.
So, for this image, underexposure was the right choice. Very nice image!
A bit of grain seen at 100% on your computer is nothing to worry about. Remember, at 100% view your image is about 60 inches wide and you are viewing that extremely large image on a low resolution (about 96PPI) device at a very close viewing distance.
I would bet that you could easily make a 24 inch wide print and you would not see any of the grain if the image is viewed from about 2 feet back.
In fact this is one way that these high resolution cameras control noise so well. The pixels are very small - so that when they are reduced in size for normal viewing (normal viewing = viewing the image in its entirety) the noise (or grain) blends away. Even if you make extremely large prints (60+ inches) the grain will become invisible when the viewer backs far enough away from the print to see the whole image.
#5. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 4km6xz Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Fri 21-Jun-13 04:51 AM
Dave is right, I was writing as an explanation for the noise but artistically, if anything the image is slightly over exposed because the frame is lighter than the scene was if a silhouette was desired. It is not a bad photo underexposed, it is correct to be underexposed.
One thing to keep in mind, what the light meter in the camera is tell us. It sees the world differently than we do, it expects the mid tones to be 18% of the way between the blackest black possible and the lightest light possible.
Our eyes and brain combine to perceive the mid point between the whitest white and the blackest black when there is 18% mix of light. The camera wants every scene to be centered on that mid point of perceived illumination.
We know of course, that many scenes are not centered around that 18% level, where the subject is brighter than middle middle grey, and other sense look natural when darker. This is the reason we get dull grey snow in winter landscapes and dark grey wedding men's suit coat that in life is very dark, not grey.
With a little experience, we can judge the difference between what the camera thinks is right and what human viewers think it correct and adjust the camera accordingly. The snow scene looks correct to us if we dial in positive exposure compensation, around 2 full stops, to purposely over expose the shot(over exposed from the camera's opinion) and we dial in negative compensation to turn the image of the man's tux black as our eyes see it.
The increase or decrease in exposure compensation impacts the noise so that becomes part of the judgement call we make.
Shooting night scenes is often done by leaving it to the camera but that results in more illumination that actually is seen by our eyes so it is not very natural looking or quiet or free from noise. The camera sees the scene as needing to be brought up to daylight brightness, or a dull overcast day's brightness if allowed to control the exposure completely, resulting in a lot of additional noise from the increased exposure amplification.
It appears that many people think low light performance relates to having dark scenes having the same color, detail and brightness as a daylight scene, which is what I call the nightscope syndrome. To our eyes, dark scenes really do have less color and detail information and it is unnatural looking to appear otherwise. The reasonable use of high ISO performance is to increase shutter speeds for unblurred action, not turning dark scenes bright.
Pixel peeping is the enemy of peace of mind for photographers. You will never be happy if you view your, or anyone's images at microscopic scales. Camera, printers and screens are intended to produce images looking correctly when viewed at normal viewing distances and sizes, human scales. The exact complain of too much noise exists for people who do their viewing of a master's painting from 2 inches away with an 10X inspection loupe.
Such microscopic inspection only makes sense when using that scale of observation to authenticate a painting looking for artifacts that might reveal the actual painter. Looking in that way can produce information that is useful but tells nothing of the quality of the work or meaning. Same with photography.
Pixel peeping tells nothing of the quality or meaning of a photograph but can be used for specific diagnostics such as looking for artifacts of processing or focus mechanism. Expecting to determine qualitative merit of the photo is not what zooming in is for or useful for.
St Petersburg Russia
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#6. "RE: D7100 graininess" | In response to Reply # 0
Grain at 100% should not be much of an issue. If you are viewing at 100%, you are looking at roughly a 1000 pixels out of more than 6000 in width. That means you're looking at the equivalent of a 6 foot wide print from about 18-24 inches away.
You can always apply a little noise reduction if it bothers you. The most likely sources of noise are initial sharpening or download settings. If you sharpen or apply contrast, it can increase the noise.
Fall Workshops - Golf Photography at the Tour Championship and Fall Color in the Smokies
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera