Beginner Confused, multiple pixels in RAW shoots

HobbiestEquinePhotography

HobbiestEquinePhotography

Messages
16
Name
Stephanie
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so as far as my understanding goes RAW should have more pixels, more depth and in turn more quality.
However, my camera seems to be adding red green and blue pixels throughout the image making it look lower quality wise.
My question is, is it something to do with what I'm doing or is it just standard with RAW shooting?

I've tried googling my question in advance but can't seem to find any advice on it.
Here's the RAW shot:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjYqk7
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097819412/in/dateposted-public/


Here's the JPG Fine shot it took:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjUg1p
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097007603/in/dateposted-public/


The JPG isn't the best either. The lighting for example is too bright but that's fixable with some post processing. It's the grainyness of the first image I dislike... Is there any way around that?
Many thanks!
 
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
Ok, so as far as my understanding goes RAW should have more pixels, more depth and in turn more quality.
However, my camera seems to be adding red green and blue pixels throughout the image making it look lower quality wise.
My question is, is it something to do with what I'm doing or is it just standard with RAW shooting?

I've tried googling my question in advance but can't seem to find any advice on it.
Here's the RAW shot:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjYqk7
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097819412/in/dateposted-public/


Here's the JPG Fine shot it took:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjUg1p
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097007603/in/dateposted-public/


The JPG isn't the best either. The lighting for example is too bright but that's fixable with some post processing. It's the grainyness of the first image I dislike... Is there any way around that?
Many thanks!
Click to expand...
Difficult to be certain as there's no exif info but the raw file seems to be suffering from noise, whilst maybe the jpeg has had noise reduction automatically applied making it look 'cleaner'.
 
Last edited:
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
Ok, so as far as my understanding goes RAW should have more pixels, more depth and in turn more quality.
However, my camera seems to be adding red green and blue pixels throughout the image making it look lower quality wise.
My question is, is it something to do with what I'm doing or is it just standard with RAW shooting?

I've tried googling my question in advance but can't seem to find any advice on it.
Here's the RAW shot:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjYqk7
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097819412/in/dateposted-public/


Here's the JPG Fine shot it took:
https://flic.kr/p/2jjUg1p
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/189238983@N05/50097007603/in/dateposted-public/


The JPG isn't the best either. The lighting for example is too bright but that's fixable with some post processing. It's the grainyness of the first image I dislike... Is there any way around that?
Many thanks!
Click to expand...
The graininess (red and blue dots) has been removed automatically from the jpeg. That can be done to the raw file when you process it.

To my eyes the jpeg has had too much noise reduction applied which has resulted in loss of finer detail. Compare the rider's skin on their face, their boots and the saddle cloth in the jpeg.
 
Looking at the exif on the Jpeg it was taken at iso 12800, which is monstrously high, so you will have plenty of noise. As stated above, the Jpeg is processed by the camera, which will have applied noise reduction. You will need to apply it to the RAW file yourself. The 'problem' with RAW, when starting, is that it is 'RAW'. It contains everything that was captured, good and bad.... It will always look worse than the Jpeg to start with, and it's up to you to fix it. It's a pretty steep learning curve and takes effort, but your results will eventually overtake those of the camera's internal processing.
 
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
All I've gathered from this is that all of the software I've used to try and process the RAW data has interpreted it wrong and produced granulated spotting in the image.
Click to expand...

It hasn't done anything wrong, and it hasn't interpreted anything, it's given you everything that was captured. It's for you to discern what you want to keep and what you want to change.
 
NickD said:
Looking at the exif on the Jpeg it was taken at iso 12800, which is monstrously high, so you will have plenty of noise. As stated above, the Jpeg is processed by the camera, which will have applied noise reduction. You will need to apply it to the RAW file yourself. The 'problem' with RAW, when starting, is that it is 'RAW'. It contains everything that was captured, good and bad.... It will always look worse than the Jpeg to start with, and it's up to you to fix it. It's a pretty steep learning curve and takes effort, but your results will eventually overtake those of the camera's internal processing.
Click to expand...

Yep, not out of pleasure. The arena we were taking pictures in had horrific lighting for a dark bay horse. Upping the ISO was my last resort.
I was totally aware I was going to have noise. However, on the camera itself and the "Photos" app in microsoft there is no noise on the image. The issue comes when I open it up with different software. In this instance, photopea.

So yes, the software will always interpret the data and in this case this particular software must be interpreting it differently to the photo's app.
Why is this an issue?
Purely because I can edit much more in photopea than I can in microsoft's bog standard Photo app. I would use Photoshop but mine can't open .NEF files.

Ed Sutton said:
The graininess (red and blue dots) has been removed automatically from the jpeg. That can be done to the raw file when you process it.

To my eyes the jpeg has had too much noise reduction applied which has resulted in loss of finer detail. Compare the rider's skin on their face, their boots and the saddle cloth in the jpeg.
Click to expand...

As a software developer, I thank you for explaining it this way instead as it makes sense that it removes noise when compressed.
However, I do have one last query.
Would it be safe to make the assumption that the noise is particularly bad due to the ISO being so high? I know this certainly effects noise and I wouldn't have been able to change that this time around. However, I'm looking to see if I can adjust settings better in the future...
Thanks! :D
 
The EXIF data say ISO 12,800 which is in a zone that your camera will really struggle with but a quick check shows shutter speed of 1/4000 - I shoot equine and you really only need 1/1000 so that would mean your ISO could be 3,200 and that would make an unbelievable increase in quality

Mike
 
The RAW is unprocessed whereas the camera has done basic processing to the JPG. There is a lot more potential in the RAW file to work with as its recorded everything. To get the best out of it you will need to add constract and adjust levels and probably sharpening and noise reduction.

The higher the ISO rating the more noise you get which is the red, blue and green speckles. Shoot at the lowest ISO you need to get the shot. With horses you want a fast shutter speed, say around 1/800 to freeze the motion, so you either have to shoot with a wide aperture or by increasing ISO. Read up on exposure and the 'exposure triangle'.
 
Last edited:
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
Would it be safe to make the assumption that the noise is particularly bad due to the ISO being so high?
Click to expand...

Yes.

And no!

In low light noise is greater than in good light. A high ISO used in dim light will show more noise than the same ISO used in brighter light.
 
mike weeks said:
The EXIF data say ISO 12,800 which is in a zone that your camera will really struggle with but a quick check shows shutter speed of 1/4000 - I shoot equine and you really only need 1/1000 so that would mean your ISO could be 3,200 and that would make an unbelievable increase in quality

Mike
Click to expand...
This exactly.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Yes.

And no!

In low light noise is greater than in good light. A high ISO used in dim light will show more noise than the same ISO used in brighter light.
Click to expand...

And anything underexposed makes it even worse when you push the file in PP. If I remember correctly, your Camera has an APSC sensor, which can be really prone to noise at extreme ISOs.
 
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
Yep, not out of pleasure. The arena we were taking pictures in had horrific lighting for a dark bay horse. Upping the ISO was my last resort.
I was totally aware I was going to have noise. However, on the camera itself and the "Photos" app in microsoft there is no noise on the image. The issue comes when I open it up with different software. In this instance, photopea.

So yes, the software will always interpret the data and in this case this particular software must be interpreting it differently to the photo's app.
Why is this an issue?
Purely because I can edit much more in photopea than I can in microsoft's bog standard Photo app. I would use Photoshop but mine can't open .NEF files.
Click to expand...

The camera itself, being Nikon, will display the embedded Jpeg (I can't speak for the Photos app, I assume it also renders a Jpeg presentation of some kind). When I shot Nikon I tended to use their own free ViewNX software for RAW conversion, cropping, straightening, etc, then I'd move to PS if I had anything else I needed to do. As I recall, unlike most non-proprietary software, ViewNX opens the image with your chosen camera setting as default, and you adjusted the image from there, which I found much easier than starting with a 'raw' RAW.
 
NickD said:
The camera itself, being Nikon, will display the embedded Jpeg (I can't speak for the Photos app, I assume it also renders a Jpeg presentation of some kind). When I shot Nikon I tended to use their own free ViewNX software for RAW conversion, cropping, straightening, etc, then I'd move to PS if I had anything else I needed to do. As I recall, unlike most non-proprietary software, ViewNX opens the image with your chosen camera setting as default, and you adjusted the image from there, which I found much easier than starting with a 'raw' RAW.
Click to expand...


I see, that would make much more sense. In which case I believe the MS Photo app is most likely also showing me the same embedded JPEG image
You and Nuvv have hit the nail on the head with using the Nikon ViewNX software instead.
I've opened up the image and there's little to no noise whatsoever! It has the quality of the RAW file without the pixels. Although, while the image is rendering on screen it does show the pixelated version so I wonder if ViewVX has an automated noise reduction function. Re-reading what you've put I do agree that it saves your camera settings. It makes for a much easier edit though.
Either way, it's solved my frustration and I can finally get on to trying some post production editing. :D
Thanks all!
 
HobbiestEquinePhotography said:
I see, that would make much more sense. In which case I believe the MS Photo app is most likely also showing me the same embedded JPEG image
You and Nuvv have hit the nail on the head with using the Nikon ViewNX software instead.
I've opened up the image and there's little to no noise whatsoever! It has the quality of the RAW file without the pixels. Although, while the image is rendering on screen it does show the pixelated version so I wonder if ViewVX has an automated noise reduction function. Re-reading what you've put I do agree that it saves your camera settings. It makes for a much easier edit though.
Either way, it's solved my frustration and I can finally get on to trying some post production editing. :D
Thanks all!
Click to expand...
There's always the mantra of getting it right in camera. The beauty of ViewNX (I found), and I assume Capture NX, is that it gives you your in camera shot as a starting point, with all the adjustability of Raw from that point. As a beginner I found it very daunting to be presented with an absolutely flat Raw file which bore no resemblance to the picture I'd set up in camera, that software made learning the ropes much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top