Why some pics are so noisey?

[leov9]

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie here!
I really can't figure out why some pics i take in excellent light conditions sometimes come out extremely noisey, without any color depth? Which mistake am i doing, like this one

 

[Sirius Glass]

Noise is a digital artifact. Are you shooting film?

Welcome to APUG

 

[leov9]

yes, i am, but what you can see in this particular pic is something really close to noise, other pics on this roll are like this, other are just perfect, i'm aware it's some mistake im commiting and not this fujifilm roll fault.
Anyway i have tons of these example if you want to check them out

 

[Wallendo]

This has the appearance of film that has been underexposed and then scanned. The scanner software attempts to correct the exposure and results in noisy undersaturated images.
If you use a typical consumer lab to process, the negative is usually scanned and printed digitally.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

There are too many variables at play to diagnose your problem. Did you scan these yourself? My wild guess is that it is a problem in scanning.

 

[Luckless]

Describing your workflow and how you are using things, from the start to where you are first seeing the noise, would really help people assist you in narrowing down what the cause is.
Things like:
- What camera/lens are you using?
- How are you judging your exposure?
- How are you developing and inspecting your film?
- Where do you first notice the noise as a problem?


Signal noise in visual information (of which photographs are a storage medium of, therefore describing it as noise is perfectly fine in my view) can come from a number of sources, so not having a good idea on what exactly you are doing can make it difficult to pin down.

But as said, a very common source for that kind of look in the original post is a poor exposure on film and then compounded during digitization. (Do be aware that digital elements of photography are off topic for this forum, and will attract rude and condescending comments from some members of the site. However you can still get lots of use out of the site for discussions of film/chemistry, general development, and camera gear, even if you're eventually taking the negatives into a hybrid workflow. You'll just have to take the later parts of the discussion to other areas to avoid overly upsetting some of the locals.)

 

[leov9]

Damn the scanning problem version makes so much sense!
I'm describing you what I usually do just for your information.
In that shoot I used a Canon EOS5 w/ Canon 28-135 lens, using a 35mm Fuji Superia 400 film, 1 stop underexposed.
Unfortunately i don't own a darkroom, so i let develop and scan my films to Lomography europe so I don't actually know what the hell are they doing, and probably are messing up with scanning!
Anyway, I'm working on my own darkroom, I inherited some equipment from a friend's mom, as soon as i graduate this summer i'll have the time to work on it and say goodbye to Lomography lab.

 

[flavio81]

Damn the scanning problem version makes so much sense!
I'm describing you what I usually do just for your information.
In that shoot I used a Canon EOS5 w/ Canon 28-135 lens, using a 35mm Fuji Superia 400 film, 1 stop underexposed.

Don't underexpose.

Set your EOS 5 to "matrix" (multi-segment) metering, and for such a overall bright scene as this, you should try overexposing by 1 stop.

 

[Vaughn]

I think the strong light reflecting off the building and coming from the sky fooled your meter into thinking these was more than an average amount of light in this scene, so it underexposed your film -- in addition to one stop under-exposure you had already biased your system. Color negative film likes a little over-exposure. Trying to pull detail out of an underexposed negative can cause the film grain you are seeing (not 'noise'). Edited to add: perhaps grain is the not the correct term either...dye-clumps?

I would suggest reading a tutorial or description on how to use your light meter effectively. Also bracket a few images (different exposures of the same scene) and see which one works best for your use...especially when experiencing a new lighting condition.

Good luck!

 

[pentaxuser]

The colours on the building look a little de-saturated but the effect isn't bad and they look authentic. However I suspect the sky wasn't really this "end of the world " gunmetal colour, given the light conditions that I see, so I suspect that something has gone wrong when scanned.

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

One of the reasons color negative film 'likes' over-exposure is slightly more color saturation...and unfortunately, the opposite is true for under-exposing color neg film...a loss of contrast and color saturation.

 

[jernejk]

1 stop underexposed

There's your problem.

Reflective meters are really, really dumb. They see the world 18% grey (some say it's 12%, but whatever). So when you meter with your camera, the camera is really telling you "if you are shooting a grey card, it will look awesome using these settings".

You are not shooting a grey card.

Solution -> exposure compensation. Which you did, but in the wrong direction. The building is probably quite bright, close to caucasian skin color, which is one stop above the grey card. So if anything, you'd need to tell the camera "ok, this is not a grey card, this is a stop brighter than a grey card, we need to compensate to +1".

You compensate to the - side ("underexpose") when you meter an object which is darker than a grey card.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie here!
I really can't figure out why some pics i take in excellent light conditions sometimes come out extremely noisey, without any color depth? Which mistake am i doing, like this one View attachment 178947

Flat light scan output, increase contrast and density you will be OK.
Film does have noise (its grain and yes it is suppose to be there) flotsam

 

[Hatchetman]

It is underexposed.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Underexposed at least 2 and maybe 3 f-stops.

 

[tezzasmall]

Yes, I agree with most on here - the film has been underexposed basically. The scanning has then tried to do its best to make a good image, which in turn has shown up the grain as more 'noise' than usual on the picture given.

Out of interest, why are you UNDER exposing by one stop?

As mentioned, for print film, you are better off if anything of OVER exposing by one stop, although a good meter should give you a good exposure without under / over exposing at all.

Terry S

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Right... why underexpose?

Leov9, do you meter every time you recompose or change zoom position? If you meter at a wide lens setting and zoom to a longer focal length then you'll lose exposure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You can just save yourself a lot of grief by NOT UNDEREXPOSING. Shoot film at box speed; the manufacturers know more about the film than any of us, except PE, will ever know. The manufacturers extensively test their film.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

That's right, SG, assuming the shooter's equipment is within tolerances or any errors are compensated for. But the OP's image is more than one stop underexposed. There's more to his exposure errors than just the intentional one stop deficiency.

 

[removed account4]

Right... why underexpose

there's lots of reasons for underexposing. maybe one likes a deeper richer print,
if they are "chromes" same thing, denser slide.
over exposing, is great too, maybe you like a denser negative and you like to print the negative down,
and a chrome, maybe you like a thin bright slide ...
box speed is determined in a lab anyways, not the real world ..
besides my meter might be off a little or my shutter &c and over exposing ( or underexposing ) might now actually be

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's right, SG, assuming the shooter's equipment is within tolerances or any errors are compensated for. But the OP's image is more than one stop underexposed. There's more to his exposure errors than just the intentional one stop deficiency.

Also people under expose film because they have to compensate for their light meter misuse since they are erroneously including the sky in the measurement.

 

[bernard_L]

Also people under expose film because they have to compensate for their light meter misuse since they are erroneously including the sky in the measurement.

The issue of sky in the FOV of the meter is conducive to UNDERexposure. Adding underexposure on the ASA/ISO dial would just make things worse.

 

[Chan Tran]

Damn the scanning problem version makes so much sense!
I'm describing you what I usually do just for your information.
In that shoot I used a Canon EOS5 w/ Canon 28-135 lens, using a 35mm Fuji Superia 400 film, 1 stop underexposed.
Unfortunately i don't own a darkroom, so i let develop and scan my films to Lomography europe so I don't actually know what the hell are they doing, and probably are messing up with scanning!
Anyway, I'm working on my own darkroom, I inherited some equipment from a friend's mom, as soon as i graduate this summer i'll have the time to work on it and say goodbye to Lomography lab.

The problem isn't so much with the scanning. It's underexposure. If the scanner didn't try to make it brighter you will have a very dark image. Don't under expose your color negative film. You can set the compensation to +1 all the time without problem.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

there's lots of reasons for underexposing. maybe one likes a deeper richer print,
if they are "chromes" same thing, denser slide.
over exposing, is great too, maybe you like a denser negative and you like to print the negative down,
and a chrome, maybe you like a thin bright slide ...
box speed is determined in a lab anyways, not the real world ..
besides my meter might be off a little or my shutter &c and over exposing ( or underexposing ) might now actually be

I understand that, John... black cat resting on a pile of charcoal. But the image in the OP is definitely very underexposed. Underexposed negs don't provide deeper richer prints. Good point regarding compensation for a specific light meter.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

i don't own a darkroom, so i let develop and scan my films to Lomography europe so I don't actually know what the hell are they doing, and probably are messing up with scanning!.

That (Lomo processing/scanning) is my bet.