Grainy Pictures with the Powershot S2IS???

[mattm911]

Hello all...I got some great help here regarding my Blurry pictures issue (solved!) so I figure I would come back for more.

Now that I have the blurry down, I noticed that my Indoor pics are looking a little grainy? Im not using that much zoom either.

Here is a pic to illustrate.

Taken with my S2IS, Flash at -1.5, Indoors, Lit Room, Hardly any zoom

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b116/mattm911/IMG_0270.jpg

[nitr0uzv]

thats because your using a higher ISO it allows you to use a higher shutter speed, but at the expense you a griney picture

[JTL]

Hello all...I got some great help here regarding my Blurry pictures issue (solved!) so I figure I would come back for more.

Now that I have the blurry down, I noticed that my Indoor pics are looking a little grainy? Im not using that much zoom either.

Here is a pic to illustrate.

Taken with my S2IS, Flash at -1.5, Indoors, Lit Room, Hardly any zoom

O.K...

If you're fine with using the flash indoors, here's some fool-proof settings for ultra smooth pics that don't look harsh because of the flash.

Turn the mode dial to Av and:
Set Aperture to f/8.0
Set the flash output in the middle (this is the setting you want to experiment with a little depending on the room light).
Set ISO to 50
Set EV to -1/3
Set WB to Auto
Set Red-Eye to On
Set the Metering to Evaluative
Don't forget to pop-up the flash

General settings regardless of the shooting situation...make sure that in the custom settings that you have Contrast set to -1 and Sharpening set in the middle or -1 (which ever you prefer). And, as a rule, I always shoot Superfine/Large...you never know when you'll need the resolution.

The above settings work pretty well in my test shots with people. Give 'em a try and let me know how it works out.

[mattm911]

Thanks man, I will try those ASAP.. I guess I didnt realize what kind of camera I was buying...I felt a bit overwhelmed at first..But Im warming up to it.

Matt

[cvicisso]

Turn the mode dial to Av and:
Set Aperture to f/8.0
Set the flash output in the middle (this is the setting you want to experiment with a little depending on the room light).
Set ISO to 50
Set EV to -1/3
Set WB to Auto
Set Red-Eye to On
Set the Metering to Evaluative
Don't forget to pop-up the flash
JTL - I tried the settings you gave above and the pictures came out VERY dark. I'm sitting here shooting a plant (for practice) about 12 feet away in a dim-to-moderately lit room. Which of the settings should I tweak to brighten things up a bit? Thanks in advance.

[JTL]

JTL - I tried the settings you gave above and the pictures came out VERY dark. I'm sitting here shooting a plant (for practice) about 12 feet away in a dim-to-moderately lit room. Which of the settings should I tweak to brighten things up a bit? Thanks in advance.Ha, ha! Sorry! I forgot that I have a lot of halogen lighting in my house, not tungsten. So, "room light" to me I guess is a little britgher and whiter then for others. Also my test subjects were only around 6-8 ft. away...

O.K. Try increasing the flash output incrementally and test shoot each time till you get a desirable result. You could also use a wider aperture (smaller number f-stop). Try not to go less then f/5.0 for nice sharp results. Playing with the balance of these two settings will yeild the desired results. When you find the right balance, file it away in a corner of your brain for future reference...

Let us all know what winds up working for you and how much wattage you're shooting under so we can all learn in the process as well. Thanks! :)

I just tried a quick test in a room with a 100-watt tungsten bulb 18-ft away from me and 12-ft away from the subject and the subject approx. 12-ft. away from me (picture a triangle), flash output at +2 and aperture at f/5.0 and all other settings as above and it came out very natural looking. But, I would never ever normally shoot in in a 15x20 room with just a single 100-watt bulb so far from me and the subject and a subject 12-ft. away, even with flash...I just wouldn't expect any kind of acceptable result under that circumstance...it's a consumer camera, not a miracle machine! :D

Hey...this real-time testing stuff is fun...ok....the above worked great at wide angle, but when I zoomed to full tele, it looked a little dark still, so I set the aperture to 4.0 and the scene came out great...all other settings and the shooting conditions remained constant...so I'm proving, at least to myself, that you can use the flash and get fairly good, non-harsh natural looking results under less-than-optimal conditions. I hardly ever shoot indoors with the flash, but this thread has prompted me to do some exploring and I'm glad for it...

[cvicisso]

O.K. Try increasing the flash output incrementally and test shoot each time till you get a desirable result. You could also use a wider aperture (smaller number f-stop). Try not to go less then f/5.0 for nice sharp results. Playing with the balance of these two settings will yeild the desired results. When you find the right balance, file it away in a corner of your brain for future reference...

Let us all know what winds up working for you and how much wattage you're shooting under so we can all learn in the process as well. Thanks! :)Thanks again, JTL! I'll give those settings a try tonight. FYI - the total wattage in the room I was shooting was about 140W (35Wx4) tungsten, but it was from a hanging ceiling fan/lamp that's about 12 ft up (hanging down from a 'cathedral' ceiling). The room is kinda 'largish' and the geometry is a bit complicated to explain, but after reading your post I'm virtually certain that my lighting coupled with the distance to the target is the culprit.

I'll dial it in tonight (unless 'the boss' has other plans for me! :eek: ) and let you know the results. BTW - what's the best way to post images in a case like this? You know - so you can maybe see what I'm doing wrong. The file size limit seems too tight to post it here at dcresource, and I suppose I should leave the EXIF data intact (does that mean I'll have to leave it at the original resolution - to preserve EXIF data?).

Thanks again.

[JTL]

BTW - what's the best way to post images in a case like this? You know - so you can maybe see what I'm doing wrong. The file size limit seems too tight to post it here at dcresource, and I suppose I should leave the EXIF data intact (does that mean I'll have to leave it at the original resolution - to preserve EXIF data?).

Thanks again.There are lots of free photo hosting services...Photobucket seems to be quite popular...but there are others (I think there was a thread somewhere on this subject a while ago). There are also a lot of pay-for-service ones as well, some geared toward high volumes, large bandwidth and even selling your photos (I use Smugmug...Pbase is another hugely popular one). Once the photo is posted on the hosting service site, just cut and paste the URLs for the individual photos into your message. If you do it like that, it acts like a regular link. If you put image tags around the URL, such as url goes here then the image itself will appear in your post. The same works in PMs as well. Since the images are not being stored on the DCRP site, there are no size restrictions. But, you don't want to link to original size or overly large sized images because 1) viewers will have to scroll, which is annoying 2) they take forever to load, which is annoying.

Now, go forth and post...:D

[cvicisso]

O.K. Try increasing the flash output incrementally and test shoot each time till you get a desirable result. You could also use a wider aperture (smaller number f-stop). Try not to go less then f/5.0 for nice sharp results. Playing with the balance of these two settings will yeild the desired results. When you find the right balance, file it away in a corner of your brain for future reference...Alright... finally had a chance to try out the new settings. This is a large, poorly lit room (4x35W tungsten bulbs in a ceiling fan/light pretty high up). The left hand corner of the couch in the photos (the corner in front of the tree) is about 12 feet away.

The first pic (822) is just plain ol' vanilla 'auto' mode (for comparison).
The next pic (824) is using the original settings given in this thread (f8.0, Ev -1/3, etc).
The final pic (825) is tweaked to f5.0 and flash +2.0

The EXIF data should be intact. I shot these at 640x480 for ease of posting/downloading (duh).

:confused:

[XOO]

One thought from here...have you tried the Night Scene Mode? Might want a tripod, and might try without then with flash.

[cvicisso]

One thought from here...have you tried the Night Scene Mode? Might want a tripod, and might try without then with flash.Hadn't really considered the night scene mode because I was aiming for something that I could use as a standby setting for sharp spur-of-the-moment indoor shots (I'd rather not lug a tripod around everywhere).

Here are the night snapshot mode shots. One with flash, one without. Didn't use a tripod, but I definitely had the IS engaged (shutter speed was 1/8" for each! :eek: ).

[XOO]

Hadn't really considered the night scene mode because I was aiming for something that I could use as a standby setting for sharp spur-of-the-moment indoor shots (I'd rather not lug a tripod around everywhere).

Here are the night snapshot mode shots. One with flash, one without. Didn't use a tripod, but I definitely had the IS engaged (shutter speed was 1/8" for each! :eek: ).
Just a suggestion. I used Night Scene Mode without Flash at a wedding-do. Got some nice shots. Wasn't a tripod within 1,000 miles!
http://myweb.cableone.net/wsumrall/IMG_0968_sm.jpg

[JTL]

Alright... finally had a chance to try out the new settings. This is a large, poorly lit room (4x35W tungsten bulbs in a ceiling fan/light pretty high up). The left hand corner of the couch in the photos (the corner in front of the tree) is about 12 feet away.

The first pic (822) is just plain ol' vanilla 'auto' mode (for comparison).
The next pic (824) is using the original settings given in this thread (f8.0, Ev -1/3, etc).
The final pic (825) is tweaked to f5.0 and flash +2.0

The EXIF data should be intact. I shot these at 640x480 for ease of posting/downloading (duh).

:confused:What is the ultimate goal? Is it to get a shot that matches the room light and is representative of the "actual light" in the room? Or, is it to get a well exposed shot regardless of the light in the room? It's an important difference. Whether I'm shooting with flash or not, my goal is usually to "match" the actual light, even if it's really too dark...unless it's just a snapshot of people who expect to see themselves "well lit" regardless of the room light. Which picture in your series of shots represents the closest to the actual light in the room, if any of them does? If none of them does, try to get one and use that as your "control". Then, we can adjust ISO, aperture and shutter speed reciprocally to find the optimum combo for that particular lighting situation (the flash is the wild card in the equation). Also, I have this thing about shooting at ISO 50 as much as possible...but, depending on what you're trying to achieve, you may have to go to 100...

If I get some time (unlikely...I have to pack and get things in order before a big trip) I will post results from my test shots...

[cvicisso]

What is the ultimate goal?I suppose I got greedy when I saw your post earlier in this thread. :p My goal is "fool-proof settings for ultra smooth pics that don't look harsh because of the flash." Which picture in your series of shots represents the closest to the actual light in the room, if any of them does? If none of them does, try to get one and use that as your "control". None of those pics really represents the actual light in the room. I'll try tweaking it again later and dial in a 'control' setting. Also, I have this thing about shooting at ISO 50 as much as possible...but, depending on what you're trying to achieve, you may have to go to 100...Yeah - I'll try bumping it to 100. Too bad the S2 doesn't do better at higher ISOs... speaking of which... have you SEEN the Fuji S9000?? :eek: I love my S2, but MAN! If it had IS... heck, even without IS it rocks! I would really, really love to have that manual focus ring!! Plus CF cards (I'll never buy an XD card!) and AA batteries... sorry, I'm drooling... :D

...I have to pack and get things in order before a big trip
Enjoy your trip, JTL!! :cool:

[cvicisso]

Just a suggestion. I used Night Scene Mode without Flash at a wedding-do. Got some nice shots. Wasn't a tripod within 1,000 miles!Yeah - your pic turned out pretty nice, XOO. I'm pretty sure that my room (and its poor lighting) represent a true 'worst case' scenario. I suppose that's a good thing though... because if I learn how to do it in the worst possible case, I shouldn't have any trouble in most other places I'll be shooting. Thanks for the suggestions!

[JTL]

... have you SEEN the Fuji S9000??I've said before and I'll say it again (because maybe the Fuji spys read the boards as well), if the Fuji S9000 had IS, and it checked out O.K. in a store, I would sell my S2 and buy it...even before there were any extensive pro reviews...

I'm hoping that next year that they release a UZ with all of the current features (#1 being usable ISO 1600), keep it at 9MP (which is pushing it, even with the Super CCD, but they'll probably screw it up like everyone else in the great MP race and go to 12MP) and just add IS. But, of course instead of the "perfect" ultrazoom, they'll leave out other features or it will have too much noise because of too many MPs. Camera companies seem to have a rule about not giving consumers everything they want. How great would the Pany FZ30 have been...with that phenomenal feature set, if they had kept it at 5MP?

Enough ranting for this morning...:D

[bigrig]

Why do you recommend the smallest aperture, JTL?

cvicisso, if you're trying to get shots of a moving kid in a pretty dark room, here's what I would do:
Aperture priority, and open it up to maybe f/4.0
Bump the ISO up to 100
Experiment to find the lowest flash setting that gets good results.

I think you'll need a shutter speed of at least 1/60 if your subject is moving.

Good luck, have fun!

Matt

[JTL]

Why do you recommend the smallest aperture, JTL?Because, at least in my house under my lights (e.g. 400-watts halogen, 15x20 room), it's what yields the most "natural" looking results when using the flash...but generally, again in my situation, f/5 through f/8 is what produces natural looking photos when using the flash...not necessarily the "smallest" aperture.

[dubstyles240]

I stumbled upon this forum/thread by searching google about the grainy s2is.

I work at best buy and love this camera, but it does take really grainy indoor pics. I tried adjusting things to the settings you recommended ( in the first reply to this thread), and it was really dark. I had to bump the aperature up to 3.5, with 1 1/3 exposure, 50 ISO and auto white balance to get a visible picture!

The pic still turned out kind of grainy. The grainy-ness really comes into play with the zoom on though, this is mainly just an indoor problem though right? I plan to buy it and use it mainly outdoors, so if its crystal clear outside, then I'll be alright.

[Cricket13]

Hi,
Try setting your camera to TV, 1/1600, ISO can stay at 50, and use your flash.
The pic attached was taken in a very poorly lit livingroom.
I was having problems taking indoor pics and I read on one of the message boards to try that.
hope it helps

[Montana]

Hey Matt if yo uare taking alot of indoor shots you are going to need Neat Image. The demo version is free and is fully functional. You will be amazed at the results. I'm not a big indoor shooter so I dont use it that much , but you may get more use:

http://www.neatimage.com/