High ISO = flat looking photos?

[louis.b]

I just got my FZ15 a couple weeks ago, so I haven't really had a chance to break it in. So, I took a moment to take some pictures this evening of some horses in a pasture. When I got home and d/l'd the photos they looked "flat" to me. I thought that maybe it was just cause they were on my monitor, so I decided to print them.

Well they still looked flat printed on glossy photo paper. I then handed them to my wife to view, without mentioning my concern, to see if she picked up on anything. Frankly I just expected her to say something like, "Oh, these are nice." and then hand them back, but she immediately said they looked washed out like they've been in the sun too long. I asked if she thought they looked "flat" and she agreed.

I then went back and browsed various photos to see if I could find some consistancy and noticed a certain degree of "flatness". I then recalled that I had previously set the ISO from Auto to 400. This led me to wonder, can a high(er) ISO cause a photo to look more "flat"?

Also, I wasn't using any filters (haven't gotten around to getting any yet) or the lens hood. Would either of these things help prevent a photo from looking flat? Or is this just a symptom of digital cameras and am I being hypercritical of my new baby? :confused:

[Norm in Fujino]

Why not post some of the photos here so we can get an idea. Since you mentioned a lens hood, I will say this: in general, you could have a washed out look if you were shooting toward the light (sun) and got some flare in the lens, or if it was a very hazy, low-constrast day. And yes, high ISO could also add noise that would lower the contrast and possibly make it look "flat" (but seeing actual examples would help).
Time for a test: set your new baby on a tripod and take pictures of the same scene, changing the ISO as you go. What difference do you see in the shots? Also consider things like white balance and contrast/sharpening settings. I don't know anything about your specific camera, but I assume it has such settings.

[genece]

Just to add to what norm said.
It sounds to me that maybe the pictures were over exposed. So while you are trying various things check the histogram for proper exposure.
ISO 400 may have just been too much for that situation.
But posting a photo with the exif intact is the best way to get help.

[louis.b]

Ok, here are a couple of the photos...
http://louisb.fotopic.net/c451796.html

The one where the filename ends in an "a" I tweeked in Photoshop.

When I view the image at full size it looks horrible. :mad: I sure would like to know if it's the camera or me. I'm hoping it's just me. :o

[24Peter]

Your highlights are a little overexposed and the shot itself is contrasty. Try a slower shutter speed (looks like 1/500) and a lower ISO next time. You may also be seeing the effect of noise from using such a high ISO in this shot. Try de-noise-ing it and then bring the highlights/contrast down (use your levels control in photoshop) and it should be fine.

(I just saved a copy to my computer and see it is also highly compressed so that adds to your problems.)

[24Peter]

Is this better?

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/websize/P1000173a-corrected.jpg

[genece]

I downloaded one of the originals at full size and printed it on my printer at 8 X 10 and I think it looks great.
I also think they look great at a normal size on your web site.
I understand that the ISO was a mistake but ISO400 used a 1/500 shutter speed, which in my opinion is not real good for detail.
Also in my opinion I see no point in worring about what a picture looks like
at 72ppi at 32 X 24 inches.(original size)
I could have done some adjustment before printing but I did not and I think the photo is good ..certainly not washed out.
And if I leave windows open it at the best fit size which is about full screen they also look great.
And the histogram in PS says the exposure was pretty good which puts my first reply way off base.
I really do think they look nice, not perfect but nice.

[Norm in Fujino]

Ok, here are a couple of the photos...
http://louisb.fotopic.net/c451796.html
When I view the image at full size it looks horrible. :mad: I sure would like to know if it's the camera or me. I'm hoping it's just me. :o

I haven't played with your photos yet (I had some problem trying to download them when I tried last night), but I basically agree with the other comments. Far from looking "flat," they have excessively high contrast, which is probably the result of the high ISO. I would set the ISO manually for as low as it goes, shoot at a high quality jped resolution, and try again. They don't look *that* bad. ;)

Later Edit:: Okay, let me revise my comments after downloading your photos: First off, the largest of them is only in the 700k class, and one is only 396K　(later note: I see that it's a cropped version of one of the other shots); for a 4MP camera all of these are too small. I assume you were shooting at the lowest quality setting (Standard?); I would go up to Fine and try again. I don't know your camera, but your jpeg photos out of the camera should be about 2MP in size, I would think. (I'm not counting TIFF/RAW).

Coupled to the excessive compression is the use of the ISO 400, as others have already said. This raises the gain (high gain is up) and will tend to make them overly noisy, and contrasty as well.
One other thing that comes to mine: the horse is facing away from the sun, so its dark neck/mane area is in shadow, making it even darker. That adds to the contrasty effect.
A lot of this is guesswork since I'm not familar with your camera or the meaning of all the exif data.
I've done a bit of fiddling on this one (I've also reduced it in size for the website). I'm sure others could do better.

http://www2.gol.com/users/nhavens/resource/P1000168_1a.jpg

[louis.b]

24Peter,
In the camera I used low compression and the first two photos are original, untouched images right off the camera. In the second I used Quality Level 11, baseline optimized jpg compression in PS. So I wonder why you're seeing it as highly compressed!? :confused:

The horse does look better, but not as good as I'd like.


Norm,
If you'll look at the EXIF data for the first two photos you'll see that the file sizes are: 1523857 and 1522436 respectively. Are you clicking on the "Full Size" button at the bottom of the large photo page? Also, the last ("a") photo is cropped from the second which is why it is smaller.


genece,
You can paypal me $8 for the print. j/k ;)


I took some more pictures tonight at a lower ISO and uncompressed. They turned out better but I wasn't really thrilled with the quality. I think some part of this may have to do with how well I'm remembering the detail of the scene and then being disappointed when my camera isn't reproducing it when I view the image at home. I think my expectations are too high. Maybe if I come back to them in a weeks time (when my memory has faded ;) ) I'll be perfectly happy with them.

I'm going to do some more experimenting this weekend (weather permitting). Maybe with more time I'll figure out how to get the photos to meet my expectations.

BTW - Thanks for the input, ppl. This is one of the friendliest forums I've ever participated in. :D

[Norm in Fujino]

Glad to hear that; I thought I had downloaded the full size versions, but apparently not.
Keep playing with it; you'll get there.

[Grog]

By the looks of the shadows it looks like you where shoting at an angle toward the sun which will wash out the pictures a little. Where you using a lens hood? If not you may of picked up some of the sun. The AF was picking up the horse which is a dark color which could of added to the picture being just a little overexposed. What's the history gram showing?

[jaynads]

My guess would be that your camera metered for the field, which was saturated with setting sunlight, while the horse presented its shadowed side to you (had you spot-metered the horse, you'd have blown out the field). Your eye is far more sensative than the best camera (digital or film), so you have to make compromises with images like this. It looks bright enough that ISO400 wasn't necessary. Ideally, for any backlit picture, you'd want some fill-flash to paint some detail onto your subject. In this case, the horse is just too far away, so your next bet is to just move to a side, so that you wouldn't cast a shadow into frame and the horses would be better lit.