canerino wrote:
Very valid points, snapsy. Show us a real world shot where banding was an impediment to achieving your final vision. So far, I've only seen banding where someone unintentionally (or intentionally) underexposes by 3+ stops and attempts to bring detail back.
I don't have the 5D3, but here is a 5D2 example of banding exposed:
Notice how in this case some very slight adjustments in LR reveal the banding. Basically I can't do much in PP with the black background. The 5D3 files are somewhat better in that they have only one axis banding, but it will be there too.
canerino wrote:
I've bee around FM for a long time and I cannot recall any other time where people expect a drastically underexposed shot to retain detail in shadows. Here is a crazy idea....become a competant photographer and nail your exposure. You'll be able to comfortably shoot to ISO 12800 (TWELVETHOUSANDEIGHTHUNDRED) without banding in any area of the photo.
For the 1000000000000000000000000000 time it has nothing, NOTHING to do with proper exposure. Do you seriously think everyone makes a big deal about DR just because they don't know how or care to exposure properly? They are probably more careful about getting it right than you all (who are always to free with the insults about becoming competent) are since they actually care about DR.
Once again, it has nothing to do with poor exposure. If the scene has 14 stops there is no way to capture it on a 10 stop sensor no matter how you expose.
A proper exposure exposes that so the brightest part of a scene that you want to retain does not get blow out and the rest falls where it does and that may mean all above the noise floor if the camera has enough DR for the scene or some below it if it does not.
But it won't help. Haven't read the thread, but I expect that the usual subjects have already probably jumped all over you for a range of things and defamed you and Canon in the usual interesting ways. Few who use these cameras to actually make photography worry about this "issue" at all. Others, for whom gear itself seems to be more the focus, can become quite worked up about it.
Welcome to the club. :-)
Dan
(For the record, if you go looking for noise banding in certain areas of certain images from a 5D2 and no doubt other cameras you can find some on rare occasions when you inspect your 100% crops on the computer. Whoopie... )...Show more →
It's funny how you always so casually insult anyone who mentions DR or banding and bring out all sorts of straw man arguments, etc. and then you always complain about the DR/banding people being trolls or antagonists.... just sayin'.
snapsy wrote:
What's curious to me is that those who don't consider banding/shadow noise a problem seem to start and participate in as many threads about banding as those who do find it a problem. This is the second "banding is not a problem for me" affirmation thread created within the last 24 hours.
Indeed they often seem to start as many threads about banding and post in them sometimes almost half as much or even as much or more than even the people who do care and then they turn around and complain that we fill the forums with endless pages about banding after they lure us into responding back to them 30 times.
If you don't need more DR then it's easy to skip a post title "Dynamic Range" or maybe it's not.
I use my 5DM2 almost exclusively as a landscape camera. I can go for weeks without using AF. It would never occur to me to start or participate in a 5DM2 thread where others were complaining about the 5DM2's AF, for the purpose of justifying the value of the camera in the face of a failing that others find critical to their photography but for which is just a passing curiosity for me.
Indeed, I do not think I've ever seen you accuse 5D2 users of not knowing how to competently use the outer points to shoot sports and if they only would learn how to use their cameras they could shoot with the left most point on a dark field with ease.
Nearly every feature and attribute of modern cameras can be classified as conveniences rather than necessity. This includes Auto Focus, Auto Metering, Live View, High Dynamic Range/Low Shadow Noise and banding, etc. I personally would sooner give up AF than Live View but I can understand how the vast majority wouldn't and that's why I don't go out of my way to jump onto AF threads to tell people why they should learn how to manually focus.
canerino wrote:
Very valid points, snapsy. Show us a real world shot where banding was an impediment to achieving your final vision. So far, I've only seen banding where someone unintentionally (or intentionally) underexposes by 3+ stops and attempts to bring detail back.
I still don't know why people talk about banding so much (and as someone else commented, it seems the deniers make just as many threads as the claimers!), but here's an example.
First, the original image as-shot, exposed to mostly preserve highlights.
The edit, done all in LR3. I also tried running this through Topaz Denoise with debanding, which usually does pretty well, but for this should it just couldn't do it.
LR3 parameters - NR as default (25 color, though raising to 53 color helps with splotches under the mushroom) Luminance NR normally at zero, but raising it to 31 also helps somewhat.
Exposure - +0.15 EV Fill Light - + 21 Blacks - Down to 2 from LR3's default of 5. Contrast - +50, up from +25, which actually helps hide some of the banding.
Horrible? Not really. I think it's a bummer it appears this way, but it's nothing earth-shattering because I don't plan on printing this photo or a crop of it. I could probably work more with NR to get rid of the banding, but also lose the remaining detail under the mushroom.
I can sympathize with 5D2 shooters caught in situations where they can't capture all of the scene DR or must raise shadows for whatever reason. I'm not a crazy shadow raiser, as it looks really unnatural to me when taken to extremes, but I think most people would admit my edits are very minor to this photo, yet we see the banding that would potentially ruin a print.
This said, i'm not sure how many stops a fill light of +21 equates to, but 21/100 is pretty easy-going on the fill slider IMO.
I've shot landscapes with a 5D2 for 3.5 years and have yet to see banding in any of my prints (typically 8x12, 11x14, 12x18 & 24x36). I'm sure it can be easily produced by lifting shadows and low mids, but that's not how I roll. I prefer a natural look with dramatic jet black shadows and, if any lifting is to be done, I tweak the mids. The 50D is the only digital camera I have owned that suffered truly horrid banding without lifting shadows or low mids. Evening skies at ISO 400 were so gritty and striped it made me giggle. The other day, I was scanning Velvia and Sensia 100 landscapes from the 90s and the skies sure were very grainy compared to even the worse DSLR...
I find myself working more and more at the extremes of the 1DsMkIII DR and though less of a problem than the 5d2, banding does rear its ugly head on occasion. Is it a deal killer? Probably not, but it will be a consideration in my next body. 2.5 stops of DR difference is nothing to sneeze at and if the 5D3 had been released with this kind of improvement the boards would be filled with posts singing the praises of the new sensor and the clever lads in Canon's R&D Department.
To those to whom it is not an issue that's great - you're ahead of the game. However, it does seem pretty myopic to be so critical of those to whom it is a concern. Does it stop someone from making great pictures? Of course not. Does it stop someone from making the best possible picture? Perhaps, yes, in certain situations.
This comunication won't help any parties. Look like we all have to ride another Canon banding / shadow noise bodies in the next three generation or maybe forever. Imo, it's really sad but most seem to like this way while nikon/sony/pentax... has open up a new dimension in fotography. Best light to be with you all
snapsy wrote:
Nearly every feature and attribute of modern cameras can be classified as conveniences rather than necessity. This includes Auto Focus, Auto Metering, Live View, High Dynamic Range/Low Shadow Noise and banding, etc. I personally would sooner give up AF than Live View but I can understand how the vast majority wouldn't and that's why I don't go out of my way to jump onto AF threads to tell people why they should learn how to manually focus.
Well said.
Personally, banding has never been an issue so I am not too concerned. But it's always good if we can have wider latitude for correction when the need arises.
Oh, the same can be said about articulate LCD screens. When I did not have it, I craved for it and actually ran into one occasion when I really hoped I had an articulate LCD screen. But now that I have it for a couple of years, I haven't used it, not even once.
cputeq wrote: Horrible? Not really. I think it's a bummer it appears this way, but it's nothing earth-shattering because I don't plan on printing this photo or a crop of it. I could probably work more with NR to get rid of the banding, but also lose the remaining detail under the mushroom.
I think a macro ring-light or flash with softbox will do wonders here.
thw2 wrote:
I think a macro ring-light or flash with softbox will do wonders here.
Actually a small reflector would have been more effective and easier to use (this mushroom had maybe 1.5 inches of clearance from the grass - good luck getting a good shot using artificial light.
I didn't have anything with me, though - no small index card, no old piece of paper or receipt, nothing
And as you can see in the first shot, the underneath of the mushroom wasn't actually black from the original - there was enough light bouncing from the sky off the grass to give it a bit of light, so it's not like I was trying to pull details from thin air.
This is besides the point, though - the whole premise is that we can't always control the light the way w'd want to, so having the latitude in certain situations is very handy.
skibum5 wrote:
It's funny how you always so casually insult anyone who mentions DR or banding and bring out all sorts of star man arguments, etc. and then you always complain about the DR/banding people being trolls or antagonists.... just sayin'.
You noticed that too huh...
For all of you that are fed up hearing about banding...why the hell did you even open up this thread? And not only did you open up the thread...you kept it active and at the top by writing out your dribble about how tired you are hearing about all this banding. And to boot, you come on to people with put downs and other sarcastic remarks, trying to show your superiority in photography.
I suggest that if the banding topic bothers you so much...just don't open up these threads.
Hey doc, it hurts when I do this. Well stupid, don't do that.
cputeq wrote:
I still don't know why people talk about banding so much (and as someone else commented, it seems the deniers make just as many threads as the claimers!), but here's an example.
First, the original image as-shot, exposed to mostly preserve highlights.
The edit, done all in LR3. I also tried running this through Topaz Denoise with debanding, which usually does pretty well, but for this should it just couldn't do it.
LR3 parameters - NR as default (25 color, though raising to 53 color helps with splotches under the mushroom) Luminance NR normally at zero, but raising it to 31 also helps somewhat.
Exposure - +0.15 EV Fill Light - + 21 Blacks - Down to 2 from LR3's default of 5. Contrast - +50, up from +25, which actually helps hide some of the banding.
Edited photo:
Horrible? Not really. I think it's a bummer it appears this way, but it's nothing earth-shattering because I don't plan on printing this photo or a crop of it. I could probably work more with NR to get rid of the banding, but also lose the remaining detail under the mushroom.
I can sympathize with 5D2 shooters caught in situations where they can't capture all of the scene DR or must raise shadows for whatever reason. I'm not a crazy shadow raiser, as it looks really unnatural to me when taken to extremes, but I think most people would admit my edits are very minor to this photo, yet we see the banding that would potentially ruin a print.
This said, i'm not sure how many stops a fill light of +21 equates to, but 21/100 is pretty easy-going on the fill slider IMO. ...Show more →
That isn't a very big fill adjustment. But, I can't imagine that banding would show up in a print. Isn't a 100% view of a 22mp image a massive print? Also, I can't see banding in the normal sized picture on my laptop.
I think the shadow banding phenomenon is probably somewhat overstated.
But 'NAIL THE EXPOSURE MORANS' isn't terribly helpful or meaningful, whether it's about banding or anything related to high ISO shooting.
If I'm at 6400, that's generally because I'm either pushing to the limits of what I can handhold or I'm trying to minimize subject movement. Nikon - at least with the D700, I haven't used anything else by them since the D70 - is more forgiving of underexposure in those situations than any other company, in my experience. If a better exposure were possible, it would be chosen.
Imo, if more DR, no banding, less shadows noise and better AF was everyone wishes then understanding for other need is only way to have better tool we all seek from Canon.
Quite surprised at you Chuck, you know I've got a lot of respect for you and your work, but this is naive at best.
I understand you don't torture the hell out of your files, you have a very classic approach to your photography that obviously works great for you, but what about people who take a more 'digital art' approach? Are you repudiating everything Ed P does? Because he certainly pushes his Nikon files more than far enough to get into what would be 'shadow banding' territory if he shot with a red strap instead of a yellow one, surely you're not going to say he needs to 'learn to expose properly' ?
