Just a quick response - there is banding in the 5D II sensor. I never pruposely underexposed my shots, but I saw it a few times especially in dark red areas in photos. It was never a huge concern for me. But stating that it does not exist, this is definitely wrong, sorry!
skibum5 wrote:
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.
It has always been the case and it is still the case that quite often a "proper exposure" is not a single exposure made by pointing the camera at the wide dynamic range thing and relying on the camera (whether digital of film) to just sort of "do the right thing."
It has never been the case and I think it unlikely that it will soon be the case that scenes with large dynamic range are "captured" by relying on a camera with an extraordinarily large dynamic range, whether digital or film.
It has long been the case and it continues to be so (though less now in some ways than in the past) that there are well known and commonly used ways of handling scenes with tremendously wide dynamic range. They include but are not limited to the following:
1. Photograph the subject at a time and/or in circumstances when the light is better.
2. Use fill flash.
3. Use a GND filter
4. Make appropriate decisions about chemical processing to improve one end of the range while sacrificing the other.
5. Pre-expose film to light to give some density to the shadows (on negative film).
6. Use HDR, exposure blending, and similar techniques with digital systems.
7. Consider what is most important in the image and consider sacrificing a bit of what is less important to retain it.
8. Push shadows in post to some extent.
9. Reduce artifacts (banding, aliasing, color noise, etc) in post as needed.
It will be a lovely world when camera can deal perfectly with all imaginable subjects and exposure situations. That world has never existed and it is hard to imagine that it will exist soon. If a 12 stop DR is not enough and someone comes out with a camera that does 18 stops, there will still be a situation in which 18 isn't enough and somehow we'll still manage to photograph it.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It has always been the case and it is still the case that quite often a "proper exposure" is not a single exposure made by pointing the camera at the wide dynamic range thing and relying on the camera (whether digital of film) to just sort of "do the right thing."
It has never been the case and I think it unlikely that it will soon be the case that scenes with large dynamic range are "captured" by relying on a camera with an extraordinarily large dynamic range, whether digital or film.
It has long been the case and it continues to be so (though less now in some ways than in the past) that there are well known and commonly used ways of handling scenes with tremendously wide dynamic range. They include but are not limited to the following:
1. Photograph the subject at a time and/or in circumstances when the light is better.
2. Use fill flash.
3. Use a GND filter
4. Make appropriate decisions about chemical processing to improve one end of the range while sacrificing the other.
5. Pre-expose film to light to give some density to the shadows (on negative film).
6. Use HDR, exposure blending, and similar techniques with digital systems.
7. Consider what is most important in the image and consider sacrificing a bit of what is less important to retain it.
8. Push shadows in post to some extent.
9. Reduce artifacts (banding, aliasing, color noise, etc) in post as needed.
It will be a lovely world when camera can deal perfectly with all imaginable subjects and exposure situations. That world has never existed and it is hard to imagine that it will exist soon. If a 12 stop DR is not enough and someone comes out with a camera that does 18 stops, there will still be a situation in which 18 isn't enough and somehow we'll still manage to photograph it.
Sure, there are many situations where the dynamic range is too great for even the D800...but there are even more situations where the dynamic range is too great for the 5D3 and even more for Velvia slide film.
Given a choice, I would rather have the camera with a greater dynamic range. It handles more situations gracefully. Progression with dynamic range is quite exciting and if you don't find a need to expand this range, then good on you...but please don't again put down people that could use this enhancements by your quick "Much ado about very little..." remarks.
+1 to what Dan said . Be creative and make it a challenge to get the most out of the photographic conditions using your so called "limited/handicapped" gear.
canerino wrote:
From what I recall the complaints were there for the 5d2 banding at higher iso, but I do not remember people dramatically underexposing and trying to recover by pushing the fill light to +70 and expecting the shadows to be clean.
Personally my record for fill light is +35, with blacks at +1. This was for a backlit raven. This gave me the detail I wanted, but I do admit the noise was readily apparent, even if I did not notice banding. I'd say the noise is far more of an issue for normal amounts of shadow pushing. If you are pushing shadows +70 regularly, you need to invest in some new techniques IMO. Also prior to LR4, +70 on fill light looked terrible, as it was too broadband.
AGeoJO wrote:
+1 to what Dan said . Be creative and make it a challenge to get the most out of the photographic conditions using your so called "limited/handicapped" gear.
Does that go for slow single point autofocus, noisy high ISO etc...?
chez wrote:
Does that go for slow single point autofocus, noisy high ISO etc...?
Whatever gear you have at your disposal. My gear has not been the limitation of my photography, it is the other half of the equation. You can do manual focus, too, and use a camera support for a lower ISO setting, if there is a need to. Hey, those Zeiss lenses and TS-E lenses are awesome. I am not necessarily referring to the banding issues, of course.
AGeoJO wrote:
Whatever gear you have at your disposal. My gear has not been the limitation of my photography, it is the other half of the equation. You can do manual focus, too, and use a camera support for a lower ISO setting, if there is a need to. Hey, those Zeiss lenses and TS-E lenses are awesome. I am not necessarily referring to the banding issues, of course.
Yep, looking at your vast list of gear...looks like you've worked around limitations by buying more gear.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Also prior to LR4, +70 on fill light looked terrible, as it was too broadband.
LR3 moved fill light on exponentially from LR2/CS4, but either way we're in a world where liberal use of fill light can be made to look not just OK, but a number of very talented photographers have made it a cornerstone of their 'look'
I appreciate that +x is all you ever need, and that's great, but you shouldn't tar everyone who wants shadow detail as lacking in technique/talent/knowledge when even a cursory look around shows that it's not true at all.
I hate to cynically call it so early, but isn't this exactly the situation we had with the Mk II? A Nikon able to do something a Canon can't and those on whom the Canon's limitiations didn't impact giving multiple variants on "if you can't do x....you're obviously a bad photographer"
chez wrote:
Yep, looking at your vast list of gear...looks like you've worked around limitations by buying more gear.
Whatever works, like I said and I have the means to do so and I enjoy it . I don't just sit on my gear with other words. Better than just complaining and whining without putting your money where your mouth is .
Chris Beaumont wrote:
LR3 moved fill light on exponentially from LR2/CS4, but either way we're in a world where liberal use of fill light can be made to look not just OK, but a number of very talented photographers have made it a cornerstone of their 'look'
I appreciate that +x is all you ever need, and that's great, but you shouldn't tar everyone who wants shadow detail as lacking in technique/talent/knowledge when even a cursory look around shows that it's not true at all.
Wow, I'm now tarring everyone. Geez mate, lighten up and reread what I said. My point is that there are a multitude of ways to improve shadows, but solely pushing fill light to a large number prior to LR4 is not a good look IMO.
But hey if you are someone that's likes to shoot excessively contrasty scenes as a way of life good on you.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you did say "If you are pushing shadows +70 regularly, you need to invest in some new techniques IMO"
I'm merely pointing out that a LOT of very talented photographers (especially on the wedding board) do this and it's not due to lack of technique.
Ok, sorry if I offended wedding photographers, as I did not realise that they do this as par for the course. It's something I would never do for a living and so I've never been interested in what problems they would face, although I'm aware of the contrasty nature of the work. My frame of reference was coming from nature/psorts photography and occasional architecture shots.
I have been watching this evolve and I got to say to Chuck:
When the MkIII AF issue arose, this forum was full of people saying technique blah, learn to AF blah.....
To those of us that had problems, it was quite annoying having our intelligence insulted by people who didn't perceive it as a problem. Yet the threads that existed where just shit-magnets for nay sayers.
If you don't get or understand the problem then do us a favour and please just don't bother. Leave people alone to try and get comfortable with the 'problem' and be able to make informed informed purchasing decisions. Just because you don't understand someones point of view, it doesn't invalidate it.
like the poster in Fox Mulders office "I want to believe"
there is a Loch ness monster,bigfoot,tri-lateral commission...ect
I have a dream" no more threads on DR"
"no more threads on banding"
"no more threads is this lens sharp and what is sharp"
"no more dogs butts photos that look like you know who"
FPN (fixed pattern noise) in some Canon sensors is a reality - naysayers cannot deny it any more than gravity. Sony has a patent that cuurently precludes Canon from implementing a readout that avoids FPN. D800 does not have the FPN but the 5D2 and 3 will demonstrate the phenomenon.
If it is not a problem for your work, then leave this thread immediately and stay out of threads on this issue - you have no business telling others whether it is a problem for them or not - even if they only experience it occasionally. They already know there are ways to attempt to mitigate the issue, so lists of workarounds are not helpful or relevant, even if well-intentioned.
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.
Hey Chuck.
I think for 90% of shooting, the whole shadow-banding thing is pretty overblown - particularly in our field (weddings). There are times though when I'm grateful for my Nikons, as I'm pulling out detail that I know my Canon 5D2 wouldn't have been able to cleanly display.
Recent real-world example from my last wedding: I shot this in the early afternoon Arizona sun with no clouds in sight. It gets pretty brutal and the contrast in the shadows was killing me. I just remember looking through these on the LCD thinking "crap. crap. crap. crap.". Thankfully, with a healthy dose of fill light I was able to get some usable images. I have no doubt that my 5D2 wouldn't have been able to handle this pulling as nicely (although they probably still would've been usable).
I haven't used the 5D3, so I don't know how much applies to that. It's also worth noting that somehow, despite the fact that it's clearly impossible to take a decent photo using Canon anything, nearly all of the wedding photographers I respect most manage to get by using dreaded cameras that can't autofocus and have huge banding issues
Yes Nikon is better than Canon in this area. No it (likely) won't ruin your entire life.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It has always been the case and it is still the case that quite often a "proper exposure" is not a single exposure made by pointing the camera at the wide dynamic range thing and relying on the camera (whether digital of film) to just sort of "do the right thing."
It has never been the case and I think it unlikely that it will soon be the case that scenes with large dynamic range are "captured" by relying on a camera with an extraordinarily large dynamic range, whether digital or film.
It has long been the case and it continues to be so (though less now in some ways than in the past) that there are well known and commonly used ways of handling scenes with tremendously wide dynamic range. They include but are not limited to the following:
1. Photograph the subject at a time and/or in circumstances when the light is better.
2. Use fill flash.
3. Use a GND filter
4. Make appropriate decisions about chemical processing to improve one end of the range while sacrificing the other.
5. Pre-expose film to light to give some density to the shadows (on negative film).
6. Use HDR, exposure blending, and similar techniques with digital systems.
7. Consider what is most important in the image and consider sacrificing a bit of what is less important to retain it.
8. Push shadows in post to some extent.
9. Reduce artifacts (banding, aliasing, color noise, etc) in post as needed.
It will be a lovely world when camera can deal perfectly with all imaginable subjects and exposure situations. That world has never existed and it is hard to imagine that it will exist soon. If a 12 stop DR is not enough and someone comes out with a camera that does 18 stops, there will still be a situation in which 18 isn't enough and somehow we'll still manage to photograph it.
yes, you do what you can whenever you can (but things like 4 and 7, etc. do nothing), but in some cases there ain't nothing you can do but skip the shot when maybe with 3 more stops you might not have to
why always such a drum beat for technology to stay as is?
if Canon think nobody cares and all there here is your side then all we will ever get is the same old opportunities?
why always striving to have people have creative freedom?
who are you to say much ado about nothing?
I mean does it mean everyone has to run away screaming from the camera or toss in the trash, no, of course not, can you takes tons of awesome shots with it, will it perform superbly in many situations? Of course. So it's minor in that sense, but all the same it is not much ado about nothing for quite a few all the same and it's not hard to finbd scenarios where it can make a rather noticeable difference for some. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
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.
Chuck,
I respect you tremendously for your work. Your photos are amazing, and you have an incredible eye for composition. So for you to come here and say this is disappointing. Not only have you not bothered to understand the problem (it's most obvious at low ISO, not high ISO), you're insulting the competence of people who do encounter the problem by telling them to nail the exposure.
Have you looked at Daan's example? That's minimal adjustments in post-processing, not trying to rescue a badly botched exposure. Doesn't bother you? Fantastic. But how about you take a step back and maybe try to see how it might be a legitimate concern for other shooters instead of slinging mud? Just a thought.
It's fine to express an opinion, but when you do so without trying to understand the issue being discussed and top it off with insults to boot... I just don't know what you're trying to accomplish with that kind of chest-thumping and belittling of others.
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.
There you go...
i dont understand. the background was black to begin with, correct? why would you try to recover that at all? the first example (without the added fill) is a better looking photo (in my opinion of course) than the corrected version. maybe i'm missing something here?
. Be creative and make it a challenge to get the most out of the photographic conditions using your so called "limited/handicapped" gear.
. I don't just sit on my gear with other words. Better than just complaining and whining without putting your money where your mouth is 
and stay out of threads on this issue - you have no business telling others whether it is a problem for them or not - even if they only experience it occasionally. They already know there are ways to attempt to mitigate the issue, so lists of workarounds are not helpful or relevant, even if well-intentioned.