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.
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.
this is a very interesting example to me. i would think that the scene as you saw it before the shot actually didnt have any detail under the mushroom? why should we expect it to have detail when we see the photo on our computer screen?
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
canerino wrote:
this is a very interesting example to me. i would think that the scene as you saw it before the shot actually didnt have any detail under the mushroom? why should we expect it to have detail when we see the photo on our computer screen?
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
Our eyes can perceive FAR more dynamic range than any sensor, so yes, he was able to see some detail. However, recreating reality is not always the primary goal.
For a film guy, I am still stunned you do not want more DR and more random noise. Those are the two areas where film STILL blow any sensor out of the water. And yes, you could easily get film to show detail on that mushroom shot without blowing the highlights.
canerino wrote:
this is a very interesting example to me. i would think that the scene as you saw it before the shot actually didnt have any detail under the mushroom? why should we expect it to have detail when we see the photo on our computer screen?
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
I routinely lower my black point & open my shadows slightly so I can kick the contrast high and I will do so on a normally exposed file. So this would affect me to an extent. However, I often camp at higher ISO's and I like to think I am good with noise management.
are our expectations a bit unrealistic when it comes to dynamic range?
Well... They would be, except for a certain other company.
Often we don't realize what we're missing until we have it. When I was shooting Canon, I didn't really care about shadow banding, I just avoided it in my processing. But now I've been spoiled by Nikon, and it has actually changed the way I process my photos.
Again, not something worth making a HUGE fuss about (for most folks), but there is a noticeable difference in the way the two companies handle shadows that can be used to your advantage.
The forensic evaluation of every aspect of every new release of every camera and lens is way over the top in the modern era. No product could pass muster if an entire cottage industry puts everything under a microscope and then yell, "Ah Ha!" "I "might" have found something wrong!"
Reviewing a camera is one thing. Over analyzing it to death is quite another.
Tom K. wrote:
The forensic evaluation of every aspect of every new release of every camera and lens is way over the top in the modern era. No product could pass muster if an entire cottage industry puts everything under a microscope and then yell, "Ah Ha!" "I "might" have found something wrong!"
Reviewing a camera is one thing. Over analyzing it to death is quite another.
I would agree with you if no other camera would handle the uncovered issues better...but that is not the case with the banding in the shadows. Nothing wrong here pointing out the flaws of one camera compared to another. Much better than just always saying, oh well...better luck next time. I for one am interested in how the latest Canon equipment stacks up to their competitors, identifying both strengths and weaknesses.
It just when we get the chest thumpers proclaiming the issue does not exist for them so everyone else must not know how to use the camera, do these threads get out of control. Don't know why they just don't move onto a thread that might actually affect them.
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 think you missed a few of my points.
#4 and #7 were there in reference to my point about: "It has always been the case and it is still the case...", a version of which preceded my three earlier statements.
Who is beating a drum for technology to stay as it is? You are arguing with phantoms again. I never said that and I don't believe that. It isn't remotely related to the point I was making. I welcome technological improvements, but I think it would be just nuts - to make up a roughly parallel example - to go on obsessively about a car that can't yet levitate or travel back in time.
I can't make any sense out of what you mean with the following: "why always striving to have people have creative freedom?"
As to "who are you to say much ado about nothing" - Not sure where you are going with that one. But, "who I am" to write that is a photographer who honestly believes that the whole noise banding obsession is "much ado about nothing."
Am I happy to see improvements in noise performance, ISO, AF, dynamic range, and all the rest as new cameras are introduced? Yes, indeed! Why not?
Do I think that the noise banding issue that so many obsess about is a significant detriment to making outstanding photographs with these cameras? No.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think you missed a few of my points.
#4 and #7 were there in reference to my point about: "It has always been the case and it is still the case...", a version of which preceded my three earlier statements.
Who is beating a drum for technology to stay as it is? You are arguing with phantoms again. I never said that and I don't believe that. It isn't remotely related to the point I was making. I welcome technological improvements, but I think it would be just nuts - to make up a roughly parallel example - to go on obsessively about a car that can't yet levitate or travel back in time.
I can't make any sense out of what you mean with the following: "why always striving to have people have creative freedom?"
As to "who are you to say much ado about nothing" - Not sure where you are going with that one. But, "who I am" to write that is a photographer who honestly believes that the whole noise banding obsession is "much ado about nothing."
Am I happy to see improvements in noise performance, ISO, AF, dynamic range, and all the rest as new cameras are introduced? Yes, indeed! Why not?
Do I think that the noise banding issue that so many obsess about is a significant detriment to making outstanding photographs with these cameras? No.
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.
The way you tend to get all over anyone who mentions anything that is not a rave about a DSLR sort of does give one the impression that you are beating the drum to just make do and not bother. Especially since half the time you toss in snarky insults that are often beside the point.
And it's hardly levitating cars when the competition has been doing it for a couple years is it
Having more DR means you are free to shoot a wider array of potential types of scenes and thus you have more creative freedom, but heaven forbid anyone in any thread ever mention that it would be nice if they starting paying attention to DR without your bringing out the fire trucks to spray water all over it. it would be one thing to gentle temper it so someone doesn't get scared off over something they might not care about but it is another to so often snarkily put down the entire concept.
has anyone actually done a comparison between the 5d3 and any camera from Nikon in regards to recovering lost shadow detail with actual photos of the same subjects shot with two different cameras?
mikethevilla wrote:
Well... They would be, except for a certain other company.
Often we don't realize what we're missing until we have it. When I was shooting Canon, I didn't really care about shadow banding, I just avoided it in my processing. But now I've been spoiled by Nikon, and it has actually changed the way I process my photos.
Again, not something worth making a HUGE fuss about (for most folks), but there is a noticeable difference in the way the two companies handle shadows that can be used to your advantage.
Agreed. For most shooters it's not a make-or-break issue, but it's real and occurs even in well exposed images with just a bit of processing. Identify the problem, assess if it's a problem for one's use, and act accordingly. No need to complain incessantly, and conversely no need to pretend like the issue doesn't exist.
Chuch I agree. Expose the right way and worry more about composition etc.
If anyone feels limited by their camera (and this sentiment goes all the way back to like 2003) YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!
Canon support from the Darkside provided by yours truly!
canerino wrote:
has anyone actually done a comparison between the 5d3 and any camera from Nikon in regards to recovering lost shadow detail with actual photos of the same subjects shot with two different cameras?
I would be more than happy to do this. Just send on over that total piece of crap Canon camera that no one wants and takes terrible photos
gdanmitchell wrote:
Disagreeing is not "putting down." Unless you think that those with an opinion that doesn't match yours should not take part in this discussion.
On the other hand...
And you are concerned about others "putting people down?" ;-)
Kettle? Pot calling...
Dan ending your much winded post with the statement...
" much ado about very little"
iS putting people down. There is nothing in that statement that was intended to be an opinion. It was there strictly to emphasize your long winded post with a final put down. Let's not try turning the tables here.
And since this topic is so beyond your interest and banding never affects you, why do you keep popping in?
Reread that one statement of mine that you quoted above and give it some thought.
canerino wrote:
has anyone actually done a comparison between the 5d3 and any camera from Nikon in regards to recovering lost shadow detail with actual photos of the same subjects shot with two different cameras?
Chuck, here one sample that latest nikon/sony has offered and demonstraed by Adam:
snapsy wrote:
No worries. These are part of a series/process I'm working on for an ISOless workflow on the D800, which means dialing in your aperture and shutter and then fixing the ISO at or near base, and then not touching ISO for the remainder of the shooting session. This allows you to shoot in varied/changing lighting conditions without ever worrying about the exposure, provided the max LV of the scene is at or below your chosen aperture/shutter speed. The primary benefit aside from not having to worry about exposure is that you retain the full input dynamic range of base ISO, whereas normally High ISO shooting involves significant loss of dynamic range. Another benefit is that you'll never "overexposure" a shot for cases where the camera would otherwise meter too hot.
I'm moving away from posting this kind of stuff in Canon forums because it generally just leads to strife that detours discussions away from the possibilities of the technology....Show more →
Ive got a question...do you see the banding in a print? I ask since Ive never seen banding in any of my prints...still think banding is a causation not a normal output of a sensor,ie PP with the many software choices how do you know which one is mucking things up to get banding? I would like to see a side by side with Lightroom,ACR,Photoshop,DPP same image.
