Someone has done a DPP conversion of the 5d3 file and then pushed the shadows MASSIVELY and got a really nice result. Nothing like the usual shadow pushing.
It's making me wonder whether DPP is doing something clever or if LR might be part of the problem when it comes to messy Canon shadows?
Very early days on this - don't shoot the messenger if the information turns out to be false or the test flawed Might be interesting for others to test it though?
When I use Aperture and push the shadows, I don't get anywhere near the banding what folks were getting with LR. The files seem much cleaner than the 5D2.
I just HAD to see for myself... and with a troublesome shot from today
Just jacked the sliders to endpoint to see, then tried to adjust C1 for matching but no way I can resolve the details that DPP can do http://www.webdog.se/tmp/DPP_vs_C1.jpg
C1 Ver 6.4
No noise reduction on either
Keep in mind that LR 4.1 is a Release Candidate and not the final version. So, I fully expect that they, Adobe that is, is still doing a low of tweaking. We will see....
I was wondering what program Fred used back then when he tested/compared the shadow between the 5D Mark III and D800? Fred, will you chime in, please?
I find it odd there's such a massive difference. I know each raw converter is different and works differently, but there's such a huge difference! It's not a little bit, but night and day...
I use Aperture 3 and get great results from the deepest shadows from my 5D3. Even the 5D2 was decent, much better than some of the results I see on the web.
joeisayo wrote:
I use Aperture 3 and get great results from the deepest shadows from my 5D3. Even the 5D2 was decent, much better than some of the results I see on the web.
Joe, that's definitely good news. I would like to see a comparison of the exact same file processed with Aperture and LR in that respect. Could you do that comparison for us, please?
AGeoJO wrote:
Joe, that's definitely good news. I would like to see a comparison of the exact same file processed with Aperture and LR in that respect. Could you do that comparison for us, please?
Thanks,
Joshua
I'll try to do that for you if Joe doesn't end up doing it. I'm going to reprocess a bunch of my best images over the past month in Aperture this weekend. I had been trying a switch to LR but want to give Aperture one more shot.
I'll see if I can get some screen shots tonight at ISO 100 pushed up completely on exposure and shadows using Aperture, but I don't have LR. I'll be using the 5D3 + 100L IS macro.
Someone has done a DPP conversion of the 5d3 file and then pushed the shadows MASSIVELY and got a really nice result. Nothing like the usual shadow pushing.
It's making me wonder whether DPP is doing something clever or if LR might be part of the problem when it comes to messy Canon shadows?
Very early days on this - don't shoot the messenger if the information turns out to be false or the test flawed Might be interesting for others to test it though?
i still see banding in his original DPP version and the shadow are looks like mush like it's made out of blobs of 4-6 pixels at once or something
Might be interesting for others to test it though?
good enough for me.