This topic is in the 2013 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2013So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
p.3 #1So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Looking at tonight's wedding for a few things...and I came across a new favorite image. Not sure if I'm taking full advantage of it in post, because I don't feel it's quite as good as it could be...but even in an image like this, dynamic range matters (in this case, sky detail combined with shadow detail):
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/D&A-001sm.jpg
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/D&A-001sm.jpg
Jun 02, 2013 at 03:20 AM
p.3 #2So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
And I also discovered/pinpointed something I didn't like about the 5d3's focus behavior: In dark using One-Shot, with AF assist lamp from on-camera flash, it takes an extremely...extremely...long time to lock focus. Like, as long as the 5d2 takes with NO af assist beam to lock in similar light.
This was fixed in the latest 5DM3 firmware release (1.2.1). Per Canon's description: "Improves the speed of the camera's acquisition of focus when using a Canon Speedlite's AF-assist beam." You can get the firmware here.
And I also discovered/pinpointed something I didn't like about the 5d3's focus behavior: In dark using One-Shot, with AF assist lamp from on-camera flash, it takes an extremely...extremely...long time to lock focus. Like, as long as the 5d2 takes with NO af assist beam to lock in similar light.
This was fixed in the latest 5DM3 firmware release (1.2.1). Per Canon's description: "Improves the speed of the camera's acquisition of focus when using a Canon Speedlite's AF-assist beam." You can get the firmware here.
Jun 02, 2013 at 04:27 AM
p.3 #3So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Form, you're a interesting case. Honestly.
You're not a bad photographer. In fact, I think (though ultimately clients, not some fool on the Web is the arbiter of your skills) you're a solid wedding photographer. Good work, nice exposures, nice compositions. I'm sure your clients are thrilled.
But you complain incessantly. About everything.
The thing is, you're also not entirely wrong in pointing out that DR/shadow noise control could be better. That's gotta be one of the most pursued goals in the technological advances of photography since... well... photography.
But like Dan pointed out, instead of, "This gear is amazing, I can't wait until DR gets better though." Or, "Boy, my life will be that much easier when I can push shadows 4-stops without chroma noise! Can't wait!" You're saying this akin to, "This is a tragedy, it's god awful, end of the world time." And you're saying that about so many things. Reading your posts one would think digital still hadn't surpassed film!
The thing is we're all using the same gear. We all have access to 5D3, 1DX, D800, etc. Just like we all have smartphones with a certain length battery life (yeah, can't wait until a phone lasts a month on a charge, it'll make my life easier...) but function within out limitations.
We also can hold two ideas in our heads at once (something you seem unable to do, or at least articulate):
1) That current technology is amazing and lets us do things we never were able to do before. In fact, the current generation of gear is better than ANYTHING that came before it. We can do more now than at any other point in photographic development.
2) Gear will continue its march forward. And in five years will have more ability thanks to gear than we have now. DR and shadow noise will in fact get better over time.
Having the ability to predict that better technology awaits in the future does not turn all current gear into total and utter crap.
Ultimately, I wonder if your clients have EVER given you trouble for chroma noise in the shadows on 100% crops? I wonder if you've ever lost jobs because you had a 5D3 and your competition had a D800 (or the reverse)? I wonder if this is just you acting out on the Internet-- turning a pretty normal desire for more/better into words that scream, "God this is terrible! I need MORE to avert this modern photographic tragedy!"
Either that, or you're the best troll ever.
No matter what the cause, though, it is getting annoying. I mean, what do you really want us to tell you? Since nobody except NDA-signees have any sense of what's going to happen specifically in coming models-- it's not like any on this forum is going to be able to answer your near-existential-angst-toned pleading for i) news about better things in the pipeline, or ii) better things down the pipeline. It is, right now, what it is. You have an opinion not shared by most. But none of us have the power to physically change the imaging capabilities of currently released gear.
What do you want anyone on this forum to actually tell you? Does it make you feel better to get page after page of responses from people telling you that you're over the top? Does this help walk you back from the edge?
You're not a bad photographer. In fact, I think (though ultimately clients, not some fool on the Web is the arbiter of your skills) you're a solid wedding photographer. Good work, nice exposures, nice compositions. I'm sure your clients are thrilled.
But you complain incessantly. About everything.
The thing is, you're also not entirely wrong in pointing out that DR/shadow noise control could be better. That's gotta be one of the most pursued goals in the technological advances of photography since... well... photography.
But like Dan pointed out, instead of, "This gear is amazing, I can't wait until DR gets better though." Or, "Boy, my life will be that much easier when I can push shadows 4-stops without chroma noise! Can't wait!" You're saying this akin to, "This is a tragedy, it's god awful, end of the world time." And you're saying that about so many things. Reading your posts one would think digital still hadn't surpassed film!
The thing is we're all using the same gear. We all have access to 5D3, 1DX, D800, etc. Just like we all have smartphones with a certain length battery life (yeah, can't wait until a phone lasts a month on a charge, it'll make my life easier...) but function within out limitations.
We also can hold two ideas in our heads at once (something you seem unable to do, or at least articulate):
1) That current technology is amazing and lets us do things we never were able to do before. In fact, the current generation of gear is better than ANYTHING that came before it. We can do more now than at any other point in photographic development.
2) Gear will continue its march forward. And in five years will have more ability thanks to gear than we have now. DR and shadow noise will in fact get better over time.
Having the ability to predict that better technology awaits in the future does not turn all current gear into total and utter crap.
Ultimately, I wonder if your clients have EVER given you trouble for chroma noise in the shadows on 100% crops? I wonder if you've ever lost jobs because you had a 5D3 and your competition had a D800 (or the reverse)? I wonder if this is just you acting out on the Internet-- turning a pretty normal desire for more/better into words that scream, "God this is terrible! I need MORE to avert this modern photographic tragedy!"
Either that, or you're the best troll ever.
No matter what the cause, though, it is getting annoying. I mean, what do you really want us to tell you? Since nobody except NDA-signees have any sense of what's going to happen specifically in coming models-- it's not like any on this forum is going to be able to answer your near-existential-angst-toned pleading for i) news about better things in the pipeline, or ii) better things down the pipeline. It is, right now, what it is. You have an opinion not shared by most. But none of us have the power to physically change the imaging capabilities of currently released gear.
What do you want anyone on this forum to actually tell you? Does it make you feel better to get page after page of responses from people telling you that you're over the top? Does this help walk you back from the edge?
Jun 02, 2013 at 04:56 AM
p.3 #4So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
The energy and time used on incessant bemoaning of perceived camera limitations would be better spent on solving real problems, if there are any, and perfecting the OP`s craft, be it thru hardware selection and better use of it (technique), developing his own creative path, growing his business etc.
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.
Jun 02, 2013 at 05:35 AM
p.3 #5So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
PetKal wrote:
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.
Nice.
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.
Nice.
Jun 02, 2013 at 06:04 AM
p.3 #6So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
He wouldn't just curse the darkness... He'd take a photo of it and complain on here about how the AF wouldn't lock onto said darkness and then whine more about not being able to push the image of the darkness 5-stops.
Jun 02, 2013 at 06:17 AM
p.3 #7So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
To back up my dynamic range claims, I bring forth this example, @ ISO100:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-001sm.jpg
Closeup:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-001c.jpg
In this situation, dynamic range exceeded the ability of the sensor to gather everything...just on the face and clothing combined alone, to say nothing of the bright background. The shadows have been boosted 2 stops, LR color noise reduction of 25 (default). To make it tolerable in the suit I have to boost it up to 70+. if I had shot the identical image with a D800...the noise would simply not be there. I would not have to obliterate detail to make the image less noisy.
This...Show more →
Hi form,
Once we understand the parameters (read: abilities and limitations) within which our gear performs the question then becomes, "what can I accomplish (create) in the existing lighting conditions?" Constantly changing lighting environments, I'm sure, are the biggest challenges for the run-and-gun event photographer. And gaining an understanding in the capabilities that one's gear brings to a variety of lighting conditions and gaining a proficiency in how to use and adjust one's gear in the ever-fleeting moments of capture/creation are the challenges of craftsmanship. A good eye, quick mind, being fleet-of-foot and making those seemingly-endless quick calls (decisions with one's gear) all need to become second nature. My hat is always off in admiration to those who can do this well.
So, looking at your two examples the questions then become, "How can I best get my gear to deliver in high-contrast, backlit, dappled light, midday sun and shadow environments? for the first example, and "How can I get my gear to deliver in low-contrast, indoor, ambient-filtered, side-lit conditions?" for the second example. And then there are the post-processing aspects.
And, all of this is subjective based on your artistic visions and desires. Using the couple image as an example...perhaps time and circumstance and event layout dictated that you needed to be situated where you were for that moment and that image, a likely juxtapositioning conducive (to my eye) for backlit, high-key imaging of the subjects. But it sounds like you were hoping that the camera could deliver a wide-enough DR to hold both your background hilghlights and foreground shadows within a usable range, instead...but it couldn't. So, "what to do?"
Well, one can certainly curse their gear if that brings them any pleasure. And one can certainly lobby proactively both online and to the camera manufacturers directly about the need to improve upon DR (I certainly have). But, methinks, most importantly, one should get the full, blemished understanding of the parameters (read: abilities and limitations) of their artistic tools and what they can and cannot deliver for them. The rest is all artistic compromise and creative ingenuity.
Anyhoo, hopefully there was something of value to you here.
Best to you,
Jimmy G
To back up my dynamic range claims, I bring forth this example, @ ISO100:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-001sm.jpg
Closeup:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-001c.jpg
In this situation, dynamic range exceeded the ability of the sensor to gather everything...just on the face and clothing combined alone, to say nothing of the bright background. The shadows have been boosted 2 stops, LR color noise reduction of 25 (default). To make it tolerable in the suit I have to boost it up to 70+. if I had shot the identical image with a D800...the noise would simply not be there. I would not have to obliterate detail to make the image less noisy.
This...Show more →
Hi form,
Once we understand the parameters (read: abilities and limitations) within which our gear performs the question then becomes, "what can I accomplish (create) in the existing lighting conditions?" Constantly changing lighting environments, I'm sure, are the biggest challenges for the run-and-gun event photographer. And gaining an understanding in the capabilities that one's gear brings to a variety of lighting conditions and gaining a proficiency in how to use and adjust one's gear in the ever-fleeting moments of capture/creation are the challenges of craftsmanship. A good eye, quick mind, being fleet-of-foot and making those seemingly-endless quick calls (decisions with one's gear) all need to become second nature. My hat is always off in admiration to those who can do this well.
So, looking at your two examples the questions then become, "How can I best get my gear to deliver in high-contrast, backlit, dappled light, midday sun and shadow environments? for the first example, and "How can I get my gear to deliver in low-contrast, indoor, ambient-filtered, side-lit conditions?" for the second example. And then there are the post-processing aspects.
And, all of this is subjective based on your artistic visions and desires. Using the couple image as an example...perhaps time and circumstance and event layout dictated that you needed to be situated where you were for that moment and that image, a likely juxtapositioning conducive (to my eye) for backlit, high-key imaging of the subjects. But it sounds like you were hoping that the camera could deliver a wide-enough DR to hold both your background hilghlights and foreground shadows within a usable range, instead...but it couldn't. So, "what to do?"
Well, one can certainly curse their gear if that brings them any pleasure. And one can certainly lobby proactively both online and to the camera manufacturers directly about the need to improve upon DR (I certainly have). But, methinks, most importantly, one should get the full, blemished understanding of the parameters (read: abilities and limitations) of their artistic tools and what they can and cannot deliver for them. The rest is all artistic compromise and creative ingenuity.
Anyhoo, hopefully there was something of value to you here.
Best to you,
Jimmy G
Jun 02, 2013 at 06:52 AM
p.3 #8So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Honestly no one, other than dweebs on photo forums, looks at 100% crops or realistically cares about shadow noise.
Jun 02, 2013 at 08:17 AM
p.3 #9So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I don't believe Canon is in a rush to cater to people complaining about low ISO DR. How big is that market compared to people wanting better high ISO performance? I don't doubt that Canon is actively developing the technology but I don't think it's as high on their priority list as many believe it should be.
If you wish to continue to use Canon gear you will have to WAIT. That's your only choice.
If you wish to continue to use Canon gear you will have to WAIT. That's your only choice.
Jun 02, 2013 at 08:57 AM
p.3 #10So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
justruss wrote:
Either that, or you're the best troll ever.
That's my take, and its why I'm not responding to the content of this thread or this poster any more. I urge others to consider the same approach. There is no other happy way out of this...
Either that, or you're the best troll ever.
That's my take, and its why I'm not responding to the content of this thread or this poster any more. I urge others to consider the same approach. There is no other happy way out of this...
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:04 AM
p.3 #11So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
In regards to deep shadow noise the Nikon D800/E whips silly any Canon dslr ever made. The Nikon files can be "push processed" like no other dslr files in history.
That is not in question.
That does not mean the Canon DSLR shadow performance is junk. It's not state of the art but it's not junk.
The Canon files for the most part are really good to work with and print beautifully. They do require some noise reduction at times but thankfully with today's processing algorithms in the top shelf raw processing softwares is really good.
That is not in question.
That does not mean the Canon DSLR shadow performance is junk. It's not state of the art but it's not junk.
The Canon files for the most part are really good to work with and print beautifully. They do require some noise reduction at times but thankfully with today's processing algorithms in the top shelf raw processing softwares is really good.
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:26 AM
p.3 #12So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
StillFingerz wrote:
Unless I've missed something, FM is a meeting place, a learning place, a sharing place, where hopefully each of us, hobbyist and/or pro, benefit from those of experience, of more refined eye/skill.
What I find most 'offensive'; excessive word, is a discussion, bashing in this case, without a single image to examine, ponder. There is simply nothing here but an endless over blown rant...repeated, again and again.
At least present an image, along with some PP info, isolate the problem areas, that way those in the know could help, assist with a possible solution...so that we all may learn...give back.
Jerry -- That's an excellent point. It takes little effort to vent, but it takes quite a bit of effort to provide a well-executed technical demonstration. Instead of irritation, the examples would provide illumination of the topic and develop a cooperative spirit to discuss and hopefully make headway in the problem area.
I love reading the technical pieces in the FM forum and wish there were more
You've remarked on the perfect opportunity to turn this into a problem solving discussion instead of a bitch-session.
*****************
PS -- Form -- Thanks for providing some photos and discussion. This is helpful to demonstrate your points.
Edited on Jun 02, 2013 at 09:55 AM · View previous versions
Unless I've missed something, FM is a meeting place, a learning place, a sharing place, where hopefully each of us, hobbyist and/or pro, benefit from those of experience, of more refined eye/skill.
What I find most 'offensive'; excessive word, is a discussion, bashing in this case, without a single image to examine, ponder. There is simply nothing here but an endless over blown rant...repeated, again and again.
At least present an image, along with some PP info, isolate the problem areas, that way those in the know could help, assist with a possible solution...so that we all may learn...give back.
Jerry -- That's an excellent point. It takes little effort to vent, but it takes quite a bit of effort to provide a well-executed technical demonstration. Instead of irritation, the examples would provide illumination of the topic and develop a cooperative spirit to discuss and hopefully make headway in the problem area.
I love reading the technical pieces in the FM forum and wish there were more
You've remarked on the perfect opportunity to turn this into a problem solving discussion instead of a bitch-session.
*****************
PS -- Form -- Thanks for providing some photos and discussion. This is helpful to demonstrate your points.
Edited on Jun 02, 2013 at 09:55 AM · View previous versions
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:38 AM
p.3 #13So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
ggreene wrote:
I don't believe Canon is in a rush to cater to people complaining about low ISO DR. How big is that market compared to people wanting better high ISO performance? I don't doubt that Canon is actively developing the technology but I don't think it's as high on their priority list as many believe it should be.
If you wish to continue to use Canon gear you will have to WAIT. That's your only choice.
That's almost exactly the response I got from the Canon CPS rep at the Cine Gear Expo 2013 Open House last week!
I don't believe Canon is in a rush to cater to people complaining about low ISO DR. How big is that market compared to people wanting better high ISO performance? I don't doubt that Canon is actively developing the technology but I don't think it's as high on their priority list as many believe it should be.
If you wish to continue to use Canon gear you will have to WAIT. That's your only choice.
That's almost exactly the response I got from the Canon CPS rep at the Cine Gear Expo 2013 Open House last week!
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:53 AM
p.3 #14So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
snapsy wrote:
This was fixed in the latest 5DM3 firmware release (1.2.1). Per Canon's description: "Improves the speed of the camera's acquisition of focus when using a Canon Speedlite's AF-assist beam." You can get the firmware here.
It did not fix mine, I said in two previous posts on this thread that I DID that update (immediately upon receiving the 5d3) and am finding these focusing results.
When I go into hyperbole mode, it's always immediately after seeing a batch of photos that badly, BADLY needed the benefits of less noise in the shadows in order for the photos to live up to their full potential...and, in this case, I posted right while taking a break from editing these processional photos. I want to retain highlights on skin, face, background when possible so the skin in sun isn't that really ugly yellow/orange quickly becoming total white (which would have been the case if I had let 1 more stop of light in for that processional photo). However, what I get in exchange is some literally un-removable patchy noise in the dark suit.
The very fact that something else out there (Nikon D800, D600, D4) completely defeats the logic that "if you push the shadows, you get lots of noise" that Canon users have come to accept...shows the technology IS there and really should have been implemented with the latest generation of Canon stuff. It SHOULD have been there even more so because the 5d3 has so little that it genuinely improves on its predecessor on.
I will still keep my 5d3 for the noise being slightly better at high ISOs, and for a bigger spread of cross type points allowing better tracking in good light away from the center point...and for the silent shutter mode (IMO the best and most significant improvement is the silent shutter mode)...but the shadows are lacking in the same fashion as the 5d2, and possibly worse for chroma noise at low ISO.
This was fixed in the latest 5DM3 firmware release (1.2.1). Per Canon's description: "Improves the speed of the camera's acquisition of focus when using a Canon Speedlite's AF-assist beam." You can get the firmware here.
It did not fix mine, I said in two previous posts on this thread that I DID that update (immediately upon receiving the 5d3) and am finding these focusing results.
When I go into hyperbole mode, it's always immediately after seeing a batch of photos that badly, BADLY needed the benefits of less noise in the shadows in order for the photos to live up to their full potential...and, in this case, I posted right while taking a break from editing these processional photos. I want to retain highlights on skin, face, background when possible so the skin in sun isn't that really ugly yellow/orange quickly becoming total white (which would have been the case if I had let 1 more stop of light in for that processional photo). However, what I get in exchange is some literally un-removable patchy noise in the dark suit.
The very fact that something else out there (Nikon D800, D600, D4) completely defeats the logic that "if you push the shadows, you get lots of noise" that Canon users have come to accept...shows the technology IS there and really should have been implemented with the latest generation of Canon stuff. It SHOULD have been there even more so because the 5d3 has so little that it genuinely improves on its predecessor on.
I will still keep my 5d3 for the noise being slightly better at high ISOs, and for a bigger spread of cross type points allowing better tracking in good light away from the center point...and for the silent shutter mode (IMO the best and most significant improvement is the silent shutter mode)...but the shadows are lacking in the same fashion as the 5d2, and possibly worse for chroma noise at low ISO.
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:47 AM
p.3 #15So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
justruss wrote:
Nice.
However, in this situation the candle can be lit only two ways: One, I make my OWN sensor (extremely unlikely since I have neither money nor knowledge of the science involved). Two...I obtain permission from all possible venues and hire a crew to handle at least 2 off-camera flashes with high speed syncing for every ceremony that could potentially have such high dynamic range...and even if I did this, the photos still wouldn't come out like I want because the light sources are directional and people nearer would get overblasted while people behind would get underexposed, and the whole thing would look unnatural anyway. No, neither of these candles in a dark room are realistic.
Please use that metaphor for a more appropriate situation.
PetKal wrote
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.However, in this situation the candle can be lit only two ways: One, I make my OWN sensor (extremely unlikely since I have neither money nor knowledge of the science involved). Two...I obtain permission from all possible venues and hire a crew to handle at least 2 off-camera flashes with high speed syncing for every ceremony that could potentially have such high dynamic range...and even if I did this, the photos still wouldn't come out like I want because the light sources are directional and people nearer would get overblasted while people behind would get underexposed, and the whole thing would look unnatural anyway. No, neither of these candles in a dark room are realistic.
Please use that metaphor for a more appropriate situation.
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:10 AM
p.3 #16So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
Nice.Please use that metaphor for a more appropriate situation.
OK, I shall try to do that.
justruss wrote
PetKal wrote
Ultimately, lighting a candle in a dark room gives better results, and it is generally also more satisfying, than just cursing the darkness.OK, I shall try to do that.
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:32 AM
p.3 #17So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
A picture is worth a thousand words... well maybe a metaphor...
butt appropriate...
http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Photography/Something-Different/i-Q8xCjrm/0/X2/Manual%20Shots-12-X2.jpg
IMHO...
butt appropriate...
http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Photography/Something-Different/i-Q8xCjrm/0/X2/Manual%20Shots-12-X2.jpg
IMHO...
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:49 AM
p.3 #18So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
It did not fix mine, I said in two previous posts on this thread that I DID that update (immediately upon receiving the 5d3) and am finding these focusing results.
When I go into hyperbole mode, it's always immediately after seeing a batch of photos that badly, BADLY needed the benefits of less noise in the shadows in order for the photos to live up to their full potential...and, in this case, I posted right while taking a break from editing these processional photos. I want to retain highlights on skin, face, background when possible so the skin in sun...Show more →
I really think you should try another D800 sample. My D800 has near 100% precision with f/1.4 primes at various distances. You're more likely to find a solid D800 that fixes whatever AF issues you had than you are ever being satisfied with the 5DM3's shadow performance.
snapsy wrote
This was fixed in the latest 5DM3 firmware release (1.2.1). Per Canon's description: "Improves the speed of the camera's acquisition of focus when using a Canon Speedlite's AF-assist beam." You can get the firmware here.When I go into hyperbole mode, it's always immediately after seeing a batch of photos that badly, BADLY needed the benefits of less noise in the shadows in order for the photos to live up to their full potential...and, in this case, I posted right while taking a break from editing these processional photos. I want to retain highlights on skin, face, background when possible so the skin in sun...Show more →
I really think you should try another D800 sample. My D800 has near 100% precision with f/1.4 primes at various distances. You're more likely to find a solid D800 that fixes whatever AF issues you had than you are ever being satisfied with the 5DM3's shadow performance.
Jun 02, 2013 at 12:03 PM
p.3 #19So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Not seeing any problem in those images that correct noise reduction wouldn't fix, oh and learning how to use fill flash. I'm sorry but I shot weddings with film and then the 10D, 1Ds, 20D, 5D and now 5D3. You don't have a clue just how good the current generation is and your rants about them not being good enough for wedding photography, well all those people you wish you could shoot like in the wedding forum, news for you, they are doing the job with cameras equal or less able than yours and have been doing long before cameras were as good as they are now. Pixel peeping a bit of noise which incidentally is easy to remove and certainly won't show up in print. Shoot a wedding with a 1Ds or 1DsII and then realise just how good this noise is. 
Enough already! You want the camera to do it all instead of learning some technique. If a 5D3 or D800 can't do weddings for you then you may know how to pose or capture a moment but you're no photographer. Go back to craigslist till you learn that photography is a lot more than just pressing the shutter release and expecting the camera to do it all for you. You want to know what your problems are mate? In this and many other threads? You want a 'become amazing wedding photographer for free card' without actually having to learn the technique or put in the legwork or gain the experience about what is actually important that used to be required to actually become a pro shooter.
Enough already! You want the camera to do it all instead of learning some technique. If a 5D3 or D800 can't do weddings for you then you may know how to pose or capture a moment but you're no photographer. Go back to craigslist till you learn that photography is a lot more than just pressing the shutter release and expecting the camera to do it all for you. You want to know what your problems are mate? In this and many other threads? You want a 'become amazing wedding photographer for free card' without actually having to learn the technique or put in the legwork or gain the experience about what is actually important that used to be required to actually become a pro shooter. Jun 02, 2013 at 12:03 PM
p.3 #20So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
robbymack wrote:
Honestly no one, other than dweebs on photo forums, looks at 100% crops or realistically cares about shadow noise.
that was a silly statement
heck even Ansel Adams did both of those things
Honestly no one, other than dweebs on photo forums, looks at 100% crops or realistically cares about shadow noise.
that was a silly statement
heck even Ansel Adams did both of those things
Jun 02, 2013 at 12:13 PM