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.6 #2So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
morganb4 wrote:
Tell me about the road flares
Great for fill flash... toss a few into a filled room and it clears in a flash...
Tell me about the road flares
Great for fill flash... toss a few into a filled room and it clears in a flash...
Jun 02, 2013 at 08:17 PM
p.6 #3So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
The next 5D will likely have an amazing sensor with record breaking DR, but they will decide to go back to the old 9pt AF system. Thus making us wait for the 5D5, to have our cake and eat it too.
I love the 5D3, but DR is its weak point, at least compared to the D800. I have to agree with the sentiment, even if not how it was expressed. I too would have liked better DR.
I love the 5D3, but DR is its weak point, at least compared to the D800. I have to agree with the sentiment, even if not how it was expressed. I too would have liked better DR.
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:32 PM
p.6 #4So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
morganb4 wrote:
The thread will then... just die a natural death.
Can we all just help that come to pass? Soon? Please? ;-)
The thread will then... just die a natural death.
Can we all just help that come to pass? Soon? Please? ;-)
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:36 PM
p.6 #5So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Come on Dan, this thread has got to go for another 9 pages at least. Surely there is lots here that hasn't been discussed before. For example, I had never thought to use road flares for fill flash! Why hasn't the strobist blog covered this before?
Jun 02, 2013 at 09:40 PM
p.6 #6So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
After all this, I am thinking the bokeh may be tolerable after all...just because that dynamic range is so damned good.
I talked with you about this exact same issue before when you had the 800 up for sale. You basically told me that the Canon lens bokeh was more important to you than the Nikon dynamic range.
Now ... look at that picture you posted here of the two of them coming down the aisle. If you could have two versions of that shot to work with, one as it is now with Canon background bokeh and the awful chroma noise on the guy's jacket and then a second version that has Nikon lens bokeh but without the chroma noise on the jacket, which would you prefer?
And look at that silhouette shot you posted. If you could have two versions of that to work with in post, one version shot with a 5D3 and the other with the D800 - the Nikon version giving you more options as to what to do with those shadows - which version would you prefer?
After all this, I am thinking the bokeh may be tolerable after all...just because that dynamic range is so damned good.
I talked with you about this exact same issue before when you had the 800 up for sale. You basically told me that the Canon lens bokeh was more important to you than the Nikon dynamic range.
Now ... look at that picture you posted here of the two of them coming down the aisle. If you could have two versions of that shot to work with, one as it is now with Canon background bokeh and the awful chroma noise on the guy's jacket and then a second version that has Nikon lens bokeh but without the chroma noise on the jacket, which would you prefer?
And look at that silhouette shot you posted. If you could have two versions of that to work with in post, one version shot with a 5D3 and the other with the D800 - the Nikon version giving you more options as to what to do with those shadows - which version would you prefer?
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:30 PM
p.6 #7So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
D. Diggler wrote:
I talked with you about this exact same issue before when you had the 800 up for sale. You basically told me that the Canon lens bokeh was more important to you than the Nikon dynamic range.
Now ... look at that picture you posted here of the two of them coming down the aisle. If you could have two versions of that shot to work with, one as it is now with Canon background bokeh and the awful chroma noise on the guy's jacket and then a second version that has Nikon lens bokeh but without the chroma...Show more →
And so that was the reason why I did sell the D800. Bokeh was much more important than I gave it credit for before making the Nikon purchase...
The processional picture probably would have been done more competently and cleanly with the Nikon, and since it was the 70-200 whose bokeh is not my favorite nor most unfavorite, the bokeh "effect" difference probably would have been inconsequential compared to the much improved shadow noise.
For the silhouette, the Nikon would definitely offer far more flexibility in editing but I had planned that image as a silhouette from the beginning...so the result would likely be the same.
Edited on Jun 02, 2013 at 10:46 PM · View previous versions
form wrote
After all this, I am thinking the bokeh may be tolerable after all...just because that dynamic range is so damned good.Now ... look at that picture you posted here of the two of them coming down the aisle. If you could have two versions of that shot to work with, one as it is now with Canon background bokeh and the awful chroma noise on the guy's jacket and then a second version that has Nikon lens bokeh but without the chroma...Show more →
And so that was the reason why I did sell the D800. Bokeh was much more important than I gave it credit for before making the Nikon purchase...
The processional picture probably would have been done more competently and cleanly with the Nikon, and since it was the 70-200 whose bokeh is not my favorite nor most unfavorite, the bokeh "effect" difference probably would have been inconsequential compared to the much improved shadow noise.
For the silhouette, the Nikon would definitely offer far more flexibility in editing but I had planned that image as a silhouette from the beginning...so the result would likely be the same.
Edited on Jun 02, 2013 at 10:46 PM · View previous versions
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:39 PM
p.6 #8So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I recently shot some interior house photos for a friend with a D800. I wanted to capture both the bright interior as well as the outside view through the windows, which means either lots of flash work or blended exposures in post. Since the subject was static I decided on two-exposure blends for each photo, to yield the best IQ. But for kicks for this thread I just developed one of the photos using a the lower, single exposure to see how the IQ would compare (shadow pushing). Here are the resulting photos (full-size 36MP images). No NR has been applied.
Orig lower exposure image
Blend usnig single (lower) exposure (shadow pushing)
Blend using two exposures
Orig lower exposure image
Blend usnig single (lower) exposure (shadow pushing)
Blend using two exposures
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:40 PM
p.6 #9So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
lucas lumiere wrote:
Come on Dan, this thread has got to go for another 9 pages at least. Surely there is lots here that hasn't been discussed before. For example, I had never thought to use road flares for fill flash! Why hasn't the strobist blog covered this before?
Try it at your next wedding shoot and see if you don’t get some unique photos...
Come on Dan, this thread has got to go for another 9 pages at least. Surely there is lots here that hasn't been discussed before. For example, I had never thought to use road flares for fill flash! Why hasn't the strobist blog covered this before?
Try it at your next wedding shoot and see if you don’t get some unique photos...
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:44 PM
p.6 #10So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Jefferson wrote:
Try it at your next wedding shoot and see if you don’t get some unique photos...
I have an even better fill flash technique, which I'll be using July 4. In general, I avoid making any incendiary comments, but in this case...
lucas lumiere wrote
Come on Dan, this thread has got to go for another 9 pages at least. Surely there is lots here that hasn't been discussed before. For example, I had never thought to use road flares for fill flash! Why hasn't the strobist blog covered this before? I have an even better fill flash technique, which I'll be using July 4. In general, I avoid making any incendiary comments, but in this case...
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:47 PM
p.6 #11So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
snapsy wrote:
I recently shot some interior house photos for a friend with a D800. I wanted to capture both the bright interior as well as the outside view through the windows, which means either lots of flash work or blended exposures in post. Since the subject was static I decided on two-exposure blends for each photo, to yield the best IQ. But for kicks for this thread I just developed one of the photos using a the lower, single exposure to see how the IQ would compare (shadow pushing). Here are the resulting photos (full-size 36MP images). No NR has been...Show more →
Not a perfect sensor, I can see clearly the big shadow chroma noise and grain in the fireplace. However, most other areas are very good. The chroma noise is somewhat less than what shows on the suit I boosted a little over 2 stops in the processional photo, but it is splotchy.
I recently shot some interior house photos for a friend with a D800. I wanted to capture both the bright interior as well as the outside view through the windows, which means either lots of flash work or blended exposures in post. Since the subject was static I decided on two-exposure blends for each photo, to yield the best IQ. But for kicks for this thread I just developed one of the photos using a the lower, single exposure to see how the IQ would compare (shadow pushing). Here are the resulting photos (full-size 36MP images). No NR has been...Show more →
Not a perfect sensor, I can see clearly the big shadow chroma noise and grain in the fireplace. However, most other areas are very good. The chroma noise is somewhat less than what shows on the suit I boosted a little over 2 stops in the processional photo, but it is splotchy.
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:52 PM
p.6 #12So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Photon wrote:
Try it at your next wedding shoot and see if you don’t get some unique photos... I have an even better fill flash technique, which I'll be using July 4. In general, I avoid making any incendiary comments, but in this case...
That's OK... incendiary subject...
Sorry form... thought you were gone... still making noisey photos?... I thought with all this advice, you would have fixed that by now...
Jefferson wrote
lucas lumiere wrote
Come on Dan, this thread has got to go for another 9 pages at least. Surely there is lots here that hasn't been discussed before. For example, I had never thought to use road flares for fill flash! Why hasn't the strobist blog covered this before?That's OK... incendiary subject...
Sorry form... thought you were gone... still making noisey photos?... I thought with all this advice, you would have fixed that by now...
Jun 02, 2013 at 10:59 PM
p.6 #13So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
Not a perfect sensor, I can see clearly the big shadow chroma noise and grain in the fireplace. However, most other areas are very good. The chroma noise is somewhat less than what shows on the suit I boosted a little over 2 stops in the processional photo, but it is splotchy.
The fireplace is near black clipping and is pushed 4.5 stops, so we're talking a very deep shadow at an ISO 2,400 equivalent, viewed at 36MP native pixels. If you think that is noisy then you might need to reset your expectations for shadow noise.
Not a perfect sensor, I can see clearly the big shadow chroma noise and grain in the fireplace. However, most other areas are very good. The chroma noise is somewhat less than what shows on the suit I boosted a little over 2 stops in the processional photo, but it is splotchy.
The fireplace is near black clipping and is pushed 4.5 stops, so we're talking a very deep shadow at an ISO 2,400 equivalent, viewed at 36MP native pixels. If you think that is noisy then you might need to reset your expectations for shadow noise.
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:14 PM
p.6 #14So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
"Someone else mentioned small flashes, reflectors, etc. I didn't feel any inclination to use flash and I don't bring reflectors or have an assistant."
You've made certain choices about your approach that makes eliminating shadow detail essentially impossible with Canon gear (and most other gear, except a few limited models). I don't shoot the same as you, and I understand that if I want to shoot my 50L wide open in daylight, I can't use flash with proper sync. f/13, sure, but not f/1.6 with flash.
Of the limited weddings I've ever shot, I always used flash or flash fill whenever it was permitted. Maybe not the most artistic, but the shots seemed to please the clients and provide me a well exposed RAW.
I don't have a solution for you, not that would fit in with your method of shooting.
You've made certain choices about your approach that makes eliminating shadow detail essentially impossible with Canon gear (and most other gear, except a few limited models). I don't shoot the same as you, and I understand that if I want to shoot my 50L wide open in daylight, I can't use flash with proper sync. f/13, sure, but not f/1.6 with flash.
Of the limited weddings I've ever shot, I always used flash or flash fill whenever it was permitted. Maybe not the most artistic, but the shots seemed to please the clients and provide me a well exposed RAW.
I don't have a solution for you, not that would fit in with your method of shooting.
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:41 PM
p.6 #15So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I use these things quite a bit. Takes timing but usually after the third or fourth go you've got the shot. Worked brilliantly at a recent wake I shot.
Jun 02, 2013 at 11:47 PM
p.6 #16So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
The processional picture probably would have been done more competently and cleanly with the Nikon
Regardless of lens used for that processional shot, any differences in bokeh are going to be relatively minor in importance as compared to the dynamic range blemish.
I used to be basically in the same spot you are: a Canon guy who saw the same issues you're seeing with regards to dynamic range. Every camera system has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Brand A is strong here but weak there while Brand B is strong there but weak here. The solution I came to is that I now swing both ways. I whip out the tool that's better for the job. Sometimes the better tool is the one that's gonna allow me not to tarnish the picture with any major flaws.
The processional picture probably would have been done more competently and cleanly with the Nikon
Regardless of lens used for that processional shot, any differences in bokeh are going to be relatively minor in importance as compared to the dynamic range blemish.
I used to be basically in the same spot you are: a Canon guy who saw the same issues you're seeing with regards to dynamic range. Every camera system has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Brand A is strong here but weak there while Brand B is strong there but weak here. The solution I came to is that I now swing both ways. I whip out the tool that's better for the job. Sometimes the better tool is the one that's gonna allow me not to tarnish the picture with any major flaws.
Jun 03, 2013 at 12:49 AM
p.6 #18So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Strangely enough, I do not have a huge problem with the OP's complaints... As strictly a Canon shooter these days, I just try to work around the limitations, but I've found it useful to know what is available out there. I knew in theory (i.e. rather vaguely) about the advantages of latest Nikon bodies in shadow recovery, but this thread has brought it home.
I'm not writing this to encourage anyone to keep beating the dead horse here, but rather to balance out all the negativity, a little bit.
Joey, is there any way for you to shoot two systems? Even at CL rates, you've only got to book several more weddings to afford it. The best of both worlds - except that, of course, there'll be some confusion about the difference in controls, and something still to complain about, potentially
I'm not writing this to encourage anyone to keep beating the dead horse here, but rather to balance out all the negativity, a little bit.
Joey, is there any way for you to shoot two systems? Even at CL rates, you've only got to book several more weddings to afford it. The best of both worlds - except that, of course, there'll be some confusion about the difference in controls, and something still to complain about, potentially
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:56 AM
p.6 #19So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
snapsy wrote:
I recently shot some interior house photos for a friend with a D800. I wanted to capture both the bright interior as well as the outside view through the windows, which means either lots of flash work or blended exposures in post. Since the subject was static I decided on two-exposure blends for each photo, to yield the best IQ. But for kicks for this thread I just developed one of the photos using a the lower, single exposure to see how the IQ would compare (shadow pushing). Here are the resulting photos (full-size 36MP images). No NR has been...Show more →
Hi snapsy,
Nice demonstration. I am curious how well the D800 handles apparently/seemingly-blown highlights. If I'm reading the EXIF data correctly it looks like the exposure for the outdoors was at 1/25th second, f/5.6, ISO 100 and the exposure for the interior was at 1/6th second with the same f/5.6 and ISO 100? If this is accurate, a 2-stop difference in exposure duration, then I am curious how well the D800 can bring down the 2-stop overblown highlights in the single shot 1/6th second exposure version without blending in the 1/25th second outdoor exposure.
My point is this...there are two ways to approach ambient-light backlit scenes, expose for the highlights and try to, um, rassle-up the shadows, or expose for the shadows and try to, uh, rassle-down the highlights.
Any chance I could trouble you to post-process the original 1/6th exposure so we can see how well the D800 image data preserves those seemingly blown highlights in their RAW files? Or, simpler, still, an exported version using the RAW's native Linear Gamma of the 1/6th second single, unblended, exposure?
Methinks there is more here than meets the eye!
Thanks in advance!
Jimmy G
I recently shot some interior house photos for a friend with a D800. I wanted to capture both the bright interior as well as the outside view through the windows, which means either lots of flash work or blended exposures in post. Since the subject was static I decided on two-exposure blends for each photo, to yield the best IQ. But for kicks for this thread I just developed one of the photos using a the lower, single exposure to see how the IQ would compare (shadow pushing). Here are the resulting photos (full-size 36MP images). No NR has been...Show more →
Hi snapsy,
Nice demonstration. I am curious how well the D800 handles apparently/seemingly-blown highlights. If I'm reading the EXIF data correctly it looks like the exposure for the outdoors was at 1/25th second, f/5.6, ISO 100 and the exposure for the interior was at 1/6th second with the same f/5.6 and ISO 100? If this is accurate, a 2-stop difference in exposure duration, then I am curious how well the D800 can bring down the 2-stop overblown highlights in the single shot 1/6th second exposure version without blending in the 1/25th second outdoor exposure.
My point is this...there are two ways to approach ambient-light backlit scenes, expose for the highlights and try to, um, rassle-up the shadows, or expose for the shadows and try to, uh, rassle-down the highlights.
Any chance I could trouble you to post-process the original 1/6th exposure so we can see how well the D800 image data preserves those seemingly blown highlights in their RAW files? Or, simpler, still, an exported version using the RAW's native Linear Gamma of the 1/6th second single, unblended, exposure?
Methinks there is more here than meets the eye!
Thanks in advance!
Jimmy G
Jun 03, 2013 at 07:59 AM
p.6 #20So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Yeah, I'm a nobody. I'm not a professional. I'm not even a good photographer.
You're...me?
Hate it for us
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:20 AM