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.7 #1So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
verbiage wrote:
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...Show more →
he did shoot the nikon for a while..didn't like it...went back to canon.
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...Show more →
he did shoot the nikon for a while..didn't like it...went back to canon.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:20 AM
p.7 #2So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I loved the D800 sensor, but I had some AF frustrations and was afraid of the bad support when I know I've had very good support from Canon CPS. The 35g focused too slowly for me (because I am spoiled by the 35L's snap-quick focus) and would do wild misses on odd occasions. The 85 f/1.8g would miss focus occasionally as well, basically no more trustworthy for focus than my 5d2s. Both lenses seemed to dislike focusing accurately at distances of 10-20 feet, and the Nikon stuff definitely tended to backfocus on strongly backlit subjects (the rear edge of the subject's head instead of their face would be in focus even if the AF point was on the nose/eye/etc.)
I sold the D800 and the new owner is very happy, being a long time Nikon user.
I sold the D800 and the new owner is very happy, being a long time Nikon user.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:53 AM
p.7 #3So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
jimmy462 wrote:
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 experience with highlight recovery is that the overexposure highlight recovery gradation is much more abrupt (in LR4) with the D800 than the Canon 5d2. I most often noticed wedding dresses or white suits that were maybe 1 stop or less overexposed, but which would have an intense, difficult-to-remove light blue tint when the highlights were brought down. By contrast, the 5d2 had no such tint when blown highlights were recovered - either the detail was there or it wasn't, but there was no tinting like that. I also felt - without proving it personally - that the highlight ceiling was a little more shallow with the D800 than with the 5d2. Not 2-3 stops shallower (like the shadow noise floor), but there seemed to be a difference. The D800 preferred underexposure of whites. Colored objects were a different story - they came down without that same blue tint given to white tones.
I prefer to have no such abnormal tint when bringing down highlights. I will take absence of detail, but please don't give me a strong tint I have to try to remove by brush tools.
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 experience with highlight recovery is that the overexposure highlight recovery gradation is much more abrupt (in LR4) with the D800 than the Canon 5d2. I most often noticed wedding dresses or white suits that were maybe 1 stop or less overexposed, but which would have an intense, difficult-to-remove light blue tint when the highlights were brought down. By contrast, the 5d2 had no such tint when blown highlights were recovered - either the detail was there or it wasn't, but there was no tinting like that. I also felt - without proving it personally - that the highlight ceiling was a little more shallow with the D800 than with the 5d2. Not 2-3 stops shallower (like the shadow noise floor), but there seemed to be a difference. The D800 preferred underexposure of whites. Colored objects were a different story - they came down without that same blue tint given to white tones.
I prefer to have no such abnormal tint when bringing down highlights. I will take absence of detail, but please don't give me a strong tint I have to try to remove by brush tools.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:58 AM
p.7 #4So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Well, I would say Nikon is still your way to go. Shadow Noise is something that, if it's an issue for you, will always be an issue with present Canon bodies; there is no fix if you find it an issue. The focusing quirks as mentioned re: Nikon do not sound thoroughly explored (at least from what you've said), and how regularly do you have problems with your cameras that bad support would put you off of an entire system? In my experience, I think I've contacted Canon one time for support over...easily 8-10 bodies and countless lenses.
Just my thought anyways.
Just my thought anyways.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:58 AM
p.7 #5So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Snapsy, those Nikon shots are very impressive. Nice sensor.
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:07 AM
p.7 #6So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
jimmy462 wrote:
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...Show more →
Highlight recovery is principally a function of metering decisions rather than sensor differences since it relates to how close the brightest highlight with detail the photographer wants retained is metered relative to the saturation point on the sensor.
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...Show more →
Highlight recovery is principally a function of metering decisions rather than sensor differences since it relates to how close the brightest highlight with detail the photographer wants retained is metered relative to the saturation point on the sensor.
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:09 AM
p.7 #7So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Einstein & Yogi had it right… " It's deja vu all over again". This seems to be a subject more at home in a certain circular exercise… 
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:11 AM
p.7 #8So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
StillFingerz wrote:
Photo 101
ETTR - Expose...To...The...Right
Oddly enough, that's the first thing that crossed my mind when I (just a moment ago) read the OP. And it's quite amazing how the latest software can recover highlights that seem at first to be blown out.
Like your quote from Emerson - thanks.
Glenn
Photo 101
ETTR - Expose...To...The...Right
Oddly enough, that's the first thing that crossed my mind when I (just a moment ago) read the OP. And it's quite amazing how the latest software can recover highlights that seem at first to be blown out.
Like your quote from Emerson - thanks.
Glenn
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:42 AM
p.7 #9So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
deleted
Edited on Jun 04, 2013 at 02:54 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Jun 04, 2013 at 02:54 AM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:14 AM
p.7 #10So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I would like to expose to the right, but if I do that then the bright skin will be completely blown out and give ugly orange/white areas that blend with the background and make the image look worse than it does.
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:41 AM
p.7 #11So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Exposing to the right does not mean overexposing to the right. It really means that you're making the optimum exposure for you subject and your sensor. If you're blowing out highlights that you wanted to keep, then you've obviously gone too far to the right.
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:48 AM
p.7 #12So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Ok from reading this thread and the many many other same threads by the OP (heck is there a glitch in the matrix ) it seems that the OP has found a stick to beat canon with and is purposely flailing away as hard as he can 
Form why the constant need to push the shadows by over 2 stops? That seems to be the constant thread going thru your threads , I keep seeing the 'push by 2 stops'
So Here's a thought , the OP keeps talking about pushing by 2 stops and snapsy's interior shots are 2 stops different (according to a poster here)
So how about over exposing the highlights by a stop so That way you only have to boost the shadows by a apprx 1 stop and can easily pull the highlights by a stop .
Also another thought : most of te examples I see you post you seem to shoot at the set ISO's (your example on here is 100iso) , but have you tried any of the interim iso's . Its been mentioned quite a few times that on alot of sensors (and this is not just on canon) it can be better to shoot a slightly pulled iso than a full stop iso or a pushed iso . Ie shoot at 160 rather than 100 , 320 over 200 etc .
I've certainly started to use them on my 7D and in some cases I can see a slight difference .
Just a thought
Lastly, don't be so criticle . You seem intend on viewing every last detail at 100% (a trait ALL the 7D haters seem to be stuck with) . Your clients are not looking at your images like that so why are you . And I really don't think that if you were to charge more your clients are going to start demanding 100% crop proofs of all your images (heck I be not one of them even know what chroma noise or shadow noise is let alone care)
They will just be looking for great images to keep for the rest of their lives (or as long as their marriage holds these days ) .
) it seems that the OP has found a stick to beat canon with and is purposely flailing away as hard as he can Form why the constant need to push the shadows by over 2 stops? That seems to be the constant thread going thru your threads , I keep seeing the 'push by 2 stops'
So Here's a thought , the OP keeps talking about pushing by 2 stops and snapsy's interior shots are 2 stops different (according to a poster here)
So how about over exposing the highlights by a stop so That way you only have to boost the shadows by a apprx 1 stop and can easily pull the highlights by a stop .
Also another thought : most of te examples I see you post you seem to shoot at the set ISO's (your example on here is 100iso) , but have you tried any of the interim iso's . Its been mentioned quite a few times that on alot of sensors (and this is not just on canon) it can be better to shoot a slightly pulled iso than a full stop iso or a pushed iso . Ie shoot at 160 rather than 100 , 320 over 200 etc .
I've certainly started to use them on my 7D and in some cases I can see a slight difference .
Just a thought
Lastly, don't be so criticle . You seem intend on viewing every last detail at 100% (a trait ALL the 7D haters seem to be stuck with
) . Your clients are not looking at your images like that so why are you . And I really don't think that if you were to charge more your clients are going to start demanding 100% crop proofs of all your images (heck I be not one of them even know what chroma noise or shadow noise is let alone care) They will just be looking for great images to keep for the rest of their lives (or as long as their marriage holds these days ) .
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:52 AM
p.7 #13So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
The middle-ISOs, on Canon stuff, affect noise and dynamic range. 1/3 stop above a base ISO (e.g. ISO125) is a 1/3 stop pushed base ISO, which increases shadow noise. 1/3 stop below a base ISO (e.g. ISO320) is 1/3 stop dropped exposure - which can increase highlight clipping. The former doesn't improve my situation at all, and the latter gives a little less headroom for highlights.
Jun 03, 2013 at 11:27 AM
p.7 #14So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
How this thread should end...
30D ... ISO 100 with 0ld 300 f/4L IS... 1/60...
http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Category/Continental-Tire-Challenge/i-j284Cjk/0/X2/GrandAm%20%2713-470-X2.jpg
form should make a complete recovery...
30D ... ISO 100 with 0ld 300 f/4L IS... 1/60...
http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Category/Continental-Tire-Challenge/i-j284Cjk/0/X2/GrandAm%20%2713-470-X2.jpg
form should make a complete recovery...
Jun 03, 2013 at 11:42 AM
p.7 #16So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
The middle-ISOs, on Canon stuff, affect noise and dynamic range. 1/3 stop above a base ISO (e.g. ISO125) is a 1/3 stop pushed base ISO, which increases shadow noise. 1/3 stop below a base ISO (e.g. ISO320) is 1/3 stop dropped exposure - which can increase highlight clipping. The former doesn't improve my situation at all, and the latter gives a little less headroom for highlights.
Ok then I have another suggestion for you :
Go buy your sensors by the ROLL , and see how you get on with them beasties
The middle-ISOs, on Canon stuff, affect noise and dynamic range. 1/3 stop above a base ISO (e.g. ISO125) is a 1/3 stop pushed base ISO, which increases shadow noise. 1/3 stop below a base ISO (e.g. ISO320) is 1/3 stop dropped exposure - which can increase highlight clipping. The former doesn't improve my situation at all, and the latter gives a little less headroom for highlights.
Ok then I have another suggestion for you :
Go buy your sensors by the ROLL , and see how you get on with them beasties
Jun 03, 2013 at 11:51 AM
p.7 #17So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Peter Figen wrote:
Exposing to the right does not mean overexposing to the right. It really means that you're making the optimum exposure for you subject and your sensor. If you're blowing out highlights that you wanted to keep, then you've obviously gone too far to the right.
+1
The concept is really not that hard to follow, I think.
Exposing to the right does not mean overexposing to the right. It really means that you're making the optimum exposure for you subject and your sensor. If you're blowing out highlights that you wanted to keep, then you've obviously gone too far to the right.
+1
The concept is really not that hard to follow, I think.
Jun 03, 2013 at 12:25 PM
p.7 #18So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
"The concept is really not that hard to follow, I think. "
I agree, but Joey appeared to be confused, thinking that ETTR must mean that your highlights are blown. It would seem to be common sense, but they say that it's not all that common.
I agree, but Joey appeared to be confused, thinking that ETTR must mean that your highlights are blown. It would seem to be common sense, but they say that it's not all that common.
Jun 03, 2013 at 12:34 PM
p.7 #19So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
You want me to have a racing accident in my souped up ford mustang?
Jun 03, 2013 at 12:36 PM
p.7 #20So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Peter Figen wrote:
"The concept is really not that hard to follow, I think. "
I agree, but Joey appeared to be confused, thinking that ETTR must mean that your highlights are blown. It would seem to be common sense, but they say that it's not all that common.
Exposing to the right is a perfectly viable choice when you are not dealing with high contrast scenes (e.g. daylight total shade plus direct sun in the same frame). However, the situations where the shadow noise is bothersome are always high contrast scenes, where ETTR would not be beneficial.
"The concept is really not that hard to follow, I think. "
I agree, but Joey appeared to be confused, thinking that ETTR must mean that your highlights are blown. It would seem to be common sense, but they say that it's not all that common.
Exposing to the right is a perfectly viable choice when you are not dealing with high contrast scenes (e.g. daylight total shade plus direct sun in the same frame). However, the situations where the shadow noise is bothersome are always high contrast scenes, where ETTR would not be beneficial.
Jun 03, 2013 at 12:37 PM