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.9 #1So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Filling with flash requires that I do at least one of several things:
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum investment of $600 (radiopoppers, etc.) - $1200 (pair of Speedlite 600RTs), the latter option as I understand it only being functional on ONE of my cameras.
With all direct on-camera light sources, some people may not care about the effect it has on reflective areas of the skin, but to me it's a dead ringer for the look that screams "chapel photographer" or "cheap photographer." There are a few people who may not have much in the way of glints and reflections on their skin, but many more do. A light diffuser on the flash may reduce some of this, but I will still the get the certain kind of shadows (or lack thereof) that looks cheesy in most images. And it still requires a kind of "zoom control" so that the people nearer me don't get completely blown out (especially for wide images).
Off-camera is almost not possible because of space constraints during processionals - how is an assistant going to fit in there with me? If they are at the opening, how am I going to manage a tightly focused blast that only properly exposes the subjects at 10-15 feet while not blowing out anybody nearer?
So many complications...so many more things that could go wrong...or I could have a camera with a sensor like the D800 and none of this extra trouble would be necessary at all.
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum investment of $600 (radiopoppers, etc.) - $1200 (pair of Speedlite 600RTs), the latter option as I understand it only being functional on ONE of my cameras.
With all direct on-camera light sources, some people may not care about the effect it has on reflective areas of the skin, but to me it's a dead ringer for the look that screams "chapel photographer" or "cheap photographer." There are a few people who may not have much in the way of glints and reflections on their skin, but many more do. A light diffuser on the flash may reduce some of this, but I will still the get the certain kind of shadows (or lack thereof) that looks cheesy in most images. And it still requires a kind of "zoom control" so that the people nearer me don't get completely blown out (especially for wide images).
Off-camera is almost not possible because of space constraints during processionals - how is an assistant going to fit in there with me? If they are at the opening, how am I going to manage a tightly focused blast that only properly exposes the subjects at 10-15 feet while not blowing out anybody nearer?
So many complications...so many more things that could go wrong...or I could have a camera with a sensor like the D800 and none of this extra trouble would be necessary at all.
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:26 PM
p.9 #2So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I don't use HTP. If it's on, it's on by accident. No, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been on for any of these photos because my cameras all went down to ISO100 without resistance (can't do HTP and ISO100).
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:27 PM
p.9 #3So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
jeremy_clay wrote:
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.
As I said earlier, I was in the same position as Form, being a Canon shooter having an issue with shadow noise. Yes, I wasn't happy about the issue but instead of going around complaining about my plight, I supplemented my toolbox with some high-dynamic-range gear and moved forward.
The constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
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.
As I said earlier, I was in the same position as Form, being a Canon shooter having an issue with shadow noise. Yes, I wasn't happy about the issue but instead of going around complaining about my plight, I supplemented my toolbox with some high-dynamic-range gear and moved forward.
The constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:41 PM
p.9 #4So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
OK I took 2 of those files and very quickly threw them into LR5 beta (didnt want to import them into my LR4 cat
hope you dont mind me posting them . If you do then I'll take them down .
By the way I consider myself cr@p at P&P and these were done real quick
for the bride talking to the mum I just hit auto and the used the exposure brush on her face . A little on the mums face and the waiters elbow as well )
then i gave it some NR (Lum 32 colour 44).
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-FvmhM6w/0/XL/IMG_1530-XL.jpg
As for the food. I again just hit auto which gave a 1 stop push.
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-mV46m3J/0/XL/IMG_1449-XL.jpg
100% crop
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-QLL6twp/0/XL/IMG_1449_crop-XL.jpg
then I added an extra stop (well just under)
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-8pr3vRR/0/XL/IMG_1449-2-XL.jpg
100% crop
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-XJfN9gP/0/XL/IMG_1449-2_crop-XL.jpg
The food shots have NR of Lum 44 Col 51
in all cases the NR was applied just by moving the slider to taste . Im sure with a little more time and a bit of playing with the NR brush the images could be improved over my hamfisted efforts
even on a big screen or print Im sure they would look perfectly fine . In my view 100% viewing and crops should be banned (I actually had to look up how to do a 100% crop as its so long ago since i bothered i must have purged the info from my brain )
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM · View previous versions
hope you dont mind me posting them . If you do then I'll take them down .
By the way I consider myself cr@p at P&P and these were done real quick
for the bride talking to the mum I just hit auto and the used the exposure brush on her face . A little on the mums face and the waiters elbow as well )
then i gave it some NR (Lum 32 colour 44).
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-FvmhM6w/0/XL/IMG_1530-XL.jpg
As for the food. I again just hit auto which gave a 1 stop push.
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-mV46m3J/0/XL/IMG_1449-XL.jpg
100% crop
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-QLL6twp/0/XL/IMG_1449_crop-XL.jpg
then I added an extra stop (well just under)
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-8pr3vRR/0/XL/IMG_1449-2-XL.jpg
100% crop
http://dobbie.smugmug.com/Test-stuff/form/i-XJfN9gP/0/XL/IMG_1449-2_crop-XL.jpg
The food shots have NR of Lum 44 Col 51
in all cases the NR was applied just by moving the slider to taste . Im sure with a little more time and a bit of playing with the NR brush the images could be improved over my hamfisted efforts
even on a big screen or print Im sure they would look perfectly fine . In my view 100% viewing and crops should be banned
(I actually had to look up how to do a 100% crop as its so long ago since i bothered i must have purged the info from my brain ) Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:55 PM
p.9 #5So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
D. Diggler wrote:
As I said earlier, I was in the same position as Form, being a Canon shooter having an issue with shadow noise. Yes, I wasn't happy about the issue but instead of going around complaining about my plight, I supplemented my toolbox with some high-dynamic-range gear and moved forward.
The constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
It is conceivable that I could purchase a D800 again with one or two lenses (70-200) for the purpose of shooting outdoor ceremonies, but that is a very big investment just for one kind of occasion. The 70-200 I have for Canon already is in the same boat of one-trick-pony and if I could figure out how to not have it and still get all the long range ceremony shots, I would have done it already. And the 70-200 only cost me about $1300 - D800+70-200 would be about 4k+.
jeremy_clay wrote
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 constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
It is conceivable that I could purchase a D800 again with one or two lenses (70-200) for the purpose of shooting outdoor ceremonies, but that is a very big investment just for one kind of occasion. The 70-200 I have for Canon already is in the same boat of one-trick-pony and if I could figure out how to not have it and still get all the long range ceremony shots, I would have done it already. And the 70-200 only cost me about $1300 - D800+70-200 would be about 4k+.
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:55 PM
p.9 #6So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
It is conceivable that I could purchase a D800 again with one or two lenses (70-200) for the purpose of shooting outdoor ceremonies, but that is a very big investment just for one kind of occasion. The 70-200 I have for Canon already is in the same boat of one-trick-pony and if I could figure out how to not have it and still get all the long range ceremony shots, I would have done it already. And the 70-200 only cost me about $1300 - D800+70-200 would be about 4k+.
How about a used D7000 for ~$600? It'll have about 1.3x more overall noise but since you'll be using it for your High DR shots you'll likely be outdoors in good lighting, where the noise delta wont matter and you'll have DR about equal to the D800.
It is conceivable that I could purchase a D800 again with one or two lenses (70-200) for the purpose of shooting outdoor ceremonies, but that is a very big investment just for one kind of occasion. The 70-200 I have for Canon already is in the same boat of one-trick-pony and if I could figure out how to not have it and still get all the long range ceremony shots, I would have done it already. And the 70-200 only cost me about $1300 - D800+70-200 would be about 4k+.
How about a used D7000 for ~$600? It'll have about 1.3x more overall noise but since you'll be using it for your High DR shots you'll likely be outdoors in good lighting, where the noise delta wont matter and you'll have DR about equal to the D800.
Jun 03, 2013 at 04:59 PM
p.9 #7So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
If your hss looks too ugly then your balance us wrong. But if you prefer blocked shadows....
My point is that photography is about compromise, it always has been. Technology is helping but you can not win every situation yet. You need to accept this.
Go outside on a bright sunny day and look objectively at people's faces. What do you see? Dark shadows. You can't expect a camera to just magic them away a camera can only deal with a small amount of what you see. Traditionally photographers have used their craft, specifically fill flash, to reduce the effect of shadows. If you spent some time on this aspect then you would be happier.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM · View previous versions
My point is that photography is about compromise, it always has been. Technology is helping but you can not win every situation yet. You need to accept this.
Go outside on a bright sunny day and look objectively at people's faces. What do you see? Dark shadows. You can't expect a camera to just magic them away a camera can only deal with a small amount of what you see. Traditionally photographers have used their craft, specifically fill flash, to reduce the effect of shadows. If you spent some time on this aspect then you would be happier.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 07:29 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:15 PM
p.9 #8So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
Filling with flash requires that I do at least one of several things:
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum...Show more →
You are basically unwilling to do the proper technical solution because it conflict with your sense of aesthetics. The fact is the equipment is not otherwise able to fulfill your goal of aesthetics at this time, and you are unwilling to accept that.
Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.
We all have to make compromises, and for me personally, I'd rather have a well exposed photo with good expressions, even if there are telltale signs of artificial lighting, than to have noisy, high contrast images with raised shadows and blown highlights. Photographers have been successfully providing professional results for over 100 years with supplemental lighting -- clients will not be surprised to see it when needed. But the rub is that you don't want to change your stylistic approach, in defiance of the available technology and gear. What can anyone do for you in that situation?
Filling with flash requires that I do at least one of several things:
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum...Show more →
You are basically unwilling to do the proper technical solution because it conflict with your sense of aesthetics. The fact is the equipment is not otherwise able to fulfill your goal of aesthetics at this time, and you are unwilling to accept that.
Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.
We all have to make compromises, and for me personally, I'd rather have a well exposed photo with good expressions, even if there are telltale signs of artificial lighting, than to have noisy, high contrast images with raised shadows and blown highlights. Photographers have been successfully providing professional results for over 100 years with supplemental lighting -- clients will not be surprised to see it when needed. But the rub is that you don't want to change your stylistic approach, in defiance of the available technology and gear. What can anyone do for you in that situation?
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:17 PM
p.9 #9So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I forgot to include an important point:
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:18 PM
p.9 #10So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
That doesn't happen, we are only talking about a small amount here. That's why you get get there early and get your balance dialed in.
The more you do to lift shadows at the time, the less you do in post
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:49 PM · View previous versions
The more you do to lift shadows at the time, the less you do in post
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:49 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:19 PM
p.9 #11So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Gunzorro wrote:
You are basically unwilling to do the proper technical solution because it conflict with your sense of aesthetics. The fact is the equipment is not otherwise able to fulfill your goal of aesthetics at this time, and you are unwilling to accept that.
Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.
My aesthetics are part of what I provide to my clients. They book me for my "aesthetics." I would dislike that "aesthetic" of on-camera fill flash, as I have tried it multiple times in the past and quickly shut the flash power off in disgust after reviewing a few images from similar processionals/ceremonies.
Photography is...aesthetics. My photos are not transcendent, but I am not about to take a step back in my path towards transcendence just to compensate inadequately for a deficiency in my equipment that can and HAS been successfully dealt with by another sensor manufacturer.
You are basically unwilling to do the proper technical solution because it conflict with your sense of aesthetics. The fact is the equipment is not otherwise able to fulfill your goal of aesthetics at this time, and you are unwilling to accept that.
Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.
My aesthetics are part of what I provide to my clients. They book me for my "aesthetics." I would dislike that "aesthetic" of on-camera fill flash, as I have tried it multiple times in the past and quickly shut the flash power off in disgust after reviewing a few images from similar processionals/ceremonies.
Photography is...aesthetics. My photos are not transcendent, but I am not about to take a step back in my path towards transcendence just to compensate inadequately for a deficiency in my equipment that can and HAS been successfully dealt with by another sensor manufacturer.
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:22 PM
p.9 #12So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
The edited food photo is clean enough, for sure, but it is still underexposed. I had included it in the first place as an example of noise in 5d3 images. It is NOT the problem situation where I have to underexpose faces 2+ stops to retain highlights elsewhere, with black/dark grey suits or black/dark hair which are consistent colors that splotches show easily on.
As for the photo of the bride kneeling by the groom+his parents, that photo is virtually unusable and your shot did not make it compositionally any better. Her face is simply overblown, and any contrast or whites adjustment makes it obvious.
However, http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/IMG_1532.CR2 - while not quite as good because the faces aren't as good, is exposed a little darker and enough to not destroy her face with the burn:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-004sm.jpg
However, inspecting this photo's shadows once boosted enough to produce this appearance shows considerable noise, mostly removable by stronger NR above default. However, this also reduces color trueness (something else I try to avoid) and tends to flatten colors overall (plus the grain or loss of detail when removing luminance).
This is also...about as lucky as I can get for exposure. This shot is neither quite blown nor quite too dark trying to compensate and avoid the blown highlights. In reality, getting this accuracy exposure just doesn't happen all that often when my priority is trying to capture things actually happening, rather than worrying about getting the exposure EXACTLY right. I have others that are underexposed further because I tried to compensate for what looked like a totally blown face on the review LCD, and they are the more common and more likely scenario when shooting on-the-fly like weddings are.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:48 PM · View previous versions
As for the photo of the bride kneeling by the groom+his parents, that photo is virtually unusable and your shot did not make it compositionally any better. Her face is simply overblown, and any contrast or whites adjustment makes it obvious.
However, http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/IMG_1532.CR2 - while not quite as good because the faces aren't as good, is exposed a little darker and enough to not destroy her face with the burn:
http://www.joeyallenphoto.com/T&K-004sm.jpg
However, inspecting this photo's shadows once boosted enough to produce this appearance shows considerable noise, mostly removable by stronger NR above default. However, this also reduces color trueness (something else I try to avoid) and tends to flatten colors overall (plus the grain or loss of detail when removing luminance).
This is also...about as lucky as I can get for exposure. This shot is neither quite blown nor quite too dark trying to compensate and avoid the blown highlights. In reality, getting this accuracy exposure just doesn't happen all that often when my priority is trying to capture things actually happening, rather than worrying about getting the exposure EXACTLY right. I have others that are underexposed further because I tried to compensate for what looked like a totally blown face on the review LCD, and they are the more common and more likely scenario when shooting on-the-fly like weddings are.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:48 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:24 PM
p.9 #13So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
D. Diggler wrote:
As I said earlier, I was in the same position as Form, being a Canon shooter having an issue with shadow noise. Yes, I wasn't happy about the issue but instead of going around complaining about my plight, I supplemented my toolbox with some high-dynamic-range gear and moved forward.
The constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
True! Form might carry a 5D3/1DX with 85L (or whatever is your favorite available light lens) AND carry a second 5.D3/1DX with 35/1.4 (or zoom) with on-camera flash, and shoot each as required. Or get a D800 for the avaiable light stuff!
The flash can be turned off when not needed, but clicked on when needed.
I'm no regular wedding photographer, but I did a similar thing for a wedding this summer -- 1Ds2 with 50L at ISO 50 or 100, and 5D2 with 28-300L IS with 580 EXII flash (on most of the time). I got impressive "atmospheric" daytime shots with the 50L between 1.2 to 1.8 in shade and a little sunlight, and great "straight" shots with the flash as fill for all others. I guess the trick is not to overdo the flash.
jeremy_clay wrote
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 constant complaining about this issue is like complaining that you keep shaking the salt shaker but pepper never comes out. If you want pepper, you have to get a pepper shaker.
True! Form might carry a 5D3/1DX with 85L (or whatever is your favorite available light lens) AND carry a second 5.D3/1DX with 35/1.4 (or zoom) with on-camera flash, and shoot each as required. Or get a D800 for the avaiable light stuff!
The flash can be turned off when not needed, but clicked on when needed.
I'm no regular wedding photographer, but I did a similar thing for a wedding this summer -- 1Ds2 with 50L at ISO 50 or 100, and 5D2 with 28-300L IS with 580 EXII flash (on most of the time). I got impressive "atmospheric" daytime shots with the 50L between 1.2 to 1.8 in shade and a little sunlight, and great "straight" shots with the flash as fill for all others. I guess the trick is not to overdo the flash.
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:26 PM
p.9 #14So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.My aesthetics are part of what I provide to my clients. They book me for my "aesthetics." I would dislike that "aesthetic" of on-camera fill flash, as I have tried it multiple times in the past and quickly shut the flash power off in disgust after reviewing a few images from similar processionals/ceremonies.
Photography is...aesthetics. My photos are not transcendent, but I am not about to take a step back in my path towards transcendence just to compensate inadequately for a deficiency in my equipment that can and HAS been successfully dealt with by another sensor manufacturer.
I respectfully point out that great photographers have used flash fill successfully for well over 100 years, and are still doing so.
Your remark about additive illumination of fill flash to sunlit and shaded areas underlines your lack of understanding of basics of lighting. It's covered in every beginning lighting book.
The point of understanding lighting ratios and how to make the proper settings on flash or find suitable ambient conditions is critical to "transcendent" photography, not chucking the science and experience and always trying to "wing it". Too much winging eventually looks cheesy or amateurish. It's much easier today with all the automation and computerized features, but the basics should still be a foundation.
Wishing for your success.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:39 PM · View previous versions
Gunzorro wrote
You are basically unwilling to do the proper technical solution because it conflict with your sense of aesthetics. The fact is the equipment is not otherwise able to fulfill your goal of aesthetics at this time, and you are unwilling to accept that.Frankly, your photos are very good, and in many situations you can succeed in achieving the aesthetics you desire. BUT, your photos are not so stylistically unique or transcendent that flash fill (or even flash predominant in certain situations) would look cheap or out of line.
Photography is...aesthetics. My photos are not transcendent, but I am not about to take a step back in my path towards transcendence just to compensate inadequately for a deficiency in my equipment that can and HAS been successfully dealt with by another sensor manufacturer.
I respectfully point out that great photographers have used flash fill successfully for well over 100 years, and are still doing so.
Your remark about additive illumination of fill flash to sunlit and shaded areas underlines your lack of understanding of basics of lighting. It's covered in every beginning lighting book.
The point of understanding lighting ratios and how to make the proper settings on flash or find suitable ambient conditions is critical to "transcendent" photography, not chucking the science and experience and always trying to "wing it". Too much winging eventually looks cheesy or amateurish. It's much easier today with all the automation and computerized features, but the basics should still be a foundation.
Wishing for your success.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 05:39 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:37 PM
p.9 #15So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
I forgot to include an important point:
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
Not in reality, because exposure is not linear.
ie. even if the flash is bringing up the shadows by +2EV, it will bring up the midtones and highlights by far less. Often times the effect on the highlights and midtones will be minimal if the fill flash is properly set up. If you are adding significantly to the highlights, then your fill flash is set far too high.
Honestly can't believe I'm having to bring this up, I'm not a huge flash user but I do at least know the basics like on-camera fill, 3-point, to get by when I need to.
I forgot to include an important point:
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
Not in reality, because exposure is not linear.
ie. even if the flash is bringing up the shadows by +2EV, it will bring up the midtones and highlights by far less. Often times the effect on the highlights and midtones will be minimal if the fill flash is properly set up. If you are adding significantly to the highlights, then your fill flash is set far too high.
Honestly can't believe I'm having to bring this up, I'm not a huge flash user but I do at least know the basics like on-camera fill, 3-point, to get by when I need to.
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:38 PM
p.9 #16So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I don't know if it's linear or not, but if I boost shadows by 2ev with flash and the highlights - already near/at max before blowing in RAW - get pushed 1 stop or even possibly less, then I still end up with blown highlights. This is not a great solution. It also adds the reflective highlights I strongly dislike.
FWIW, I have shot at highlights and shadows with direct on-camera flash before, and the results were blown highlights in exchange for somewhat brighter shadows I would still have to push in post. It has been a long time and I am not going to try to dredge up those photos, but one such wedding was when the bride was throwing a shadow on only half of the groom's face because of the sun direction. I couldn't NOT use some kind of fill flash - and so in this situation the fill flash came from the side(s). Better than on-camera, but limiting in other ways and dependent on not being blocked by other objects.
FWIW, I have shot at highlights and shadows with direct on-camera flash before, and the results were blown highlights in exchange for somewhat brighter shadows I would still have to push in post. It has been a long time and I am not going to try to dredge up those photos, but one such wedding was when the bride was throwing a shadow on only half of the groom's face because of the sun direction. I couldn't NOT use some kind of fill flash - and so in this situation the fill flash came from the side(s). Better than on-camera, but limiting in other ways and dependent on not being blocked by other objects.
Jun 03, 2013 at 05:51 PM
p.9 #17So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Form remember EV is exponential, so 2 EV in the shadows is but a mere fraction in the highlights... when you have a range of 5-7 EV for the whole image it is barely even detectable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
One stop is half/double the exposure so if the shadows are -7EV and the highlights are 0EV, that's 2 to the power of 7 or 1/128. If you are even moving the highlights with fill flash, you are seriously doing something wrong... set the flash level manually if you have to... keep attenuating it until you don't notice any effect on the highlights in the histogram (or only a very minimal effect). At least in manual exposure, be careful in automatic exposure mode, watch your metering because fill flash will compress the histogram, exposure might change as a result.
I can't really argue the aesthetics of fill flash alone, but I at least know how to do it and have as a last resort. 3-point or even some kind of improvised 2-point works much better when possible.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 06:19 PM · View previous versions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value
One stop is half/double the exposure so if the shadows are -7EV and the highlights are 0EV, that's 2 to the power of 7 or 1/128. If you are even moving the highlights with fill flash, you are seriously doing something wrong... set the flash level manually if you have to... keep attenuating it until you don't notice any effect on the highlights in the histogram (or only a very minimal effect). At least in manual exposure, be careful in automatic exposure mode, watch your metering because fill flash will compress the histogram, exposure might change as a result.
I can't really argue the aesthetics of fill flash alone, but I at least know how to do it and have as a last resort. 3-point or even some kind of improvised 2-point works much better when possible.
Edited on Jun 03, 2013 at 06:19 PM · View previous versions
Jun 03, 2013 at 06:15 PM
p.9 #18So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
I forgot to include an important point:
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
No.
The amount of fill flash light required to raise the shadows one or even two stops is insignificant compared to the light falling on a brightly lit area.
Consider a scene where a shadow area falls at -4 stops and a highlight falls at +4.
This is a hypothetical case! The actual dynamic range your camera can record is irrelevant. The principle of proportionality of flash vs. ambient light is what's important.
You want to bump the shadows up to minimize noise.
Assume that highlights will be irretrievably lost at > 256
Ambient
-4 1 Shadow areas receive 1 unit of light. "HORRENDOUS NOISE!"
-3 2
-2 4
-1 8
0 16
+1 32
+2 64
+3 128
+4 256 Highlights on the edge of saturation.
By adding 3 units of light with the flash unit, you will lift the -4 area to -2. The same 3 units will have nearly zero effect on the highlights at +4.
After fill
-4 4
-3 5
-2 7
-1 11
0 19
1 35
2 67
3 131
4 259
OK, so your highlights just 'blew out.' Big whoop.
Reduce the shutter speed by 1/4 stop. Your highlights now fall at ~227, and the shadows drop to 3.875, still much brighter than w/o flash.
Congratulations, you have just used a fill flash to compress the dynamic range of a contrasty scene into a range that can be properly recorded by your camera.
Read 'The Negative" or a similar introduction to sensitometry and exposure.
Then buy a frigging flash meter. A spot meter wouldn't hurt either. Learn to use both.
As for the RAW you posted (#1842), I can only ask, "What the heck do you expect?"
The wedding scene is insanely contrasty. You've got the woman's light shawl in nearly direct sunlight, and the man's black suit in the shadows.
Q. HOW MANY EV BETWEEN THE TWO
A. A frigging LOT!
IMO, the exposure is nearly perfect, there is just a small sliver of blown highlight. Your problem lies in wanting to raise the dark suit to an unrealistic degree.
To shoot in this sort of lighting conditions, you'll need better control the composition, or the lighting, or both. The sort of "pot-shot into the sun" you took will never yield technically satisfying results.
The only consumer camera I can think of that will record a scene like this with full shadow detail is a film body loaded with low contrast b/w film that is subsequently 'pull' developed by a large degree. I can't find the site, but remember one fellow who was able to scan a very usable 12~15 stops off film with the right exposure/film/developer combination.
I forgot to include an important point:
When a face has both shadow and sun on it, and flash is additive light that adds to both the shadow and the sunlit area, then the sunlit area will be blown by the flash.
No.
The amount of fill flash light required to raise the shadows one or even two stops is insignificant compared to the light falling on a brightly lit area.
Consider a scene where a shadow area falls at -4 stops and a highlight falls at +4.
This is a hypothetical case! The actual dynamic range your camera can record is irrelevant. The principle of proportionality of flash vs. ambient light is what's important.
You want to bump the shadows up to minimize noise.
Assume that highlights will be irretrievably lost at > 256
Ambient
-4 1 Shadow areas receive 1 unit of light. "HORRENDOUS NOISE!"
-3 2
-2 4
-1 8
0 16
+1 32
+2 64
+3 128
+4 256 Highlights on the edge of saturation.
By adding 3 units of light with the flash unit, you will lift the -4 area to -2. The same 3 units will have nearly zero effect on the highlights at +4.
After fill
-4 4
-3 5
-2 7
-1 11
0 19
1 35
2 67
3 131
4 259
OK, so your highlights just 'blew out.' Big whoop.
Reduce the shutter speed by 1/4 stop. Your highlights now fall at ~227, and the shadows drop to 3.875, still much brighter than w/o flash.
Congratulations, you have just used a fill flash to compress the dynamic range of a contrasty scene into a range that can be properly recorded by your camera.
Read 'The Negative" or a similar introduction to sensitometry and exposure.
Then buy a frigging flash meter. A spot meter wouldn't hurt either. Learn to use both.
As for the RAW you posted (#1842), I can only ask, "What the heck do you expect?"
The wedding scene is insanely contrasty. You've got the woman's light shawl in nearly direct sunlight, and the man's black suit in the shadows.
Q. HOW MANY EV BETWEEN THE TWO
A. A frigging LOT!
IMO, the exposure is nearly perfect, there is just a small sliver of blown highlight. Your problem lies in wanting to raise the dark suit to an unrealistic degree.
To shoot in this sort of lighting conditions, you'll need better control the composition, or the lighting, or both. The sort of "pot-shot into the sun" you took will never yield technically satisfying results.
The only consumer camera I can think of that will record a scene like this with full shadow detail is a film body loaded with low contrast b/w film that is subsequently 'pull' developed by a large degree. I can't find the site, but remember one fellow who was able to scan a very usable 12~15 stops off film with the right exposure/film/developer combination.
Jun 03, 2013 at 06:16 PM
p.9 #19So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
What sort of general exposure compensation for camera and also for flash were you using?
You are essentially correct about cumulative effects of light (in the widest sense), adding flash exposure (or reflectors, etc.) will raise all values, and hence the entire exposures. It proportionally raises dark shadows far more than brightly lit areas (please look up this principle). But as Access indicates there is far more effect on shadows.
It is essential to learn the dynamics of light, and how the Inverse Square Law (again, thanks Access!) affects subjects at various distances. Unlike the blanket ambient illumination, you need to be cognizant of the odd elbow or bouquet sticking into the frame closer at hand than the actual targeted subjects.
You are required to make adjustments to your overall exposure by way of EC +/- and flash EC +/- to make it all balance out properly and look natural. That takes a little practice, and as mentioned by another poster here, is aided by arriving early and scouting shots and doing TEST SHOTS for exposure settings. I never walk into an unfamiliar event space without arriving early and following this procedure. If nothing else, following this warm-up procedure settles my nerves a bit, knowing what to expect.
Again, winging-it leads to its own set of problems for quality imaging.
You are essentially correct about cumulative effects of light (in the widest sense), adding flash exposure (or reflectors, etc.) will raise all values, and hence the entire exposures. It proportionally raises dark shadows far more than brightly lit areas (please look up this principle). But as Access indicates there is far more effect on shadows.
It is essential to learn the dynamics of light, and how the Inverse Square Law (again, thanks Access!) affects subjects at various distances. Unlike the blanket ambient illumination, you need to be cognizant of the odd elbow or bouquet sticking into the frame closer at hand than the actual targeted subjects.
You are required to make adjustments to your overall exposure by way of EC +/- and flash EC +/- to make it all balance out properly and look natural. That takes a little practice, and as mentioned by another poster here, is aided by arriving early and scouting shots and doing TEST SHOTS for exposure settings. I never walk into an unfamiliar event space without arriving early and following this procedure. If nothing else, following this warm-up procedure settles my nerves a bit, knowing what to expect.
Again, winging-it leads to its own set of problems for quality imaging.
Jun 03, 2013 at 06:20 PM
p.9 #20So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
Filling with flash requires that I do at least one of several things:
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum...Show more →
What is your point with these types of threads?? You haven't asked any questions in the OP. You have been offered numerous suggestions from other professionals on how you might handle the situation. You ignore all of them and basically tell them they are wrong or don't understand what you're trying to do. You don't like Nikon because of focus and bokeh, but bitch endlessly about the DR of Canon. People praise your work, and you argue with them.
...I guess I just don't get what you are after in all of this.
Filling with flash requires that I do at least one of several things:
1. Drop my shutter speed and therefore stop down and risk more motion blur in outdoor processionals while also increasing DoF when I don't WANT to because the image style is not what I'm going for.
2. Shoot high speed sync on-camera, with all the ugly glints and reflections on the skin and the reduction of certain shadows from the frontal angle, producing an effect that I truly dislike because it looks more unprofessional and much more commonplace.
3. Shoot high speed sync off-camera, which requires a minimum...Show more →
What is your point with these types of threads?? You haven't asked any questions in the OP. You have been offered numerous suggestions from other professionals on how you might handle the situation. You ignore all of them and basically tell them they are wrong or don't understand what you're trying to do. You don't like Nikon because of focus and bokeh, but bitch endlessly about the DR of Canon. People praise your work, and you argue with them.
...I guess I just don't get what you are after in all of this.
Jun 03, 2013 at 06:37 PM