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.10 #1So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Gunzorro wrote:
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.
I thought this was very basic knowledge, never thought I'd have to be the one to bring it up on the gear forum of all places.
I'm not one for formal schooling or even those 'photo workshops' that a lot of people seem to be pushing these days but this is one of the basics really, it's something taught in the first few days in a high school elective class or a college-level class.
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.
I thought this was very basic knowledge, never thought I'd have to be the one to bring it up on the gear forum of all places.
I'm not one for formal schooling or even those 'photo workshops' that a lot of people seem to be pushing these days but this is one of the basics really, it's something taught in the first few days in a high school elective class or a college-level class.
Jun 03, 2013 at 06:41 PM
p.10 #2So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Inverse square law I understand generally, but that's a distance from light source issue, and the spread makes it difficult to get wide shots of any processional because closer subjects are blown out. It also doesn't have anything to do with the proportion of light that is reflected by sunlit subject vs shadowed subject at the same distance from the light source.
Jun 03, 2013 at 07:38 PM
p.10 #3So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
snapsy wrote:
How about a used D7000 for ~$600?
Now there's a thought! Dynamic range about the same as D800.
How about a used D7000 for ~$600?
Now there's a thought! Dynamic range about the same as D800.
Jun 03, 2013 at 07:52 PM
p.10 #4So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Form distance from the light source is a different use of the inverse square law than what I was referring to. Yes it can be an issue, but that is a seperate point altogether. If you really care and aren't just posting because you like the sound of your own voice, take some time to read about the exposure because this is, an impossible conversation to have, if we aren't on the same page about something as basic as this.
And the inverse square law you cite can be compensated for if it is a factor to begin with. A snoot for example. Seriously this is still pretty basic stuff, not rocket science.
And the inverse square law you cite can be compensated for if it is a factor to begin with. A snoot for example. Seriously this is still pretty basic stuff, not rocket science.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:02 PM
p.10 #5So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
I ran three of these through Capture One v7, which has a decidedly different look than LR, and they're really not that bad. The worst, of course, is that food shot, which is really under. So, the 100 percent crop of that is a bit noisy. BFD. It still looks good. After seeing these, I'd say your problem is as much post production capabilities as it is anything else, but what do I know, it's only what I do for a living. As there is a degree of subjectivity in any of this, this is my really quick take through a solution that has not been demonstrated in this thread yet.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:03 PM
p.10 #9So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Not to be rude, but I kind of do this for a living too...and I don't see any particular improvement over any LR edits I have done.
For the record, I only posted the RAW files because some people were saying I have no substance, nothing to stand on, etc., unless I post RAWs.
For the record, I only posted the RAW files because some people were saying I have no substance, nothing to stand on, etc., unless I post RAWs.
Jun 03, 2013 at 08:36 PM
p.10 #10So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Joey - If you can't see the differences, then that's part of the problem. The reason I originally asked to see raw files was to see how you shoot and expose. Your exposures, aside from that closeup of the plate of food, are pretty good. Even though you uploaded a different frame than the one you posted, they're similar enough to show that will better processing, many of the things you complain about simply disappear. The 100 percent crops of the shadow areas show no blocking of the shadows and a mild unobtrusive, film like noise quality, not the crap you claim the camera is. Your version of the shot with the four main characters shows clipped highlights in the shoulder strap of the girls dress and pretty much plugged shadows in the black jacket on the far right. There is a very noticeable difference in the two renderings of the those shots. Now you may prefer yours, but you're the one who's been bitching about how horrible the Canon sensors are. I'm just showing you that they're not nearly as bad as you think.
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:09 PM
p.10 #11So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
The 4-person image you used is not the one I showed an example of, it is exposed brighter and needs less pushing than the one I used. In my image, I do not see any clipping in highlights, but I admit to the dark right shadows. I'm not sure if I would have left it that way or not, since I'll be coming across it again when I reach that point in editing the set.
Jun 03, 2013 at 09:46 PM
p.10 #12So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Curious, do you have Highlight Tone Priority set in camera? If so it is likely contributing to noise in your shadows. Just a thought with all going on here that something simple may have been overlooked?
Karl
Karl
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:04 PM
p.10 #13So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
No, HTP is never on and it wouldn't allow me to shoot at ISO100 anyway.
Jun 03, 2013 at 10:14 PM
p.10 #15So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
snapsy wrote:
Highlight recovery is principally a function of metering decisions rather than sensor differences
Not sure I follow here what you're saying but if you're saying all sensors pretty much handle overs the same, I can't agree with that. I find that sensors vary noticeably as to how much can be recovered in over-exposed areas. You take three sensors A, B, and C and over-expose them by two or three stops, there may be considerble difference in what can be brought back.
Highlight recovery is principally a function of metering decisions rather than sensor differences
Not sure I follow here what you're saying but if you're saying all sensors pretty much handle overs the same, I can't agree with that. I find that sensors vary noticeably as to how much can be recovered in over-exposed areas. You take three sensors A, B, and C and over-expose them by two or three stops, there may be considerble difference in what can be brought back.
Jun 04, 2013 at 12:14 AM
p.10 #16So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
D. Diggler wrote:
Not sure I follow here what you're saying but if you're saying all sensors pretty much handle overs the same, I can't agree with that. I find that sensors vary noticeably as to how much can be recovered in over-exposed areas. You take three sensors A, B, and C and over-expose them by two or three stops, there may be considerble difference in what can be brought back.
What typically varies is how and when post-gamma per-channel clipping is portrayed on the LCD, but when a channel is clipped it's clipped, and recovery will depend on the underlying color of the content, which channels are clipped, and the raw processor, as there isn't much non-linearity near pixel saturation. That said, different sensors have different relative channel gains for the R/G/B/G2 channels (which affects relative clipping behavior), but again this comes back to metering and clipping portrayal, both of which can be precisely managed via UniWB.
snapsy wrote
Highlight recovery is principally a function of metering decisions rather than sensor differencesWhat typically varies is how and when post-gamma per-channel clipping is portrayed on the LCD, but when a channel is clipped it's clipped, and recovery will depend on the underlying color of the content, which channels are clipped, and the raw processor, as there isn't much non-linearity near pixel saturation. That said, different sensors have different relative channel gains for the R/G/B/G2 channels (which affects relative clipping behavior), but again this comes back to metering and clipping portrayal, both of which can be precisely managed via UniWB.
Jun 04, 2013 at 12:23 AM
p.10 #17So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
So, y'all actually imagine that you are going to make Mr. Form happy? After 10 pages of this?
Best policy: "Please step away from the toxic thread, sir." ;-)
Best policy: "Please step away from the toxic thread, sir." ;-)
Jun 04, 2013 at 08:52 AM
p.10 #18So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
By the very topic of the thread, it was explicit that I was frustrated by something none of us can fix except Canon. This wasn't a "solution" thread people could solve by making suggestions, because the issue is inherent in the electrical design within the cameras.
If the thread had any purpose besides venting, it was 1. sharing of viewpoints about a problem some/many of us would prefer Canon to resolve with the next camera body, 2. another thread reminding Canon of the viewpoints of some of its consumers.
If the thread had any purpose besides venting, it was 1. sharing of viewpoints about a problem some/many of us would prefer Canon to resolve with the next camera body, 2. another thread reminding Canon of the viewpoints of some of its consumers.
Jun 04, 2013 at 09:23 AM
p.10 #19So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
form wrote:
By the very topic of the thread, it was explicit that I was frustrated by something none of us can fix except Canon. This wasn't a "solution" thread people could solve by making suggestions, because the issue is inherent in the electrical design within the cameras.
If the thread had any purpose besides venting, it was 1. sharing of viewpoints about a problem some/many of us would prefer Canon to resolve with the next camera body, 2. another thread reminding Canon of the viewpoints of some of its consumers.
Why ignore the solid advice from people with dozens of years more experience than you? You might be a professional, but I would bet good money on the fact that many who have commented on here are vastly superior at PP and other aspects of photography. Why not consider their approach and advice?
By the very topic of the thread, it was explicit that I was frustrated by something none of us can fix except Canon. This wasn't a "solution" thread people could solve by making suggestions, because the issue is inherent in the electrical design within the cameras.
If the thread had any purpose besides venting, it was 1. sharing of viewpoints about a problem some/many of us would prefer Canon to resolve with the next camera body, 2. another thread reminding Canon of the viewpoints of some of its consumers.
Why ignore the solid advice from people with dozens of years more experience than you? You might be a professional, but I would bet good money on the fact that many who have commented on here are vastly superior at PP and other aspects of photography. Why not consider their approach and advice?
Jun 04, 2013 at 09:39 AM
p.10 #20So, Uh...Canon shadow noise?
Hmmmm....
Peter Figen's PP work outshines form's posted images, yet form is blind to that fact.
Any help offered form is declined, many times quite arrogantly.
Tried flash once and since it didn't work for him right away gave up on it and then puts up more roadblocks against using it. No, it couldn't be just he isn't doing it right. And anyway he doesn't like that look.
Self-taught. Everything should be easy...And when something actually is found to be a bit more difficult and may require more time, patience, and practice, instead of doing whats needed he runs away from it and ridicules it.
I just dont think form can allow himself to see any sort of solution to his problem by anyone except himself.
I am of the opinion that the problem is with form, and no amount of DR is going to help that.
Peter Figen's PP work outshines form's posted images, yet form is blind to that fact.
Any help offered form is declined, many times quite arrogantly.
Tried flash once and since it didn't work for him right away gave up on it and then puts up more roadblocks against using it. No, it couldn't be just he isn't doing it right. And anyway he doesn't like that look.
Self-taught. Everything should be easy...And when something actually is found to be a bit more difficult and may require more time, patience, and practice, instead of doing whats needed he runs away from it and ridicules it.
I just dont think form can allow himself to see any sort of solution to his problem by anyone except himself.
I am of the opinion that the problem is with form, and no amount of DR is going to help that.
Jun 04, 2013 at 10:15 AM