I get confused by the over/under expose controversy. Some people say it's better to under expose and boost the shadowa in PP in order not to get blown out highlights whilst others say over expose because using the recovery slider to reduce the blown areas avoids losing shadow detail. What do most people here do?
Niall
nrferguson wrote:
I get confused by the over/under expose controversy. Some people say it's better to under expose and boost the shadowa in PP in order not to get blown out highlights whilst others say over expose because using the recovery slider to reduce the blown areas avoids losing shadow detail. What do most people here do?
Niall
Expose as far right without clipping highlights. Often use a bit of fill for shadows as long as it doesn't compromise the lighting set up (where a reflector dish or something comes in handy). You can always darken the shadows back down afterwards unless you need it looking exactly right from the camera.
This video is a perfect example. Look at how bright the original photo has been shot. The really heavy contrast and highlights are added in post. I'm looking at that very cover right now and the detail/transitions are beautiful.
nrferguson wrote:
I get confused by the over/under expose controversy.
There is no controversy... at least not when it comes to the 5D2. Expose for the highlights or slighty overexpose (if you think you will need to open up the shadows in PP). Definetely do not underexpose if you plan to do some PP. The 5D2 seems very sensitive to underexposure in the sense that it will produce nasty noise artifacts (banding among others) very quickly in the shadows.
semorg wrote:
I got horrible banding problem with my iso 100 shots. I usually expose to the right. Processed the image with a bit contrast and red or orange like filters to convert to black and white.
I've almost made up my mind to switch to nikon.
That doesn't look good. I am curious if you can post the original RAW file (like it was before processing)?
It must be the in camera processing. The 5DmkII can produce stunning IQ without the noise pattern, and with the pattern. A few years ago there was some camera that had banding...can not remember for the life of me if it was Canon or Nikon, but it was one of the two. Eventually, a firmware update fixed it. I sure hope that is the case this time.
nrferguson wrote:
I get confused by the over/under expose controversy. Some people say it's better to under expose and boost the shadowa in PP in order not to get blown out highlights whilst others say over expose because using the recovery slider to reduce the blown areas avoids losing shadow detail. What do most people here do?
Niall
The best exposure is always to peg the "brightest tone that must retain detail" at the top of the sensor's range. The way you don't blow that highlight is to make sure your exposure is based on putting it at the top of the range.
The bottom of the range is delineated by the level of sensor noise. There will always be some level of noise, just as there was always base fog in film images. However, noise should not occur at a level that affects areas where the sensor actually captured true subject tone or detail.
If I were to make a film analogy, this is as if film had been slightly fogged before or during development. What should have been a base fog that only affected totally unexposed areas of the film is actually affecting areas that got substantive exposure.
James Markus wrote:
semorg, your examples are soul destroying.
It must be the in camera processing. The 5DmkII can produce stunning IQ without the noise pattern, and with the pattern. A few years ago there was some camera that had banding...can not remember for the life of me if it was Canon or Nikon, but it was one of the two. Eventually, a firmware update fixed it. I sure hope that is the case this time.
IIRC it was the D200 that suffered from banding at high contrast areas (like a bright spot next to dark/black surroundings)
Beni wrote:
..... Was in an art gallery last week, saw a badly printed, very soft and even blurred 8X10" print sell for $1500. I can't make those prices with my sharp big prints so who is more correct? The megapixel hunter or the artist?
My answer: the artist. Always the artist. One of my most cherished photography books is called "WORK" published by National Geographic. It's a large book ... 10" x 13" or something like that. It's shots of people at work all over the world, poor and rich alike, industrialized nations and farming and everything in between.
I'd say 50% to 75% of the photos would never pass muster in this forum. They're riddled with noise, out of focus or otherwise soft, blurred, off-color, etc. But, oh my, what images! They are all filled with emotion and reflect day-to-day work in ways we never think about. Many of the spreads look like they were originally shot 35mm film and severely cropped, never really intended to fill a space 13" X 20." But who cares? I love the book and its contents anyway. The art of it all always wins out in my opinion. In this book, perfection has definitely taken a back seat to content.
To me, this makes the "banding" and "pattern noise" issue of the 5D II a moot thing, not to mention the fact that it's been discussed so many times and in so many ways that I can't seem to grasp what we're expecting will come about as result of discussing it over and over and over as if it held as much importance as the energy crisis or environmental damage.
Content is still king ... and pixel peeping isn't anywhere near the same thing as making a great, large print where, in my now 3-week experience with the 5D II, the noise and banding doesn't exist.
veroman wrote:
Content is still king ... and pixel peeping isn't anywhere near the same thing as making a great, large print where, in my now 3-week experience with the 5D II, the noise and banding doesn't exist.
- Steve
Could not agree more. Without wanting to ruffle too many feathers, I know a couple of friends, not too dissimilar to many members on here (from my brief browsing experience).. To say they're always focused on the technical is an understatement. You know the type, prefers viewing their photos at 100% than in print. It just baffles me when they could tell me the perfect body/lens/shutter/aperture/light ratio combo for the most well exposed, tack sharp photo you've ever seen in your life, yet i've still not seen a single photograph that moves me emotionally. It is genuinely quite sad. But who am I to say what they should be getting out photography? They still seem to enjoy it just as much as I do
Here is the process I followed:
opened image from bridge I clicked on the "auto" option and I liked what I saw. Then I took the image into CS4 and used silverefex and I think I used either orange or red contrast filters. I stayed in 16bit mode till I saved to jpeg.
I got so lucky with the condition that I couldn't wait to get the photos out and print a few enlargement. However, this followed by disappointment when I got back home to discover banding on anything I tried to convert to B&W.
semorg wrote:
Here is the process I followed:
opened image from bridge I clicked on the "auto" option and I liked what I saw. Then I took the image into CS4 and used silverefex and I think I used either orange or red contrast filters. I stayed in 16bit mode till I saved to jpeg.
I got so lucky with the condition that I couldn't wait to get the photos out and print a few enlargement. However, this followed by disappointment when I got back home to discover banding on anything I tried to convert to B&W.
I'm going through my stuff to see what I can sell to move to nikon. ...Show more →
The best Canon camera I've tried for 'pushing the blacks' is the 1Ds3. It is very close to the D3x in that regard, I would say. I think switching might be a bit premature as Canon have fixed this issue very effectively in all three of the cameras that have emerged since the 5D2. I expect that the 1D4 is going to rock, tonally, and there are either two or three cameras on the horizon which should surpass the D3x: they are 1Ds4, possible 3D, and of course 5D3. Instead of switching to Nikon I would sell the 5D2 and pick up a used 1Ds3 for a good price to tide you over until the next step. The 1Ds4 is probably going to be expensive, but so is switching to Nikon, and the grass just isn't that much greener over there.
Daan B wrote:
There is no controversy... at least not when it comes to the 5D2. Expose for the highlights or slighty overexpose (if you think you will need to open up the shadows in PP). Definetely do not underexpose if you plan to do some PP. The 5D2 seems very sensitive to underexposure in the sense that it will produce nasty noise artifacts (banding among others) very quickly in the shadows.
5d2 hiccups anytime - 1/3 stops underexpose @800 iso under fluorescent lamp test; HTP off NR off
By all good means, if you are selling the 5d2 for a 1ds3 for the tiny difference you possibly get in some underexposed shots your just nuts, half a stop of dynamic range at low ISO + ending up with a camera that weights twice as much
That said, there is a rumour going around that Canon is going to do a silent upgrade and replace the sensor of the 5d2 by april. Not that I would count on rumours though.
you don't need 400% DPP view - 5D2 LV has either 5X/10X zoom - set your 5D2 (AV,TV,ISO) then move the ambient light to find 5D2 pattern/banding noise formula with your LV. Can't miss it
And what were you expecting from shooting wide open at f/1.2 with a 21MP camera, then viewing blurred images at 200%? Also, one or two of the shots look like complications from moire rather than straight noise. Have you tried printing the shot? Can you see noise in the print? Not likely ....
- Hmm, I've rather saved the icy cold trip first. Overcast day test @ iso 100, HTP off NR off