AdrianRogers wrote:
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 of photography?They still seem to enjoy it just as much as I do
I, too, find enjoyment in technical excellence. But not above all else. When my wife looks at some of my images in silence, I don't care how technically excellent it is ... her silence means it's a dud. On the other hand, she's looked at stuff on my monitor that's obviously technically flawed and says, "Oh ... that's so evocative" .... which means I've created something worth printing and exhibiting, warts and all. Go figure ....
veroman wrote:
....I, too, find enjoyment in technical excellence. But not above all else. When my wife looks at some of my images in silence, I don't care how technically excellent it is ... her silence means it's a dud. On the other hand, she's looked at stuff on my monitor that's obviously technically flawed and says, "Oh ... that's so evocative" .... which means I've created something worth printing and exhibiting, warts and all. Go figure ....
- Steve
Its funny how easily we can get sucked into the technical aspect of our gear and images, especially on forums like this; sometimes it takes a "non-photographer" to remind us what really makes our images worthwhile.
michael49 wrote:
Its funny how easily we can get sucked into the technical aspect of our gear and images, especially on forums like this; sometimes it takes a "non-photographer" to remind us what really makes our images worthwhile.
Here here!
(Now we better shut up. Or we'll have a load of people reminding us how it's a 'gear' forum )
Its funny how easily we can get sucked into the technical aspect of our gear and images, especially on forums like this; sometimes it takes a "non-photographer" to remind us what really makes our images worthwhile.
This is a gear forum, however. They don't talk much Frank Lloyd Wright in a "building science" forum.
veroman wrote:
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 ....
- Steve
Michael, you've posted this series before, and I agree there is some visible noise, but it does not really show the *pattern* noise that most of us deem as the problem.
In my experience, all of Canon's latest, high resolution Digic IV-based cameras can be made to show some visible chroma noise (and often luminance noise) at ISO 100 under certain lighting conditions if noise processing is disabled.
What you are seeing here at 200% is what I would consider "normal and expected" for this camera at that apparent EV level. The thing is: this type of noise is easily removed by good quality noise processing with virtually no destructive effect on the file.
I can respect that you may have a different take on this, but I don't really worry about a bit of visble noise at low ISO that is easily removed. It's the patterning and banding noise that is problematic. And this does not generally show up without some significant pushing in the shadows.
Thanks for your comment and i agree with you 100%. The only reason i post these since i can't agree "The theory of 5D2 denial" of someone has posted here. That's all. 5D2 does has its DR limitation and this is the fact regardless what people has tried to say.
AdrianRogers wrote:
... 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...
The irony is that some - though perhaps not all - of those for whom technical perfection from equipment is the ultimate goal would find themselves completely lost if they ever achieved it.
It seems to me that what such folks enjoy (and, in fact, almost all of us enjoy at least to some extent) is not technical perfection but the pursuit of technical perfection. If a person whose focus is 100% on technical perfection arrived at this state... there would be nothing left for them.
One of the wonderful things about photographs and making them (as opposed to twiddling with mechanical/optical/electronic devices) is that you'll never create an absolutely perfect image. If you work hard, have vision, skill, and luck you will get gratifyingly close from time to time (and you'll fail a lot, too) but the goal still hangs out there in front of you.
The fact is that we live in a world of wonderful, powerful photography technology that rarely holds us back nearly as much as the limitations of our own vision and dedication. Use what you have. Make photographs.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The fact is that we live in a world of wonderful, powerful photography technology that rarely holds us back nearly as much as the limitations of our own vision and dedication. Use what you have. Make photographs.
Dan
Well said Dan.
In this spirit (and at the risk of being slightly OT), I'd just like to say that I LOVE this camera... faults though it may have. It focuses virtually in the dark, creates photographs of incredible technical quality in nearly impossible light, and frequenly makes me appreciate why I pay $5K for a lens.
Here's a capture from an event this week: EF 200 f/2L IS, 1/60 @ 2.0. sRAW1 at ISO 3200 processed in DPP: Standard Picture Style, Contrast -1. No NR during RAW conversion; final noise processing in Neat Image (using my own 2-pass filtration technique). The quality obtainable at ISO 3200 like this is awe inspiring to me.
veroman wrote:
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....Show more →
It really depends on:
- If you shoot photos for yourself (and have all the freedom to do what you want) or a client that expects a certain look/quality/standards.
- What you are shooting: most landscape shooters I know wouldn't be too thrilled with soft noisy pics... they are cursing already when the corners aren't sharp
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.
So, from your perspective "banding" and "pattern noise" aren't really an issue... Yet there are many photogs (with samples in this same thread) that are really bothered buy it because it limits the creative potential. Yet you are posting your comments in this thread too...
This is a gear forum... so we discuss gear and not the energy crisis. The only reason I started this thread was to get more insight in the problem. Because IME some images show banding and some aren't. Which is something new to me. Up until now I was convinced ALL 5D2 images show banding/pattern noise when processing the shadows. So, in a way I am looking for a way to bypass the problem...
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.
In your photos the banding/noise doesn't exists... Good for you. How about all the others that are bothered by it
gdanmitchell wrote:
The irony is that some - though perhaps not all - of those for whom technical perfection from equipment is the ultimate goal would find themselves completely lost if they ever achieved it.
It seems to me that what such folks enjoy (and, in fact, almost all of us enjoy at least to some extent) is not technical perfection but the pursuit of technical perfection. If a person whose focus is 100% on technical perfection arrived at this state... there would be nothing left for them.
One of the wonderful things about photographs and making them (as opposed to twiddling with mechanical/optical/electronic devices) is that you'll never create an absolutely perfect image. If you work hard, have vision, skill, and luck you will get gratifyingly close from time to time (and you'll fail a lot, too) but the goal still hangs out there in front of you.
The fact is that we live in a world of wonderful, powerful photography technology that rarely holds us back nearly as much as the limitations of our own vision and dedication. Use what you have. Make photographs.
Nobody disputes that the phenomenon exists. What is being discussed--and for good reason--is the matter of whether it is a "problem." And this is a subjective determination.
For you, it's a problem. For others, it may not be. And for still others, they may be persuaded that it is acceptable in that it does not pose a significant constraint on their creative vision.
Part of the reality that one must accept as a result of posting on forums is that there are individuals with diverse viewpoints, whose concept of what constitutes a meaningful photographic process is going to differ from your own. That is not to say one is right and the other is wrong. But as a participant in a public forum these differences will be expressed, and that is something every participant should accept.
So the pattern noise bothers you. Okay. What are you going to do about it? Feel free to buy a different camera if it is not up to the standard you have set for yourself. Or feel free to use software to mitigate the visual impact on your photos. What else is there to say about it? And that is why I believe some people have responded the way they have, because it is readily apparent that this type of read noise is not going to magically disappear with a firmware update. There isn't a whole lot you can do, so why belabor the point?
From what I can tell, the pattern noise is most prominent when there are large contiguous regions where very little light has hit the sensor, regardless of ISO setting. If there is a lot of light/dark detail, either this noise is obscured because of the presence of this detail, or the noise is truly absent. In either case, the point is largely irrelevant, because to constrain oneself in terms of *what* to shoot is far worse than constraining onself in terms of pattern noise that is only visible at larger magnification and (extreme) tonal adjustment.
So again, I ask: What is the point of having endless discussions about this phenomenon when it is obvious that it is intrinsic to the camera body?
i have a 5D2 since last Dec, and the bending issue does not bother me at all. But having said that, this thread is very interesting and i hope it doesn't turn out to be a debate of why we are discussing this. For those people that dont see it as a problem, you can either a. not read this thread anymore, or b. like myself, read it with a curious mind and try to learn something from it.
there are always new and interesting things we can learn about our equipment whether you actually use it to the full potential or not that is another topic.
wickerprints wrote:
Nobody disputes that the phenomenon exists. What is being discussed--and for good reason--is the matter of whether it is a "problem." And this is a subjective determination.
For you, it's a problem. For others, it may not be. And for still others, they may be persuaded that it is acceptable in that it does not pose a significant constraint on their creative vision.
Part of the reality that one must accept as a result of posting on forums is that there are individuals with diverse viewpoints, whose concept of what constitutes a meaningful photographic process is going to differ from your own. That is not to say one is right and the other is wrong. But as a participant in a public forum these differences will be expressed, and that is something every participant should accept....Show more →
We (not you and I) have been discussing wether this is a problem or not already countless of times. It doesn't add anything to this thread/discussion anymore. Because this thread isn't about wether it is a problem or not. This thread is meant to be about finding some possible work-arounds... based on my own experience that under the same conditions some files may expose banding (after pushing) and some may not. I am trying to determine the reason for this inconsistency.
So the pattern noise bothers you. Okay. What are you going to do about it? Feel free to buy a different camera if it is not up to the standard you have set for yourself. Or feel free to use software to mitigate the visual impact on your photos. What else is there to say about it? And that is why I believe some people have responded the way they have, because it is readily apparent that this type of read noise is not going to magically disappear with a firmware update. There isn't a whole lot you can do, so why belabor the point?...Show more →
The pattern noise bothers anybody who has come across it. If you haven't come across it fine.. . but I don't think anybody who has come across it, is thrilled about it in a positive manner.
Having said that, I am not so sure there isn't a whole lot you can do. In my "tests" (cat shots) I got noticebly better results when it comes to banding/pattern noise by overexposing the file. Of course the trade off is obvious as well (lack of highlight detail, desaturation, etc).
My own tests also have shown that when exposing the whole file correctly (for the highlights - exposing to the right), any underexposed/shadow parts suffer less from pattern noise than when underexposing the whole file (after pushing). Sometimes even a -0,33 underexposure will result in much more pattern noise (after pushing) than when not underexposing at all (or when slightly overexposing).
So, my main point -as explained already a few times, and the reason why I started a "new" thread on this topic- is that the banding becomes really appearant when you cross some unknown DR threshold. So far, I (nor anybody else) has been able to determine that threshold (in high contrast situations). But if you are aware of this, you can work around it. That's basically all.
From what I can tell, the pattern noise is most prominent when there are large contiguous regions where very little light has hit the sensor, regardless of ISO setting. If there is a lot of light/dark detail, either this noise is obscured because of the presence of this detail, or the noise is truly absent. In either case, the point is largely irrelevant, because to constrain oneself in terms of *what* to shoot is far worse than constraining onself in terms of pattern noise that is only visible at larger magnification and (extreme) tonal adjustment.
It isn't so much about *what* you shoot, but *how* you shoot/process it. Meaning it is related to exceeding the unknown DR threshold in high contrast situations (as far as I can tell). This has everything to do with exposure and PP routines. So in theory, we can work around it.
So again, I ask: What is the point of having endless discussions about this phenomenon when it is obvious that it is intrinsic to the camera body?
Seems to me that all engineering projects are constrained by cost and what is technologically possible at that cost.
I don't know this, but looking at many of the images illustrating people's dissatisfaction,and using this camera myself I suspect that the designer of the 5D2 sensor may have made the traditional photographic assumption that people's prints will normally contain pure white tones and pure black tones. Accordingly, if you artificially attempt in post to boost the dark tones in your image (and so won't have black tones) then beyond a point you are acting outside the design envelope of the 5D2. If this view is right then most of the burlap stuff is not really a fault, it shows technique incompatible with the camera, and that of course can't be changed by a firmware fix.
In relation to my own 5D2 experience (having cut my photographic teeth in the black and white darkroom) I assume that every shot will have something pure black, and therefore I don't "fill in" during post, and I haven't had any burlap problems whatsoever except when drastically underexposing by accident, for example when a flash didn't fire. In this sense I believe that most of people's difficulties with the 5D2 is that they are not exposing in a way that the sensor designer assumed.
Basically then to avoid this issue either expose with the blacks specially in mind, or if the scene contrast is too high use fill in flash or reflectors, or alternatively, sadly, the 5D2 is not for you.
)
