October 21, 2014, 01:33:11 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MattBicePhotography

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I am not sure how I edit the profile of a batch. When I edit these in photoshop, I open them all at once, then I edit them in ACR, but never open them into photoshop. I just save them out of ACR. I don't see anyway to convert the profile. It would take about an hour to open up a 4 minute clip (music video) into PS, but if I keep it in ACR, I only have to wait for all the files to save.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: 5dIII hot pixel question
« on: July 28, 2012, 02:27:32 AM »
Whoa, That should be on its way to warranty service. That is not normal, or acceptable at all.

3
Shot some pics of carbon frame builder, Nick Crumpton, today. He is a good family friend and, these bikes are amazing.


4
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 02, 2012, 04:28:49 PM »
I don't have time to post the pictures right now, but I did a quick test, as much of an extreme real-world one as I could think of that I'd ever want to do. I took a high-noon picture looking into a garden shed entirely in shadow. I exposed for the exterior, and underexposed by a couple stops. In DPP, after moving the exposure and shadow sliders all the way to the right, the interior of the shed was clean as a whistle. Even in Camera Raw, after boosting the exposure and shadows more than I'd ever want to do, it didn't take too much noise reduction to tame the noise.

If I have too much free time later, I might post some of it. But, as far as i'm concerned, all this nonsense about insufficient dynamic range is a tempest in a teapot. Get the exposure right and you'll be fine. Heck, get the exposure off by a stop or two and you'll be okay. There's more than enough clean information in there for any reasonable kind of post-processing. Any situation where you'd want more, you should have either done your job as a photographer to get better light on your subject or you should have shot HDR.

Cheers,

b&

Well Said.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:31:04 PM »
Here is the original file. Feel free to do what you like with it. I do think that some NR in LR seems to go a long way but the result is certainly different. Remember that I both increased the shadows in DPP AND PhotoShop, in the original comparison.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/nmt8y1

6
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 02, 2012, 02:52:30 AM »
I will put the Original Raw file up, but, I am not sure how to upload the actual .CR2. I have never had to do this, anyone wanna let me know?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:19:51 AM »
What were the shot parameters in terms of sharpening and NR? DPP applies these automatically, so when the photo was processed and saved as TIFF/bitmap, this is effectively similar to applying NR in LR and exporting a TIFF back into the catalog before playing with it. Right? Don't mean to be pessimistic, just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

I cancelled my D800 order after seeing the low light video samples. Would love to see the 5DM3 excel at stills as well, but I'm cautious.

I can get some similar results out of LR with some messing with the luminance noise reduction. I will say I am still using LR to edit the photos over DPP because 99% of the time I am not pushing the shadows much and DPP is really crappy to use. banding does seem to be better using the DPP method.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 01, 2012, 09:24:18 PM »
Let me be the idiot to say that I don't see the problem here. As a crop shooter I would love to bring that much out of the shadows.

Thats because there is no problem   ;)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 01, 2012, 07:17:09 PM »
In another thread it was brought to my attention that increasing luminance NR in LR does help quite a bit with the noise in the shadow.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda
« on: May 01, 2012, 07:12:49 PM »
Quote
Plus with LR your 5D3 files get the bonus feature of that soft look.

...glad i don't own that POS (LR that is).

I hope that was a joke :)

Well I just tried DPP 3.11.26. Initially I thought the image looked cleaner but that's because it's applying luminance noise reduction which actually makes the image appear softer than in LR. You can get a similar effect in LR by applying luminance NR. The banding is still there in my images, even in DPP. I doubt it's doing any additional intelligent subtraction to get rid of banding (or if it is, LR is doing just as much, since I see pretty equivalent amounts of banding). DPP's sharpening is useless & introduces weird artifacts (puts a weird texture all over the image when raised).

Anyone else want to give this DPP vs. LR comparison a try to see how shadows are handled?

Matt, it's possible your particular 5D3 sensor just has less banding...?

The banding is certainly there when really pushed. It just seems much cleaner. I just adjusted the Luminance NR and it does get rid of a lot of that noise. it seems to get rid of some of the banding too which I think is made far more obvious by the presence of noise.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 not soft anymore?
« on: May 01, 2012, 07:09:48 PM »
Unfortunately everything to me seems to be SOFT lol, maybe its just me.

Im really eager to see results from people who use LR4 RC2 which states on top that it uses Adobe Camera Raw 7.1 (98% sure) which is a different revision to LR4 RC1 which may make a difference.

I did bring up my RAWs in DPP but I still think its soft so maybe its just me, better wait till more people can test.

Would be also great to Compare to the 1DX which was announced like last year LOL maybe it will come out before 2013

Did you update your DPP software to the new version that corrects the softness? it definitely make a huge difference!

12
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:18:11 PM »
Is this with LR 4.1 RC1? Or LR 4.1 RC2 that came out a short while ago?
Interesting, I don't think I got wind of that. Let me check it out and update if necessary.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:07:31 PM »
I think Canon owes Skitron and I some free gear!(I got the idea from a post about capture one Skitron made in another thread.)  Maybe a full line of lenses??  ;D :P

14
EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:04:12 PM »
Can I ask a question: do you get the same result if you push the exposure in DPP rather than using shadows in Photoshop?

Can you try pushing the exposure in DPP and LR by a similar amount and posting a 100% crop of an area that's very dark?

This is VERY interesting!

Here is one from LR4.1 RC, DPP doesnt let me push just the shadows that far, or at least that I could figure out quickly.


15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda
« on: May 01, 2012, 05:34:08 PM »
Matt, that's very interesting! Do you think DPP is just doing more noise reduction, or perhaps using the top rows of the RAW data to offset vertical banding? Those shadows look much cleaner than what LR is producing, as you yourself have noted.

I haven't even tried DPP yet... perhaps it is time to.

Im no photo-software writer. I got no clue. All I know is Canon probably knows how to handle their own files best and, I am getting much cleaner results using this technique. There is quite a bit of detail there as well. I mean look at the painted over surface of the bricks. You can see all the holes and flaws in the brick quite clearly. Here is a crop of the same area boosted in LR4.1 RC.


Pages: [1] 2 3