September 21, 2014, 02:10:28 PM

Author Topic: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery  (Read 40600 times)

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2013, 02:15:16 PM »
If the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range for whatever you're doing, whatever you're doing is extreme. Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones (or even highlights -- I've actually seen people try that).
Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular,  scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.

You know, I keep coming across these complaints, very much like the one you just made, but I've yet to experience anything remotely like this problem in my shooting. Perhaps you could post an example of a properly-exposed image shot with a 5DIII with excessive shadow noise? And, please, not Fred Miranda's infamous page two example. That shot is at least a stop or two underexposed, in harsh noonday Sun, and he's lifting deep Zone II shade almost to midtones. That's the textbook definition of "extreme." And of "bad light." And, too, "poor technique."

Cheers,

b&
I wouldn't call it a "complaint." Just a statement of fact. In my shooting I've come across circumstances where it is a legitimate issue. (And thanks, privatebydesign, for posting a link to our previous discussion on that with my examples.)

My intent is to provide honest feedback on where I've found the limits of the equipment to be. I have no interest in exaggerating the impact of the issue. It's obviously not a deal breaker for me, since I still am shooting Canon. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I do feel there's a bit of a rush to judgement to dismiss anyone who mentions pattern noise as not knowing how to expose properly or such things.

So while the Canon system suits my needs very well for the most part, this is an area where I do think there is room for improvement. I find it unfortunate when opinions are expressed to the effect that everything is fine, there's no need for improvement. Why do we need to rationalize away shortcomings? "Hey Canon, stop worrying about R&D, your sensors as good as they need to be and if someone thinks the competition is better it's just becasue they don't know how to shoot." :P Why should we send a message to a manufacturer that their product is perfect, we the consumers don't expect anything more?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2013, 02:15:16 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3452
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2013, 02:21:04 PM »
If the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range for whatever you're doing, whatever you're doing is extreme. Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones (or even highlights -- I've actually seen people try that).
Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular,  scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.

You know, I keep coming across these complaints, very much like the one you just made, but I've yet to experience anything remotely like this problem in my shooting. Perhaps you could post an example of a properly-exposed image shot with a 5DIII with excessive shadow noise? And, please, not Fred Miranda's infamous page two example. That shot is at least a stop or two underexposed, in harsh noonday Sun, and he's lifting deep Zone II shade almost to midtones. That's the textbook definition of "extreme." And of "bad light." And, too, "poor technique."

Cheers,

b&
I wouldn't call it a "complaint." Just a statement of fact. In my shooting I've come across circumstances where it is a legitimate issue. (And thanks, privatebydesign, for posting a link to our previous discussion on that with my examples.)

My intent is to provide honest feedback on where I've found the limits of the equipment to be. I have no interest in exaggerating the impact of the issue. It's obviously not a deal breaker for me, since I still am shooting Canon. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I do feel there's a bit of a rush to judgement to dismiss anyone who mentions pattern noise as not knowing how to expose properly or such things.

So while the Canon system suits my needs very well for the most part, this is an area where I do think there is room for improvement. I find it unfortunate when opinions are expressed to the effect that everything is fine, there's no need for improvement. Why do we need to rationalize away shortcomings? "Hey Canon, stop worrying about R&D, your sensors as good as they need to be and if someone thinks the competition is better it's just becasue they don't know how to shoot." :P Why should we send a message to a manufacturer that their product is perfect, we the consumers don't expect anything more?

You have a solid portfolio sir, My hat's tipped through the internet.

I don't do alot of HDR, but they're is another canon user here called A!ex or something like that. He does alot of it and it looks sublime. He once mentioned that the merging program has alot to with how good the final DR is and it seem's your shooting DR scene's excess of what possible with either platform.

I usually use flash for indoor property photography, but I can't say I do it enough to give an opinion.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4563
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2013, 02:38:38 PM »
If the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range for whatever you're doing, whatever you're doing is extreme. Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones (or even highlights -- I've actually seen people try that).
Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular,  scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.

You know, I keep coming across these complaints, very much like the one you just made, but I've yet to experience anything remotely like this problem in my shooting. Perhaps you could post an example of a properly-exposed image shot with a 5DIII with excessive shadow noise? And, please, not Fred Miranda's infamous page two example. That shot is at least a stop or two underexposed, in harsh noonday Sun, and he's lifting deep Zone II shade almost to midtones. That's the textbook definition of "extreme." And of "bad light." And, too, "poor technique."

Cheers,

b&
I wouldn't call it a "complaint." Just a statement of fact. In my shooting I've come across circumstances where it is a legitimate issue. (And thanks, privatebydesign, for posting a link to our previous discussion on that with my examples.)

My intent is to provide honest feedback on where I've found the limits of the equipment to be. I have no interest in exaggerating the impact of the issue. It's obviously not a deal breaker for me, since I still am shooting Canon. But, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I do feel there's a bit of a rush to judgement to dismiss anyone who mentions pattern noise as not knowing how to expose properly or such things.

So while the Canon system suits my needs very well for the most part, this is an area where I do think there is room for improvement. I find it unfortunate when opinions are expressed to the effect that everything is fine, there's no need for improvement. Why do we need to rationalize away shortcomings? "Hey Canon, stop worrying about R&D, your sensors as good as they need to be and if someone thinks the competition is better it's just becasue they don't know how to shoot." :P Why should we send a message to a manufacturer that their product is perfect, we the consumers don't expect anything more?

I agree with everything you have said. That said, I don't think that everyone who argues these points is arguing that we should tell Canon "Stop worrying about R&D, we thing your product is fine." There have been a number of members here who have been on a determined crusade to purposely put Canon cameras in an exceptionally bad light, making it seem as though they are terrible cameras not capable of even the most minimal image quality.

I don't know of anyone who honestly believes Canon DR is as good as the DR from a D800, D600, or D3200. It quite clearly is not. Canon definitely needs to improve in this area. Even if they don't really improve DR much, even more critical is improving the quality of their noise, such that if we do need to lift shadows, they don't look nasty, and the noise can be cleaned up with better results.

My problem is that we have had individuals like Mikael and some of his pals who have purposely tried to make Canon cameras sound like the worst cameras on earth, who have blatantly claimed Canon is completely incapable of innovating new products or improving their current technology, etc. All based on one single thing: A DXOMark score. I've argued very heavily against that kind of thing...I think it is ludicrous to demonize Canon that way, and obfuscate and twist the truth to make people switch brands...for what? Some kind of ridiculous vendetta (I honestly don't know...I could never figure Mikael out.)

Anyway...Canon most assuredly has areas where they need to improve. They need to move off of their ancient 500nm sensor fabrication process, and onto a more advanced and modern 180nm process. They need to figure out how to reduce or eliminate the banding noise introduced by their off-die ADCs. They need to figure out how to improve DR and improve the quality of their noise. Sony changed the game with Exmor...and Canon customers, even those such as myself who have argued heavily against using the inappropriately scalar DXO score as the sole means of determining the quality of a camera, most definitely have the right to expect Canon to rise to that competition and at least meet it head on, if not surpass the quality of their competitors offerings.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2013, 03:20:31 PM »
Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular,  scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.

Nikon shooters never encounter such situations? Doubt so. Anyway i think this happens so rarely its not a real problem.

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2013, 03:49:44 PM »
You have a solid portfolio sir, My hat's tipped through the internet.

I don't do alot of HDR, but they're is another canon user here called A!ex or something like that. He does alot of it and it looks sublime. He once mentioned that the merging program has alot to with how good the final DR is and it seem's your shooting DR scene's excess of what possible with either platform.

I usually use flash for indoor property photography, but I can't say I do it enough to give an opinion.
First off thank you.

As far as HDR, it can be a good solution but there are circumstances where it's not practical at (such as when stuff is moving or when you're not on a tripod). If I have unlimited time I would normally opt for fill flash instead. But, how often is that, right ? ;) The problem with fill flash is there's usually more than one spot that needs it, and it takes time to set up and balance the lighting on all those strobes. So I find that I tend to only bother with flash if there's a person acting as a model in the scene, and otherwise if DR is an issue I'll be doing multiple exposures and blending in post.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 04:04:02 PM by art_d »

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2013, 03:52:37 PM »
I agree with everything you have said. That said, I don't think that everyone who argues these points is arguing that we should tell Canon "Stop worrying about R&D, we thing your product is fine." There have been a number of members here who have been on a determined crusade to purposely put Canon cameras in an exceptionally bad light, making it seem as though they are terrible cameras not capable of even the most minimal image quality.

I don't know of anyone who honestly believes Canon DR is as good as the DR from a D800, D600, or D3200. It quite clearly is not. Canon definitely needs to improve in this area. Even if they don't really improve DR much, even more critical is improving the quality of their noise, such that if we do need to lift shadows, they don't look nasty, and the noise can be cleaned up with better results.

My problem is that we have had individuals like Mikael and some of his pals who have purposely tried to make Canon cameras sound like the worst cameras on earth, who have blatantly claimed Canon is completely incapable of innovating new products or improving their current technology, etc. All based on one single thing: A DXOMark score. I've argued very heavily against that kind of thing...I think it is ludicrous to demonize Canon that way, and obfuscate and twist the truth to make people switch brands...for what? Some kind of ridiculous vendetta (I honestly don't know...I could never figure Mikael out.)

Anyway...Canon most assuredly has areas where they need to improve. They need to move off of their ancient 500nm sensor fabrication process, and onto a more advanced and modern 180nm process. They need to figure out how to reduce or eliminate the banding noise introduced by their off-die ADCs. They need to figure out how to improve DR and improve the quality of their noise. Sony changed the game with Exmor...and Canon customers, even those such as myself who have argued heavily against using the inappropriately scalar DXO score as the sole means of determining the quality of a camera, most definitely have the right to expect Canon to rise to that competition and at least meet it head on, if not surpass the quality of their competitors offerings.
Yeah, the discussions tend to get overrun by the loudest shouters. But I think we're showing reasonable voices can prevail :)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 04:03:07 PM by art_d »

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2013, 04:02:29 PM »
Not true. There are circumstances where you cannot properly expose all parts of the image due dyanmic range variations in the shooting conditions. You can expose properly for one part or the other and either blow out the highlights or block up the shadows. The lesser of two evils is to expose so the highlights don't get blown and if you still need to you can lift the shadows...this works ok in a lot of circumstances, but not all. In particular,  scenarios where you have larger areas of smooth shadows, pattern noise can become a very real problem that will be visible even on moderate prints sizes.

Nikon shooters never encounter such situations? Doubt so. Anyway i think this happens so rarely its not a real problem.
The point is that if you encounter such a scenario with an Exmor sensor, you can lift the shadows with no pattern noise resulting.

As far as it being so rare that it is not a real problem....on architectural shoots I'd say I run across it at least one time on every shoot. Compared to the total number of photos I make across a bunch of shoots, yes, that's a very small number. But since it's not zero, on those occasions when it does happen, then it is a problem which requires extra work to deal with.

Is it a huge problem? No. But a real one? Yes.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2013, 04:02:29 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3452
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2013, 04:37:22 PM »
@art_d

Heres @!ex's photostream. I sure he know more about HDR than most.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/benison

One image that caught my attention for your application.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benison/5979038530/#in/set-72157624536531517

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2013, 05:52:55 PM »
Art,

I think you might agree with me that the examples you posted in the other thread qualify as "extreme," which was the word I've been using to describe the situations where the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range.

I'd also suggest that the set of such situations where the 5DIII lacks the dynamic range but it's still within the D800's dynamic range is very small. In most such cases, you're only going to get less-bad, not good, results from the D800 unless you do what you should be doing with the 5DIII -- fixing the light or blending multiple exposures. And even in those very few situations where the extra stop or two you can get from the D800 will make the shot, you'll still get a very respectable image from the 5DIII.

And that's my point. Does the D800 have better dynamic range than the 5DIII? Yes, of course. Does it matter? About as much as the difference between two family sedans, one with a top speed of 95 MPH and the other with a top speed of 110 MPH. Most people wouldn't even notice said specification, and would be much more impressed with the one with the more practical and comfortable interior and a smoother and quieter ride at legal freeway speeds.

One last artistic point...in the prison, I think it would have made for a much more compelling (and true-to-life) story to have left the prison doors as dark as they appeared to the eye. Lifting the shadows like that makes the room seem bright, well-lit, and almost comfortable. That's not at all what you described it really being like....

Cheers,

b&

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2013, 07:04:59 PM »
Art,

I think you might agree with me that the examples you posted in the other thread qualify as "extreme," which was the word I've been using to describe the situations where the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range.
Your definition of extreme seemed to be (from your previous post) :
Quote
“Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones.”
Neither was the case in the examples I presented.

Quote
I'd also suggest that the set of such situations where the 5DIII lacks the dynamic range but it's still within the D800's dynamic range is very small. In most such cases, you're only going to get less-bad, not good, results from the D800 unless you do what you should be doing with the 5DIII -- fixing the light or blending multiple exposures.
I disagree. The biggest asset of the D800 is being able to lift blocked up shadows in an otherwise properly exposed shot. You can do that on a 5DIII or 5DII as well and. And in fact a lot of times I do so. I don’t get a “less bad shot” from doing this. The problem is doing so when you have a large smooth area, because that’s when the pattern noise is noticable. On a D800 the shadows will stay clean. And while this only happens on a small number of shots, the benefit of being able to do this is very nice.

Quote
And even in those very few situations where the extra stop or two you can get from the D800 will make the shot, you'll still get a very respectable image from the 5DIII.
That is debatable. It depends on the scenario. And it depends on who you ask and what their expectations are. Maybe some of my clients might not notice the little bit of pattern noise in the shot. Maybe some would. But I don’t want to try and find out. People hire typically hire a photographer to shoot a job because they want the photos to be better than “respectable.”

Quote
And that's my point. Does the D800 have better dynamic range than the 5DIII? Yes, of course. Does it matter? About as much as the difference between two family sedans, one with a top speed of 95 MPH and the other with a top speed of 110 MPH. Most people wouldn't even notice said specification, and would be much more impressed with the one with the more practical and comfortable interior and a smoother and quieter ride at legal freeway speeds.
I think your metaphor is off base. Because you’re assuming that both cars are being used in the same way. What if instead of comparing two sedans with different top speeds, we compare a sedan to a four-wheel drive SUV. Both behave pretty much the same driving down the freeway. But the SUV has the ability to perform better in an offroad environment where fewer people are driving, or it will perform better in the snow when the sedan might not be able to move. (I myself happen to own a 4x4 truck. I would say I use the four-wheel drive “rarely.” But I will tell you, when I have used it, it’s been damn handy to have.)

And again, I’m not understanding the need to try and rationalize away the spots where a certain product comes up short. Does the more dynamic range matter? The answer is that, to certain photographers, in certain situations, yes, it does. If it doesn’t matter to you, in your shooting situations, that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean we should marginalize what matters to other photographers because it doesn’t matter to you.

Quote
One last artistic point...in the prison, I think it would have made for a much more compelling (and true-to-life) story to have left the prison doors as dark as they appeared to the eye. Lifting the shadows like that makes the room seem bright, well-lit, and almost comfortable. That's not at all what you described it really being like....
To the eye, the prison doors do not appear darker than how I have presented them in that photo. The camera does not record things “true-to-life” (nor for that matter does your brain but that’s a different discussion.)  The cell block was well lit. But the lighting was not uniform. The eye adjusts to the brightness levels as its looking around the room so it does look uniform. Standing there looking at those doors, they are that shade of gray. But to the camera, exposing for the highlights in the courtyard below where the majority of the light in the room is falling, it doesn’t come across that way. Without blending exposures and lifting the shadows, the doors come across as almost black, that entire side of the scene is way too murky. They do not look like that to the eye. If that catwalk was really as dark in the “true to life” scenario as the camera recorded it to be, it would be too dark to walk along that catwalk without a flashlight.
   

verysimplejason

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1348
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr Account
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2013, 07:06:02 PM »
Question for the OP.... Are you using different pictures for your shadow recovery?  Why not try to recover the shadows from the original so you can see really how good or bad is 5D3's shadow recovery?

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8687
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2013, 07:17:25 PM »
Question for the OP.... Are you using different pictures for your shadow recovery?  Why not try to recover the shadows from the original so you can see really how good or bad is 5D3's shadow recovery?

The OP  posted this 6 months ago, why ask him now?
 

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3716
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2013, 07:45:47 PM »
Art,

I think you might agree with me that the examples you posted in the other thread qualify as "extreme," which was the word I've been using to describe the situations where the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range.

I'd also suggest that the set of such situations where the 5DIII lacks the dynamic range but it's still within the D800's dynamic range is very small. In most such cases, you're only going to get less-bad, not good, results from the D800 unless you do what you should be doing with the 5DIII -- fixing the light or blending multiple exposures. And even in those very few situations where the extra stop or two you can get from the D800 will make the shot, you'll still get a very respectable image from the 5DIII.

And that's my point. Does the D800 have better dynamic range than the 5DIII? Yes, of course. Does it matter? About as much as the difference between two family sedans, one with a top speed of 95 MPH and the other with a top speed of 110 MPH. Most people wouldn't even notice said specification, and would be much more impressed with the one with the more practical and comfortable interior and a smoother and quieter ride at legal freeway speeds.

One last artistic point...in the prison, I think it would have made for a much more compelling (and true-to-life) story to have left the prison doors as dark as they appeared to the eye. Lifting the shadows like that makes the room seem bright, well-lit, and almost comfortable. That's not at all what you described it really being like....

Cheers,

b&

While you can find an infinite number of shots where it won't matter, you can also find an finite number where it will. I really hope the next round from Canon fixes this DR thing up because I reallllly don't wanna have to switch to Nikon. If the 7D2/3D/5D4-type cams don't get close to D800-level I think I finally will have to switch. REALLY do not want to though.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2013, 07:45:47 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2013, 11:31:59 PM »
Art,

I think you might agree with me that the examples you posted in the other thread qualify as "extreme," which was the word I've been using to describe the situations where the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range.
Your definition of extreme seemed to be (from your previous post) :
Quote
“Basically, you're either trying to salvage a severely underexposed image, or you're trying to turn deep shadows into midtones.
Neither was the case in the examples I presented.

[...]

To the eye, the prison doors do not appear darker than how I have presented them in that photo. The camera does not record things “true-to-life” (nor for that matter does your brain but that’s a different discussion.)  The cell block was well lit. But the lighting was not uniform. The eye adjusts to the brightness levels as its looking around the room so it does look uniform. Standing there looking at those doors, they are that shade of gray. But to the camera, exposing for the highlights in the courtyard below where the majority of the light in the room is falling, it doesn’t come across that way. Without blending exposures and lifting the shadows, the doors come across as almost black, that entire side of the scene is way too murky. They do not look like that to the eye. If that catwalk was really as dark in the “true to life” scenario as the camera recorded it to be, it would be too dark to walk along that catwalk without a flashlight.

In addition to the emphasized portions, I'll observe that the doors themselves are all rendered as Zone IV, and the walls behind them are all rendered as Zone VII.

You have, indeed, by your own description, rendered an extreme scene in such a way as to turn deep shadows into midtones -- highlights, even -- and I'm not at all surprised that you discovered noise when doing so.

Cheers,

b&

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4506
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2013, 12:27:45 AM »
this is not shot with a 5Dmk3 but with the EOS-M and 8mm samyang

single exposure ETTR

pulled back by -2 exposure in LR4
and shadow recovery pulled up by about 80

a little sharpening, with mask

canon cameras have good dynamic range if you expose them properly
they are brutally unforgiving if you under expose too much

on a side note the way this little samyang handles flare is quite amazing :D
APS-H Fanboy

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2013, 12:27:45 AM »