July 23, 2014, 08:12:02 AM

Author Topic: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery  (Read 38348 times)

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2013, 12:12:52 AM »
So now let's bring it around full circle. The reason why we must use GND filters or exposure blending in the first place is because of dynamic range limitation. And so, if we accept that GND filters and exposure blending are useful to address dynamic range limitations, then we come to the inevitable conclusion that sensors that natively posses more dynamic range are useful.

I think we're almost there.

First, I imagine that the exposure blending you do is much the same as what I did on that shot of the Grand Canyon with multiple exposures, and what I also did with the wildflowers at the base of the Superstition Mountains but with two developments of a single exposure. Even if the actual technique isn't the same, they're logically equivalent.

But the fact that I had to blend two different developments of the same RAW file to get the exposure I needed of the wildflowers brings us to the analogy I used in my response to jrista's needling about D800 dynamic range.

Yes, there is a huge limitation with respect to dynamic range and photography. Absolutely monstrous.

But the cameras aren't the problem.

Just as it's been a loooooong time since the limiting factor in travel times in urban settings has been the maximum speed of the vehicle, it's also been a loooooong time since the limiting factor in photographic dynamic range has been the film and / or electronics used to record the image.

The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

So, sure. Go ahead and capture all you twenty Brazilian stops in a single exposure with your ExSonMorCon sensor.

Now what?

What have you gained, really?

You've still first got to compress that down to the ten stops of the ICC PCS that your RGB image gets run through every time it goes from one color space to another (including from the camera's native space to whatever your favorite working space to your monitor's space to your printer's space).

To those who poo-pooh the Zone System...take any image you can find on the computer. In Photoshop, change to Lab mode. Looks the same, no? Now, compare the L* values of anything you like in the image. Divide by 10, and there's your Zone. And, no, that's not a coincidence. It's a direct and very, very well-informed evolution based on hard science and a hell of a lot of experience.

All of this put together means that means that, if you want the best results, you're either going to wind up blending multiple developments of a single exposure (which is really all that the sliders in Camera Raw / Lightroom do) or blending multiple different exposures...so what's the difference, really? A bit of wear and tear on your camera's shutter that's going to last you a half million exposures and cost $300 to replace when it finally dies?

So maybe every now and again there's an extreme dynamic range shot of a moving subject where you can't fix the light and you need to produce monstrous enlargements meant to be viewed from a short distance (the very definition of pixel peeping) and you can't stand even a hint of grain in the shadows of said shots and you can't let the shadows remain shadows and it's in that narrow two-stop window of additional dynamic range that the D800 has over the 5DIII.

If that's not the setup line for some bad joke about a DeLorean getting electrocuted at the stroke of midnight as it gets blown up with a supersonic missile on Highway 88, I don't know what is.

Cheers,

b&

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2013, 12:12:52 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3707
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2013, 12:57:34 AM »
@Trumpet: There is a lot more noise in  _06C2339 - overexposed.jpg than you would have if you shot that with a D800. You are again assuming that is "clean". If you take that same shot with an actual D800 and push the same, you'll realize that it is most definitely not "clean". It's noisy...and it HAS chroma noise. The D800 might exhibit significantly less luma noise, probably wouldn't exhibit any chroma noise at all, and the detail would be much higher.

<sigh />

Did I claim that it was clean? No. I noted that there's damned little noise in there -- there is -- and that is is totally without noise reduction -- it is -- and that it would clean up very nicely with a bit of noise reduction. And, sure enough, it does. See attached.

Frankly, if I can lift Zone I shadows four freakin' stops to midtones like this and get results like this, I really couldn't give a damn that Nikon can do more. It's like comparing the pickup truck that has a top speed of 105 mph with the one that has a top speed of 115 mph. Who gives a damn, really? Neither is going to get that load of gravel to the job site any quicker.

I mean, honestly. In what sane and rational world would one ever want -- let alone actually need -- to do what I just did here with the archetypal cheesy Internet measurebator snapshot of a garden shed? And in what truly messed-up world would it not be enough?

I mean, you do realize that I could make a 3' x 5' print of this as sharp as what you see on your display, as free of grain as you see here, no?

Pushed four stops! Four stops! From 135 format!

Cheers,

b&

I think you are still missing the point. You've lifted that 4 stops...that is amazing, no doubt about it! I am an advocate for both brands, as both brands achieve some amazing things, regardless of whether they are 12 stops or 14 stops of DR.

The point, here, is that the D800 can still do better. There are some sample images and the accompanying RAW files on Flickr that are so completely underexposed, the images look almost entirely black without any post processing. You can lift those nearly black photos at least SIX stops, and still have an image with richer contrast, deeper and more detailed shadows, richer color, stronger highlights, and LESS NOISE than the photo you have posted here.

I've posted my own images from my Canon 7D where I've pushed exposure around by about four stops. That's about what you get with a Canon sensor. Four stops. That's particularly evident when you use an 8-bit computer screen...your screen is limited to only displaying eight stops at once, so you have to push and pull the shadows to get a photo looking correct on an 8-bit display. You need to push shadows around even more in order to compress that information into the 5-7 stops you get in a print, especially for fine art matte papers where you might barely have five stops of DR.

It's not a perfect four stops either, you usually start losing a LOT of color fidelity once you've pushed over two stops. Four stops is really pushing the boundaries, and like your examples, you lose contrast and color fidelity (richness of detail) where things are supposed to be deeper shadows. They end up looking muddy, dull, lifeless. You could push less, but that may not accurately represent what the scene looked like to human eyes. You could push less, and end up with just that much less detail in the shadows, or too much global contrast.

The same things can be done with the D800, D600, or D3200, WITHOUT those limitations. That's the point. Four stops is great. Six stops is better! And six stops is exactly what you would expect the difference to be between a camera capable of capturing ~12 stops of DR in a single shot vs. a camera capable of capturing ~14 stops of DR in a single shot. Noise reduction can improve your gains a bit. Assuming the noise is evenly distributed, or if you have a debanding NR tool, you might be able to gain another stop, and the gains might be a little better in terms of magnitude for a Canon...which starts out with more noise than a Nikon w/ Exmor, but the Nikon will still benefit from NR as well. So it will maintain its lead even if it is a smaller lead.

Again, as this seems to be a common misunderstanding. This doesn't make the 5D III a "bad" camera. Some people seem to think that because the D800 does better, well then the 5D III must just suck, right? I've argued AGAINST that kind of sentiment for over a year. The 5D III is an excellent camera. That is more than evident in the kind of photos people take with it. That's not the point. The point is, many photographers do the kind of work that can and will benefit from more native dynamic range. The point is that more dynamic range, be it in a D800, or in some future camera Canon releases six months, a year, or four years from now, is a useful thing. It leads to better IQ. It supports a simpler workflow. It expands the boundaries of what we can do with a camera.

It's VALUABLE. It's USEFUL.

It would allow Art_d to do less work with more information and get better results in less time.

Just because you can lift a 5D III's "Zone I" shadows by four stops, make them look rather dull, muddy, lacking in fine detail and color fidelity, and a little noisy...doesn't mean the buck stops there. The D800 can STILL do BETTER! That's the point!



<sigh />

Did I claim that it was clean? No. I noted that there's damned little noise in there -- there is -- and that is is totally without noise reduction -- it is -- and that it would clean up very nicely with a bit of noise reduction. And, sure enough, it does. See attached.

BTW, and I quote:

Holy Cow! A Nikonista might exclaim. I must have used a D800! So little noise in shadows pushed four stops to a normalized exposure! No...I just exposed properly and I started with a colorimetric rendition.

I don't think you've seen very many D800 ISO 100 photos. If you really think the noise in either the original that has no NR, or even the second one you posted that does have NR, is anywhere close to the shadow IQ of a D800, you are mistaken.

Take that same photo of the shed with the D800, lift it four stops, and you STILL have two more stops of DEEPER SHADOWS that will be richer, less noisy, and more detailed than either of the two shots you posted. You are trying to make a comparison to something it seems you have either never really seen, or not investigated deeply enough, to really understand now ludicrous it sounds to read the quote above. NO, I did not think:

"Holy Cow! He must have used a D800! So little noise in shadows pushed four stops to a normalized exposure!"

I thought:

"Is this guy serious? Has he ever even seen a D800 lifted by four to six stops?"

I really encourage you to look more into the shadow recovery capabilities of the D800. It's not a 5D III killer, it doesn't make Canon cameras worthless or useless or moot, or in any other way incapable of taking excellent photographs. But it IS a game changer for some types of photography, in a very meaningful and extremely valuable way.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 01:08:42 AM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2013, 12:27:08 PM »
The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

TrumptPower, I've been making exhibition prints for a number of years now so I can speak with some experience in this area. I'm sorry, but with all due respect I have to say you are off base here. In fact I presented an example of one such case along with the prision photo where the dynamic range limitations of the camera were problematic and created an issue in the print.

http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2012/04/dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-and-shadow-noise-dealing-with-it/

And it's not just me. What about all those National Geographic photographers who've been using GND filters for these past decades, where you claim that there should be no dynamic range limitations for print? What about all those landscape photographers using them who make prints?

Quote
So maybe every now and again there's an extreme dynamic range shot of a moving subject where you can't fix the light and you need to produce monstrous enlargements meant to be viewed from a short distance (the very definition of pixel peeping) and you can't stand even a hint of grain in the shadows of said shots and you can't let the shadows remain shadows and it's in that narrow two-stop window of additional dynamic range that the D800 has over the 5DIII.

From my experience (again, I am talking real world work I am actually producing, not contrived scenarios), there are situations where the fixed pattern noise present in Canon sensors will be obtrusive even in moderate sized prints.

You've made several exagerrations in your post which I do not think are helpful to the conversation.

First, I do not know what constitutes  "monstrous enlargements" to you, but as far as the implication that viewing prints from a short distance is "pixel peeping"... the whole viewing distance argument is a red herring. Because viewing distance has more to do with context than with print size. For instance, I printed a series of 24x36 enlargements of project photos for a company's conference room. I didn't stress out about smudgy details or noise in those photos because of the context. They look fine from across the room, and that is the context they are meant to be viewed in. But, in a gallery setting, they would not be acceptable (to me at least).  When prints are exhibited in a gallery, we don't rope off a perimeter in front of the print so that a viewer can't get close to the print and examine its details!

Another problem with your statement above is the "hint of grain" remark. We are not talking about grain. We are talking about fixed pattern noise.

And finally, you imply there is only a problem if you don't let "shadows remain shadows." This too has been demonstrated as false.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 12:39:14 PM by art_d »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2013, 01:04:06 PM »
First, I do not know what constitutes  "monstrous enlargements" to you, but as far as the implication that viewing prints from a short distance is "pixel peeping"... the whole viewing distance argument is a red herring.

First, you've got that bass-ackwards, and you're dead worng.

You've indicated that you deliver full-size full-resolution files to your clients with the expectation that they will be pixel peeping them and that you and they expect your files to look good when viewed at 100% pixel magnification on the screen.

There is no difference at all between pixel peeping a 5DIII file and standing a foot away from a 38" x 57" print of said file. No difference at all.

Quote
Another problem with your statement above is the "hint of grain" remark. We are not talking about grain. We are talking about fixed pattern noise.

And finally, you imply there is only a problem if you don't let "shadows remain shadows." This too has been demonstrated as false.

So take a look at the cheesy shed pictures I posted above. I'd suggest that's the very definition of extreme. Would you agree? And I'd also suggest that the cleaned-up results are more than acceptable for printing even at 24" x 36". Would you agree? And I'd further suggest that only boosting those shadows three stops instead of four stops would make the few hints of objectionable noise remaining invisible even in a 44" x 66" print. Would you agree?

If you would agree with me on all those points...then what's the problem? If I can get results like that with a hasty shot of the shed in my back yard, what real-world photographic situation is there, actually, that's even more demanding? (Short, of course, of crazy things like when I shot the annular eclipse and the bottom of the Grand Canyon at the same time.)

Do I just have amazing intuitive technique and not realize it? Am I the only one who actually knows how to expose properly and develop a raw file to its full potential?

Or are there some even more extreme, more demanding situations out there that I'm simply unaware of?

Once again: is this a case of bragging about the speed at which the rev limiter kicks in on the minivan, or are there actual real-world situations where that minivan actually isn't fast enough?

Cheers,

b&

art_d

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2013, 02:42:05 PM »
First, I do not know what constitutes  "monstrous enlargements" to you, but as far as the implication that viewing prints from a short distance is "pixel peeping"... the whole viewing distance argument is a red herring.

First, you've got that bass-ackwards, and you're dead worng.
The discussion might proceed better without the snarkiness. (Just my opinion.)

Ok. So, please explain how I am wrong.

Quote
You've indicated that you deliver full-size full-resolution files to your clients with the expectation that they will be pixel peeping them and that you and they expect your files to look good when viewed at 100% pixel magnification on the screen.
 
Please recall that what I said was I deliver files to my clients at native resolution with a uniformity in quality.

In addition to delivering files to clients I sometimes make prints for them. And in addition to that, I also exhibit my own work.

Quote
There is no difference at all between pixel peeping a 5DIII file and standing a foot away from a 38" x 57" print of said file. No difference at all.
What is the point of injecting this straw man argument? I made no mention of printing this size. I made reference to a 20x30 inch print. (Though I’ve seen pattern noise occur in prints smaller than that too.)

Quote
And I'd also suggest that the cleaned-up results are more than acceptable for printing even at 24" x 36". Would you agree?
No I would not. Because you have not defined “acceptable” in a context. What is acceptable in one context is not acceptable for another. For a billboard, sure. For a gallery print, certainly not. And you are ignoring that the content of the photo itself also has a huge impact as to whether or not pattern noise is noticeable enough to be objectionable.

Quote
And I'd further suggest that only boosting those shadows three stops instead of four stops would make the few hints of objectionable noise remaining invisible even in a 44" x 66" print. Would you agree?
No. See above.

And in all honesty, I am not really concerned about shadow noise in prints at such sizes. Because once you get to a point where you’re interpolating the image by that much, the context of the work is different. It’s in the more moderate print sizes where it can be a problem (as I’ve tried to demonstrate).

Quote
If I can get results like that with a hasty shot of the shed in my back yard, what real-world photographic situation is there, actually, that's even more demanding?
I’ve already shown two real-world photographic situations.

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2013, 03:10:45 PM »
Okay, enough already.

If these shots don't lay the entire matter to rest, absolutely nothing will.

One more exposure of the same classic cheesy Internet measurebator shot: my backyard shed.

I shot this six stops underexposed. As in, I moved the metering bug from where it said it was supposed to be three stops to the left until it disappeared and then another three stops farther.

And I only stopped there because I ran out of shutter speed -- though, of course, I had plenty of room to stop down the aperture.

The first attachment is just with white balancing.

The second is after applying six stops of digital push. That makes it the digital equivalent of an ISO 6400 shot.

The third is a 100% crop of a representative portion which includes the noisiest part of the resulting image.

Yes, of course -- I applied noise reduction.

I really don't think there's anything further that needs to be written about the 5DIII's ability to recover shadows.

Once again, and for the last time if I can control my SIWOTI:

The 5DIII has far more dynamic range than 90% of photographers need for 90% of photographic situations. The set of real-world photographic situations where the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range but the D800 does is almost, but perhaps not quite, perfectly empty. If you find that the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range for your needs, either you're doing some truly extreme photography (such as making an image of an annular eclipse at the Grand Canyon) or your technique isn't up to getting everything from the camera that it's capable of giving.

Cheers,

b&

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1678
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2013, 04:17:45 PM »
I think perhaps the expression:

Touché

Is warrant here  ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2013, 04:17:45 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #97 on: April 05, 2013, 04:21:53 PM »
Okay, so maybe my SIWOTI is a bit worse than I thought -- or maybe I'm just dragging my feet a bit before I get back to trying to figure out how I'm going to light this giclee shoot of a beetle that's mostly a solid block of gold leaf the size of a soup bowl.

But here's one more -- perhaps the ultimate -- variation on the theme.

This is the darkest exposure i could get without resorting to filters: 1/8000 @ f/22 @ ISO 100. As far as the back-of-the-LCD preview goes, i might as well have left my lens cap on -- which, I know, is another favorite activity of Internet measurebators. It worked out to nearly ten stops of digital push; that's the digital equivalent of ISO 51,200. As in, take all of the analog gain that the camera does on the sensor at its native maximum ISO of 25,600, do that digitally instead, and then add yet another stop of digital gain.

I'd show you the as-is shot, but it's as solid black as the LCD preview was.

But I am including a 100% crop of the highlights. Yes, the shadows (and midtones) in this shot are junk. Duh! It's a digitally-pushed ISO 51,200 equivalent exposure. But these highlights are what you get from the 5DIII when you push your below Zone I solid featureless black ink blobs to Zone VIII (edit: forgot an "I") and IX near-paper-white highlights.

And if any of all y'all really want -- or think you need -- more out of a camera...well, sorry, but I ain't got no sympathy for you. None whatsoever.

Cheers,

b&
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 04:33:25 PM by TrumpetPower! »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3707
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #98 on: April 05, 2013, 04:43:21 PM »
Okay, enough already.

If these shots don't lay the entire matter to rest, absolutely nothing will.

One more exposure of the same classic cheesy Internet measurebator shot: my backyard shed.

I shot this six stops underexposed. As in, I moved the metering bug from where it said it was supposed to be three stops to the left until it disappeared and then another three stops farther.

And I only stopped there because I ran out of shutter speed -- though, of course, I had plenty of room to stop down the aperture.

The first attachment is just with white balancing.

The second is after applying six stops of digital push. That makes it the digital equivalent of an ISO 6400 shot.

The third is a 100% crop of a representative portion which includes the noisiest part of the resulting image.

Yes, of course -- I applied noise reduction.

I really don't think there's anything further that needs to be written about the 5DIII's ability to recover shadows.

Once again, and for the last time if I can control my SIWOTI:

The 5DIII has far more dynamic range than 90% of photographers need for 90% of photographic situations. The set of real-world photographic situations where the 5DIII has insufficient dynamic range but the D800 does is almost, but perhaps not quite, perfectly empty. If you find that the 5DIII lacks sufficient dynamic range for your needs, either you're doing some truly extreme photography (such as making an image of an annular eclipse at the Grand Canyon) or your technique isn't up to getting everything from the camera that it's capable of giving.

Cheers,

b&

Could you post some original images with full EXIF? The original "dark" image looks a little odd...too flat, such that it makes me wonder if it really is a natively under-exposed shot.

Additionally, the noise in those shadows is not clean. It looks nothing like the kind of deep NOISELESS or NEAR-NOISELESS shadows you get out of a D800 when it is lifted 6 stops. You might see that kind of noise if you lifted a D800 eight stops, however you still wouldn't have the banding, which is the real problem Canon sensors have. I'm ok with noise...but I can clearly see the banding in those shadows.

Again, you should really play with a few D800 NEF's yourself. I think you don't fully understand what those extra 2 stop of DR offer, or what it means to have ZERO BANDING NOISE. It's the banding noise that is the real killer for Canon sensors. Their native sensor DR is actually probably just as good as Nikons, but when the off-die ADC's in the DIGIC DSP's process the signal, they ADD the hideous shadow noise that Canon sensors are now infamous for. If it wasn't for the ADC noise, I think Canon sensors are actually quite stellar.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3707
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #99 on: April 05, 2013, 04:45:33 PM »
The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

TrumptPower, I've been making exhibition prints for a number of years now so I can speak with some experience in this area. I'm sorry, but with all due respect I have to say you are off base here. In fact I presented an example of one such case along with the prision photo where the dynamic range limitations of the camera were problematic and created an issue in the print.

http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2012/04/dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-and-shadow-noise-dealing-with-it/

And it's not just me. What about all those National Geographic photographers who've been using GND filters for these past decades, where you claim that there should be no dynamic range limitations for print? What about all those landscape photographers using them who make prints?


Your article touches on some points that Ctein, a well-known printer who has decades of experience in film and digital, has mentioned a number of times in his writings. Very interesting stuff.
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Aglet

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 904
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #100 on: April 05, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »
I am SO enjoying this. :)

and now you can finally see the useful relevance of actually shooting with a lens cap on and pushing a mere 4 stops to compare N & FPN. (see my tech blog if you forgot) It sure showed me a lot more useful and easily compared info than all this volleyed text with "real world images."

@Trumpet
so the 5d3 is actually showing reasonable levels of FPN, by which I mean, it's fairly acceptable and workable.  That's good.  I still won't buy one tho, I want more of an improvement in low ISO performance.  After all, I've seen "the dark side," bought it, shoot with it, bought more of it, and I won't go back to Canon's chroma-snow and stripes.

OTOH, the 5d2 I had was SO bad that shades a mere 3EV below metered 0, pushed a mere ONE stop, showed FPN.
And all the handwringing angst THAT generated from so many posters here. :)
Other 5d2s certainly looked to perform better than the one I had, but it was pretty near impossible for me to have my point accepted and nobody d/cared to supply comparison shots.

People are right, this IS getting boring, all the more so when discussions degrade into little more than semantics.

But I'm glad you posted some garden shed shadow recovery from your 5d3, it's way the heck better than my 5d2 was in that regard.
And you should borrow a d800 and reshoot that garden shed the same way and push the files the same way.
Then report back to us on that.
I suspect I know what that'll be but at least you may then have a bit more respect for what that Exmor can do and why some of us prefer the expanded lower limits it provides.

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3707
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #101 on: April 05, 2013, 04:50:10 PM »
Okay, so maybe my SIWOTI is a bit worse than I thought -- or maybe I'm just dragging my feet a bit before I get back to trying to figure out how I'm going to light this giclee shoot of a beetle that's mostly a solid block of gold leaf the size of a soup bowl.

But here's one more -- perhaps the ultimate -- variation on the theme.

This is the darkest exposure i could get without resorting to filters: 1/8000 @ f/22 @ ISO 100. As far as the back-of-the-LCD preview goes, i might as well have left my lens cap on -- which, I know, is another favorite activity of Internet measurebators. It worked out to nearly ten stops of digital push; that's the digital equivalent of ISO 51,200. As in, take all of the analog gain that the camera does on the sensor at its native maximum ISO of 25,600, do that digitally instead, and then add yet another stop of digital gain.

I'd show you the as-is shot, but it's as solid black as the LCD preview was.

But I am including a 100% crop of the highlights. Yes, the shadows (and midtones) in this shot are junk. Duh! It's a digitally-pushed ISO 51,200 equivalent exposure. But these highlights are what you get from the 5DIII when you push your below Zone I solid featureless black ink blobs to Zone VIII (edit: forgot an "I") and IX near-paper-white highlights.

And if any of all y'all really want -- or think you need -- more out of a camera...well, sorry, but I ain't got no sympathy for you. None whatsoever.

Cheers,

b&

I think the point everyone is trying to make is...those "Zone I solid featureless black ink blobs" are NOT FEATURELESS!! There is obviously detail there. Your latest shots demonstrate the problem Canon sensors have quite well (and the fact you had to pull 10 stops means you are not in a DR-limited scenario, so your previous examples did not have deep enough shadows in the first place.) Do the EXACT same test with a D800. I think your mind will be blown. I can't say any more, because obviously a thousand words isn't enough. You'll have to see for yourself. Borrow, rent, buy, whatever...but if you do the exact same experiment...1/8000th f/22 ISO 100 with a D800, and lift...you won't see any pattern or banding at all. You MIGHT see a little bit of random grain...maybe. The rest...all of those "featureless black ink blobs"...well, they won't be featureless, they won't be black, and they won't be blobs.

Enjoy being knocked on your ass by amazing DR! :)
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #102 on: April 05, 2013, 05:02:23 PM »
Could you post some original images with full EXIF? The original "dark" image looks a little odd...too flat, such that it makes me wonder if it really is a natively under-exposed shot.

Additionally, the noise in those shadows is not clean.

So, you think I faked the shot but wasn't smart enough to fake it without noise? Really? Or are you just trolling now?

I don't have anywhere to upload RAWs to, but here's a screenshot. If that's not enough for you, feel free to think I'm a liar if that'll make you feel better about your D800.

Quote
It looks nothing like the kind of deep NOISELESS or NEAR-NOISELESS shadows you get out of a D800 when it is lifted 6 stops.

So your minivan with the racing stripes doesn't kick in the rev limiter until 105, but my boring minivan's limiter keeps me under 95.

Yawn. Whatever. Good for you. Vroom! Vroom! Yay.

b&

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #102 on: April 05, 2013, 05:02:23 PM »

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #103 on: April 05, 2013, 05:28:50 PM »
I am SO enjoying this. :)
And you should borrow a d800 and reshoot that garden shed the same way and push the files the same way.

Why?

I mean, really.

That vent in the 100% crop of the pushed-ten-stops shot has very little noise left in it, even if it's a bit more textured than sharp.

I took something that would normally come out as solid black, turned it into a Zone IX textured highlight, and it's more than adequate for even significant enlargements.

If you can do a bit of math, that means that the 5DIII has, effectively, at least twenty stops of usable dynamic range: ten from the normal highlights these would have been had it been properly exposed to the solid blacks of the standard rendering of this scene, and then another ten from the digital push of those blacks back to highlights.

And, realistically, for me, it actually works out to thirty stops of usable dynamic range. I'd never want to push something from solid black to a highlight, though I may well want to push something as dark as this to a Zone II textured black. -- and the bottom shadows of this ten-stops-underexposed shot would make a fantastic Zone II rendition, even though they're thirty stops darker than the highlights I would have captured with a normal rendition.

That is, imagine a scene like this but with some sort of coal mine entrance in it. If there was a grating like this in said coal mine and the proper exposure there was thirty stops below the outside-the-mine scene, I could render said grating as a readily identifiable -- though very dark -- grating, and not have any visible noise in said rendition.

...and I should care that a D800 has even more dynamic range...why, exactly? So I could render the black grating in the coal mine with as much texture as I could render a white grating in a coal mine?

Really?

No, really. When on Earth am I going to be shooting in a scene with more than thirty stops of dynamic range that I can't just as easily bracket -- assuming I can't fix the light in the first place?

Again, I really couldn't care what insane speed the pickup's rev limiter is set at, so long as I can reliably and comfortably haul a load of sod with enough oompf left over to pass the semi up the hill.

b&

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3707
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #104 on: April 05, 2013, 05:29:20 PM »
Could you post some original images with full EXIF? The original "dark" image looks a little odd...too flat, such that it makes me wonder if it really is a natively under-exposed shot.

Additionally, the noise in those shadows is not clean.

So, you think I faked the shot but wasn't smart enough to fake it without noise? Really? Or are you just trolling now?

I don't have anywhere to upload RAWs to, but here's a screenshot. If that's not enough for you, feel free to think I'm a liar if that'll make you feel better about your D800.

Quote
It looks nothing like the kind of deep NOISELESS or NEAR-NOISELESS shadows you get out of a D800 when it is lifted 6 stops.

So your minivan with the racing stripes doesn't kick in the rev limiter until 105, but my boring minivan's limiter keeps me under 95.

Yawn. Whatever. Good for you. Vroom! Vroom! Yay.

b&

Well, I think your ratios are off there. Remember, as top is a factor of two. If 95mph is the equivalent of 12 stops, then the D800 would be like driving at 380mph! :P

The D800's edge is TWO STOPS...or TWO FACTORS OF TWO better than the 5D III. We aren't talking a marginal difference, it's measurable and meaningful....at least at ISO 100. Again, we are not saying the 5D III is a bad camera. It most certainly is not, and it obviously takes phenomenal photos. I plan on getting one myself if the 7D II doesn't make some big waves. We aren't bashing on the 5D III...just trying to point out that in certain circumstances, the D800 can be WAY better. Two factors of two better...not 105mph...380mph! :P

It is also important to point out that the 5D III is better in a number of other ways. At higher ISO, it definitely has the edge. I've seen some amazingly clean ISO 12800 shots from the 5D III that look better than my 7D's ISO 3200. The AF system practically makes me giggle like a little girl, and combined with 6fps, it is an excellent camera for what I do, which is birds and wildlife most of the time (which means I'm always at high ISO and need high frame rates, two things the D800 is NOT good at by any measure.)
My Photography
Current Gear: 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: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« Reply #104 on: April 05, 2013, 05:29:20 PM »