1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW image

[JonAustin]

...

I shoot manual everything. I expose for my subjects face outdoors.

...

I don't see why Av or Tv mode with EC wouldn't work rather than trying to force M mode to work where the light is changing faster than you can. You know the meter reads x value different to how you want the exposure, so that is the basic EC value, then just wind in more or less as you want the subject exposed. Done. However slow you are to react, or the metering isn't done from the AF point, it will give you a close enough exposure of the subject to not need to lift so heavily.

My thoughts exactly, on the choice of exposure mode. I only use Manual mode when I can control the lighting environment completely (i.e., artificial light only in an indoor studio). For outdoor portraiture, I would go with Av every time, selecting aperture for the depth of field I want, and adjusting ISO to achieve an acceptable (range of) shutter speed.

 

[Orangutan]

All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII

While I agree with you, I think the main argument for more DR is about conditions you can't control. If you're on a family vacation you can't always decide to be at that prime location right at dawn, so you must deal with the light you have. Or if Sasquatch happens to stroll across the road in front of you, you can't ask the talent to take a break while you set up your strobes for a glam portrait shot. I'm sure you've all encountered these common situations.

 

[cpsico]

All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII

While I agree with you, I think the main argument for more DR is about conditions you can't control. If you're on a family vacation you can't always decide to be at that prime location right at dawn, so you must deal with the light you have. Or if Sasquatch happens to stroll across the road in front of you, you can't ask the talent to take a break while you set up your strobes for a glam portrait shot. I'm sure you've all encountered these common situations.

I one hundred percent agree, except for Sasquatch...everyone knows Sasquatch loves the paparazzi

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.

I'm not actually.

1) it seems Canon is now finally on par with its competitors in terms of read-out noise / DR and that is not really something you want to bring to everybody's attention. Instead they use more careful announcements such as "high latitude" sensor.

2) they know DR has been discussed all over the internet and before any "scores" and reviews have been official, I think they stay away from claiming any actual improvements (everyone will start asking nerdy questions anyway like "how many stops?")

3) don't compete in-house. Canon is still selling 1DX and many other pro/semipro models. Praising the new sensordesign too much could be risky.

4) Many pros and potential buyers have no issues, nor have they heard anything about lacking DR in the existing line-up

I am sure that we will hear a bit more from Canon about the improved sensordesign once the model hits the stores and 1DX slowly fades away. But I don't expect them to wear a sandwich board and ring a bell.

I think they are doing this right.

+1

 

[Loswr]

All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII

While I agree with you, I think the main argument for more DR is about conditions you can't control. If you're on a family vacation you can't always decide to be at that prime location right at dawn, so you must deal with the light you have. Or if Sasquatch happens to stroll across the road in front of you, you can't ask the talent to take a break while you set up your strobes for a glam portrait shot. I'm sure you've all encountered these common situations.

Sure, you can boost the shadows in your image shot at the wrong time of day in harsh, unflattering light....and you'll still have an image with harsh, unflattering light. So if your aim is a stunning image, it's an opportunity lost regardless. If your aim is documentary or a photo-memory – I was on the rim of the Grand Canyon!!! (at 10:30 am), then let the shadows fall where they may.

As for Sasquatch and Yeti, Elvis and aliens...well, a bit of noise is forgivable.

 

[krisbell]

Some very promising initial findings here - I too will be interested to see if this improvement will filter down to the next 5D.

And I for one am a constant 5 stop pusher for a number of reasons - using a faster shutter speed to freeze action and lighten later, for bringing out detail in shadows (so this applies to only very small areas of a picture) or because my post-processing workflow involves making the light as flat as possible in RAW before re-bringing out contrast in photoshop (so effectively darkening then lightening, or lightening and then darkening).

 

[Orangutan]

All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII

While I agree with you, I think the main argument for more DR is about conditions you can't control. If you're on a family vacation you can't always decide to be at that prime location right at dawn, so you must deal with the light you have. Or if Sasquatch happens to stroll across the road in front of you, you can't ask the talent to take a break while you set up your strobes for a glam portrait shot. I'm sure you've all encountered these common situations.

Sure, you can boost the shadows in your image shot at the wrong time of day in harsh, unflattering light....and you'll still have an image with harsh, unflattering light.

I have a 70D, so take that FWIW. I've had circumstances where I was photographing a forest scene with dappled light and dark shadow. I'm willing to let some of the dappling clip; however, there are times that I'd like to be able to lift some of the shadows 2-3 stops to "unblock" them, without adding a lot of noise. They would still be shadows, but just a little less dim. I have yet to see a need for 5-stop lift that would leave a nice finished product.

So if your aim is a stunning image, it's an opportunity lost regardless. If your aim is documentary or a photo-memory – I was on the rim of the Grand Canyon!!! (at 10:30 am), then let the shadows fall where they may.

Why the dichotomy? Maybe I want to make my vacation snaps as near as possible to the quality of my composed shots?

As for Sasquatch and Yeti, Elvis and aliens...well, a bit of noise is forgivable.

So you say, but try getting them to sit for you a second time if the first spread isn't perfect! ;D 8)

 

[telemaq76]

finaly, great news, and yes it can be interesting to have a 5 stop recovery capability. 5 stops mean 3 stops with great quality. 5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso. If you can shoot sunset and recover dark shadows without doing digital blending, that s a lot of time saved. or wedding , portrait outdoor or everything with dark parts, dark hair, dark wildlife. good improvement for me. but i understand it means mothing for sports jpeg shooters .

 

[Orangutan]

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

 

[cpsico]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III

 

[Orangutan]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III

I don't see it in this photo, but I probably don't have as much experience as you.

 

[cpsico]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III

I don't see it in this photo, but I probably don't have as much experience as you.

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

 

[Loswr]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

 

[krisbell]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

I agree with your sentiment of 'can doesnt mean should', however, 'that flat, artificial look' occurs when you dont push shadows well, rather than hard, pushing hard just makes poor pushing more obvious....

 

[Viggo]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

+1, I fail to see the point in having every pixel exposed equally. It looks like some really crappy HDR with "grunge" filter.

If I sometimes try to lift a little, I take my eye off the slider and adjust to my liking, more often than not, I'll pull the shadows darker.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

+1, I fail to see the point in having every pixel exposed equally. It looks like some really crappy HDR with "grunge" filter.

If I sometimes try to lift a little, I take my eye off the slider and adjust to my liking, more often than not, I'll pull the shadows darker.

To my (non-professional) eye, this isn't a particularly good example because the textures could hide noise. However, as much as I'm skeptical of the "lifting shadows 5 stops" benchmark of sensor evaluation, I have to remind all the folks on my side of the fence that the purpose of doing these demos is to test the limits of the tool. This is akin to destructive testing that's done in a lot of critical applications. That fact that you can bend a new airliner's wings 70degrees without breaking them doesn't mean you should; however, it's nice to know that they can do that, and then return to shape as functional flight surfaces. Likewise, testing the boundaries of low-noise lift is one (of many) legitimate tests of a sensor. I just think it's over-emphasized.

 

[IglooEater]

I'm sure there isn't a 1/1 trade here, but I would be rather upset if there were 5 stops better shadows at ISO 100 rather than 1 or 2 stops better high iso. If I were in the market for a 1dx II, that is, lol. However, I'm guessing that lower noise in the shadows like in this illustration means lower noise all across the board, which is pretty darn exciting - that's why 5 stop pushes are interesting: not because I have ever needed to do that in real life.

 

[cpsico]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

I think orangutan is to lost in specs, the question is does my camera doe what I want it to do. Not can it make a cappuccino while I shoot 5 stop underexposed ISO 100 shots. What isn't mentioned here is Sony sensors and canon sensors aren't much different dynamic range past ISO 400. The lowly 6d is actually better than the rest at higher ISO ranges.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...

I think orangutan is to lost in specs, the question is does my camera doe what I want it to do. Not can it make a cappuccino while I shoot 5 stop underexposed ISO 100 shots. What isn't mentioned here is Sony sensors and canon sensors aren't much different dynamic range past ISO 400. The lowly 6d is actually better than the rest at higher ISO ranges.

No, not at all. Please re-read my posts, I think you misunderstood.