5DIII - too grainy or not?
- Thread starter climber
- Start date
Noise appears in the shadows at low as well as high ISOs. Middle ISOs give decent results. Try shooting at 640.
Upvote
0
I had an similar problem with my 7D. Someone in the CR forum told me to shoot @ 160 not @100 ist, 320,... and so on. And the pics at Iso 160 are really better than @100. And i recogniced, if the shot is not 100% sharp, the picture is much more grainy than if it is really sharp.
Upvote
0
climber said:
That's what it's for - higher iso *reduces* noise vs. low iso underexposed, or we wouldn't need high iso at all. Btw if shadow noise is your problem in a high-dynamic range moving scene, you should try Magic Lantern's dual_iso module which is designed just for this purpose.
xps said:
The 160x isos have marginally higher dynamic range than full iso stops, but in your case 100->160 the same thing as above applies - use the iso to properly expose the picture unless it's >12800 (5d3) or >6400 (6d) or >3200 (rest) because these isos are just digitally pushed.
Upvote
0
Thanks.
One more thing. I don't know if down listed options, that are built in camera actually have any effect on RAW format or does they effect only if shooting in JPEG.
I mean for:
- High ISO noise reduction
- Long exposure noise reduction
- Auto Lighting Optimizer
- Highlight tone priority
One more thing. I don't know if down listed options, that are built in camera actually have any effect on RAW format or does they effect only if shooting in JPEG.
I mean for:
- High ISO noise reduction
- Long exposure noise reduction
- Auto Lighting Optimizer
- Highlight tone priority
Upvote
0
xps said:
That's an urban legend, the guy is professional because he's getting paid to tell you things, not because he has an insight like the Magic Lantern devs
... if you want max. quality, shoot iso 100.ISO 160x in the in the low regions up to 640 add a *tiny* bit more dynamic range, but of course lose a bit shutter speed vs. the next full iso stop ... read all about it here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9867.0
Upvote
0
This is a classic example of underexposure. Take a look at the histogram in Lightroom and notice how most of it is bunched up on the left side. You want the histogram to be about 2.5-3 stops more to the right. You have some options... the first is to try setting the ISO speed higher (ISO 500 should work nicely assuming all other exposure settings are unchanged). You can also reduce your shutter speed (not a good choice due to the fast-moving subject) or use a faster aperture lens like a 35mm f/1.4 to get up to 4X more light as any f/2.8 lens at the same focal length. Note that if you shoot at f/1.4, the tradeoff is having a much lower depth of field which is more challenging for the 5D3's autofocus system. When you increase the ISO speed, you'll notice that the histogram starts to fall more in the center, with the lights and subject possibly being overexposed a little. If some areas appear overexposed, adjust the highlights slider downward in Lightroom until the overexposure isn't noticeable/pronounced. Also be sure to shoot in RAW which gives Lightroom the most data to work with for highlight and shadow recovery. One other tip is that the 5D3 has support for a live histogram using live view mode so you can adjust exposure settings and get instant feedback about whether the photo is properly exposed.climber said:
Upvote
0
jabbott said:
Nope. This is not a classic example of underexposure and it would be silly to overexposure by 2.5-3 stops this particular scene since the subject's highlights are already bordering on overexposure; doing so would result in no noise in the bg and a white hot blob in the center
Upvote
0
meli said:
Who said again that Canon doesn't need more dynamic range
?Having said, the op should really shoot raw if he doesn't for more highlight recovery & try to raise the shadows + denoise in DxO with their PRIME algorithm (takes 1/2 hour on my laptop per shot) to make most use of the existing dynamic range.
Upvote
0
Maybe you should post the raw file, it's amazing what other people can do sometimes with different techniques.
Good idea, unless the dynamic range loss @high iso is higher than the gain from you lowering the contrast... look for the dr data on your camera here: http://www.sensorgen.info/
climber said:
Good idea, unless the dynamic range loss @high iso is higher than the gain from you lowering the contrast... look for the dr data on your camera here: http://www.sensorgen.info/
Upvote
0
Lightroom 4+ would have no problem recovering highlights even if this scene were 2.5 stops brighter. The result with a brighter exposure would look cleaner than if shadows were pushed in post, especially because the highlights represent such a small fraction of the overall image. Using a moderately higher ISO of 500 should significantly help here. Same goes with reduced flash power to prevent blown highlights on your subject. ETTR is the key, and the 5D Mark III has a great amount of highlight headroom when shooting RAW. Good luck climber with your next round of shots.meli said:
Upvote
0
This has got a lot more to do with how the photographer wants the two key elements exposed than anything to do with noise, DR, fractional stops, ETTR, or anything else. The background and the skater are two different things and are being exposed differently with different light sources.
Now in this particular exposure the skater is overexposed, we can't say anything about the background exposure because we don't know what they were trying to achieve! Spurious advice to ETTR is ridiculous unless you know they wanted the background a lighter tone.
So, first thing to do is nail the skater, either wind back the flash a stop or so, or close your aperture a stop or so. As for the background, if you want it lighter lengthen your shutter speed, if you can't do that because of subject motion then raise iso and wind back flash the other way, that is if you go up two stops of iso come down two stops of flash power. Done.
Now the noise, if the background is the tone you want then in shadowy areas like that noise is common, all you need to do is raise the noise slider slightly in LightRoom, which I see the OP is using, I did and it took away all the noise without killing any detail.
In this situation you have the power to create any ratio between background and subject you want, take the shutter speed up to sync, wind the flash power up and close the aperture with a low iso and the background will go to black, and there is nothing wrong with that if that is what you are trying to create.
Now in this particular exposure the skater is overexposed, we can't say anything about the background exposure because we don't know what they were trying to achieve! Spurious advice to ETTR is ridiculous unless you know they wanted the background a lighter tone.
So, first thing to do is nail the skater, either wind back the flash a stop or so, or close your aperture a stop or so. As for the background, if you want it lighter lengthen your shutter speed, if you can't do that because of subject motion then raise iso and wind back flash the other way, that is if you go up two stops of iso come down two stops of flash power. Done.
Now the noise, if the background is the tone you want then in shadowy areas like that noise is common, all you need to do is raise the noise slider slightly in LightRoom, which I see the OP is using, I did and it took away all the noise without killing any detail.
In this situation you have the power to create any ratio between background and subject you want, take the shutter speed up to sync, wind the flash power up and close the aperture with a low iso and the background will go to black, and there is nothing wrong with that if that is what you are trying to create.
Upvote
0
jabbott said:
Nope. In the jpg the values for face & arm are already @ 252+ and actually parts of his nose and lips are already clipped; if you think you could add another 2.5stops and be able with your LR 4+ to bring'em back then damn, pls torrent us your LR cause it must be some pretty special sauce ;D
Thats why i'm a dual camper ;DMarsu42 said:Who said again that Canon doesn't need more dynamic range
@OP, you should bump up iso and sync
Upvote
0
Note that you're only looking at the JPEG. The RAW version would have significantly more highlight data than what is shown in the rendered JPEG. I've dealt with this countless times with clouds that appeared to be blown out in the JPEG preview but actually weren't in the RAW version... especially with 5D3 RAW files.meli said:
Upvote
0
There's a lot more in the JPEG. There could be a reasonable shot in the raw. But its always going to be quite soft.
The shadows look strange, Lights in the roof but shadows from the flashes going both ways?
A scene like this with lots of dark areas needs a lot of flash power. Maybe you could recompose so as to make the best of what you have and look more natural.
I took the liberty of playing with your shot, hope you don't mind. I haven't tried to think about what you were trying to get, I just wonder what was in the shot.
The scene has lots of possibilities and potential. A load of thought and much trial should end up with a good shot. Good Luck with it.
The shadows look strange, Lights in the roof but shadows from the flashes going both ways?
A scene like this with lots of dark areas needs a lot of flash power. Maybe you could recompose so as to make the best of what you have and look more natural.
I took the liberty of playing with your shot, hope you don't mind.
I haven't tried to think about what you were trying to get, I just wonder what was in the shot.The scene has lots of possibilities and potential. A load of thought and much trial should end up with a good shot. Good Luck with it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
