# 5DIII - too grainy or not?



## climber (Feb 9, 2014)

Hi. I took the attached picture at ISO 200 and it looks quite noisy/grainy in the shadows at 100%. Could someone take a look and say if this is normal or not? Or it is just me doing something wrong? Picture is converted in LR 4.3 and unprocessed.


----------



## Harry Muff (Feb 9, 2014)

Noise appears in the shadows at low as well as high ISOs. Middle ISOs give decent results. Try shooting at 640.


----------



## climber (Feb 9, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Noise appears in the shadows at low as well as high ISOs. Middle ISOs give decent results. Try shooting at 640.



If I understand , you recommend to shoot at higher ISO (640) to gain less noise in the shadows. Interesting. Should try next time.


----------



## xps (Feb 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

climber said:


> If I understand , you recommend to shoot at higher ISO (640) to gain less noise in the shadows.



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:


> 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.



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.


----------



## climber (Feb 9, 2014)

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


----------



## xps (Feb 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand , you recommend to shoot at higher ISO (640) to gain less noise in the shadows.
> ...



A Canon professional trainer told me, that the 7D has best performing iso - 160 for normal, or multiplicated by 160 (320,...). @ this ISO steps the picture quality will be best. But the 7D´s IQ gets worse over 1600...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

xps said:


> A Canon professional trainer told me, that the 7D has best performing iso - 160 for normal, or multiplicated by 160 (320,...). @ this ISO steps the picture quality will be best.



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


----------



## jabbott (Feb 9, 2014)

climber said:


> Hi. I took the attached picture at ISO 200 and it looks quite noisy/grainy in the shadows at 100%. Could someone take a look and say if this is normal or not? Or it is just me doing something wrong? Picture is converted in LR 4.3 and unprocessed.


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.


----------



## meli (Feb 9, 2014)

jabbott said:


> 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..



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


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

meli 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



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.


----------



## climber (Feb 9, 2014)

I shoot RAW with aperture 2.8, 1/200 s and ISO 200. Skater was illuminated with two external flashes. Maybe I should use higher ISO for background and reduced flash power.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2014)

Maybe you should post the raw file, it's amazing what other people can do sometimes with different techniques.



climber said:


> Maybe I should use higher ISO for background and reduced flash power.



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 (Feb 9, 2014)

As you guys said, histogram of the unprocessed photo is almost all on the first (left) third. I read something about ETTR exposing and thus I should aim to put it on the right side next time.


----------



## jabbott (Feb 9, 2014)

meli 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


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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## meli (Feb 9, 2014)

jabbott said:


> Lightroom 4+ would have no problem recovering highlights even if this scene were 2.5 stops brighter.



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



Marsu42 said:


> Who said again that Canon doesn't need more dynamic range  ?


Thats why i'm a dual camper ;D

@OP, you should bump up iso and sync


----------



## jabbott (Feb 9, 2014)

meli 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


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.


----------



## Skulker (Feb 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## meli (Feb 9, 2014)

jabbott said:


> meli 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
> ...



Oh no doubt you might have been able to salvage something from this raw, but you claimed you could salvage it even with an additional 2.5stops on top.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 10, 2014)

meli 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



Bear in mind that the JPEG image provides only 8 bits of dynamic range per color (assuming a 24-bit JPEG image), whereas Canon RAW files provide 14 bits per color (per subpixel, that is). This means that in the worst case, a RAW file can represent a range of brightness values 64 times as wide as the JPEG image, which in practice translates to about three stops in each direction (IIRC), not counting any loss caused by JPEG compression artifacts.

In other words, by definition, assuming Lightroom can recover highlights in this picture now, if you shot the same photo in RAW mode, you could brighten the shot by up to three more stops before Lightroom would lose the ability to recover highlights.

This, of course, assumes that the JPEG was produced from the RAW data without further brightening or darkening.


----------



## jabbott (Feb 10, 2014)

Skulker said:


> There could be a reasonable shot in the raw. But its always going to be quite soft.


Are you referring to the 5D Mark III RAW softness issue? If so, that was resolved two years ago with Canon's Digital Photo Professional 3.11.26.0... or by using any third party RAW converter such as Adobe Camera RAW.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

climber said:


> Hi. I took the attached picture at ISO 200 and it looks quite noisy/grainy in the shadows at 100%. Could someone take a look and say if this is normal or not? Or it is just me doing something wrong? Picture is converted in LR 4.3 and unprocessed.



You've used a very low ISO setting. For action, you need higher shutter speeds, and that means using a higher ISO setting. You might actually find that using a higher ISO in this case might actually reduce the appearance of shadow noise, as it will increase your utilization of the camera's available dynamic range to create a more saturated image before read noise is injected into the image. That won't entirely solve the "noise" issue, though.

The only other thing you MIGHT be doing wrong is overestimating how much noise there is in the shadows. 

Noise is a NATURAL consequence of the physical nature of light. Sensors have discrete elements that sense light, however light falls randomly and slightly unevenly on those elements, so there is an intrinsic error rate...some pixels are slightly brighter than they should be, others are slightly darker than they should be, resulting in "noise".

It's ALWAYS occurred in photos. In the film days, noise was often much worse than what we deal with today, on all but the highest grade (and usually slower) films. For example, one of the most loved films for its high quality, exceptional color, and fine grain was (and actually still is) Velvia 50. This SLOW film has long been THE film for serious large format landscape photographers. It isn't cheap (and only seems to get more expensive with time), however thanks to its slow speed, it is able to achieve a very fine grain size and is therefor low noise...however it's 100% useless for the kind of action photograph you've taken!

In the film era, you would be using at least an ISO 400 film, maybe even an ISO 800 film. Higher ISO films used larger grains in order to increase the film's sensitivity. That resulted in high ISO film images appearing MUCH noisier than high ISO digital images are today. You should count yourself lucky you have the option to crank ISO as high as ISO 12800 these days and still not experience the same kind of film grain you would have with ISO 800 film. 

Your image, though underexposed, is actually relatively clean. It IS underexposed, however. If you lift it by a couple stops in Lightroom, you'll be lifting read noise along with the image. That means your shadows will actually be noisier than if you had taken the image at ISO 800 in the camera. Increasing ISO is actually a means of REDUCING read noise, therefor resulting in cleaner shadows, since the image signal is amplified before the pixels are read...so read noise is added AFTER (and therefor it is a lesser fraction of the output signal.) You do need to be aware that in the presence of less light, total signal noise (not just the noise in the shadows that's added by the cameras readout electronics, but noise intrinsic to the signal, derived from the nature of light) will increase. That's physics, nothing we can do to change that. 

If you don't like the amount of noise that is present in an image at ISO 800 with the natural levels of light in your photo, the only real option you have is to *add light!* If you bring along artificial light, either bounced flash or some kind of flash or continuous lighting on stands, you will open up the option of using a lower ISO setting while still exposing your subject properly. 

EDIT: On closer inspection of the image at 100%, you really do need to crank up the ISO, lot! ISO 800 is probably the minimum you need, but I think ISO 1600 at least is necessary. You can see both subject motion blur (due to his motion) as well as camera shake blur in your example shot. That is an indication of a shutter speed that is much too low. You want to use the highest shutter speed you can get away with, at LEAST 1/focalLength (and 1/focalLengthx2 if your using an APS-C sensor), in order to prevent blur from camera shake. Depending on how fast your subject is moving, you may need an even higher shutter speed than that. That is going to warrant 3-4 stops higher ISO than you were using...or bring in a LOT more light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2014)

Don't forget this is a flash illuminated action shot, if HSS is not an option then 1/200 could well be it for shutter speed, that means everything else is a work around, the sync speed is often the only hard limit in this type of shooting situation. 

If shots like this are the primary reason for the camera then much more though needed to go into sync speed.

As for the background, there is still zero indication from the OP as to what he wanted the background to look like, I am sure, as he was using flash, the intention was to intentionally under expose the background, in which case a touch of noise reduction and a lowering of flash power is all he needs to do.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't forget this is a flash illuminated action shot, if HSS is not an option then 1/200 could well be it for shutter speed, that means everything else is a work around, the sync speed is often the only hard limit in this type of shooting situation.



Oh, sorry, didn't catch that it was a flashed shot. 

That definitely changes some things. With direct flash, your bound to have a bright subject and dim background, which has the potential to increase noise in the background (especially if you lift it).



privatebydesign said:


> If shots like this are the primary reason for the camera then much more though needed to go into sync speed.
> 
> As for the background, there is still zero indication from the OP as to what he wanted the background to look like, I am sure, as he was using flash, the intention was to intentionally under expose the background, in which case a touch of noise reduction and a lowering of flash power is all he needs to do.



Agreed, there isn't enough noise in the background in the sample shot to be a problem. It would only take a feather touch of NR to eliminate it.


----------



## climber (Feb 10, 2014)

Hey, I really appreciate your help. I learned quite a lot of new things by this thread.

Yes, the minimum shutter speed allowed in this case was 1/200 due to flashes.

I don't really know how I want the picture looks like, but something similar as Skulker's version. Just brighter background.

I could not attach a RAW photo here becase it is too big - 23MB. The max attachment size is 4MB. If anyone is willing to play with original RAW file, I can send him. Just let me now. It doesn't bother me what he will end up with. I'm just curious what is possible to do with such RAW file.

Thanks again for all of your help.


----------



## Skulker (Feb 10, 2014)

jabbott said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > There could be a reasonable shot in the raw. But its always going to be quite soft.
> ...



no i was referring to that shot. It's an action shot with shallow depth of field and slow shutter speed.. I'm not aware there is a "softness issue" with the 5D3. ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2014)

climber said:


> I could not attach a RAW photo here becase it is too big - 23MB.



Simply upload it to one of the gazilion file sharing services - yes, they actually can be used for legal purposes


----------



## Skulker (Feb 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > I could not attach a RAW photo here becase it is too big - 23MB.
> ...



lol


----------



## climber (Feb 10, 2014)

Here it is: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23585527/_N3A8532.CR2


----------



## jabbott (Feb 10, 2014)

climber said:


> Here it is: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23585527/_N3A8532.CR2


Thanks for uploading. I loaded it into Lightroom and tried the following which seems to help:

- "Auto" tone in the Develop > Tone section
- Noise reduction to 25

This brightens the background, keeps noise under control and keeps highlights from blowing out. Note how the highlight and shadow adjuster both go to 40... this means that Lightroom is having to reduce highlights and boost shadows equally to get a more even exposure. It's also a testament to the 5D3's metering system which struck a nice balance between highlights and shadows, regardless of how prevalent they were. All of this just helps the existing photo though... I still think it would help to boost ISO for future shoots.

If you boosted ISO in camera it would certainly help get the shadows exposed without as much noise, but you'll want to experiment to find the point at which highlights start significantly clipping. Quickly looking at the RAW, it looks like you might have around two stops of additional room to safely expose to the right. The Mac version of RawDigger says that 0.3-0.4% of the photo is overexposed, while 30-43% is underexposed. I don't have the Windows version of RawDigger which shows a nice histogram plot so if anyone does I would be curious to hear what they find. Here's an informative guide on ETTR I recently found:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed


----------



## climber (Feb 10, 2014)

I read this article along with some others. I understand that base ISO (100 in may case) is needed for ETTR to "saturate" sensor. But let see my case. Aperture f/2.8 is max. and I could not set a longer shutter speed because of fast moving object. Thus, ISO 200 should be appropriate for ETTR. And If I look for flickering that shows overexposing parts of image, I see them only in lights and on the small part of skater arm. Which should be just like ETTR should be.

So, why should be good to increase an ISO?

If I campare my image with that one in the article where two men sit in the room with a small window, they seem quite similar. If so, I could also bring out of my image details and colors.

Yes, one thing is for sure. I have to learn a lot of things.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2014)

climber said:


> Thus, ISO 200 should be appropriate for ETTR.



ETTR only has to do with the histogram - you need to raise iso until you touch the right side (save some safety margin in changing light). You can use Magic Lantern to automate this process btw.



climber said:


> And If I look for flickering that shows overexposing parts of image, I see them only in lights and on the small part of skater arm. Which should be just like ETTR should be.



The Canon blinkies do not measure for raw, but for jpeg - so if it blinks, it might very well be you can still recover it. To get real raw metering and histogram, again use Magic Lantern. 

Your shot is underexposed in raw - this is after an edit, due to the underexposure it's still noisy (I just used acr denoising) and has banding ... it seems the 5d3 is really worse here than the 6d, I've never seen that on the latter.


----------



## climber (Feb 10, 2014)

If you look at this image (http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/6641165460/250/2790690.jpg) in this article (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed) it's obvious that it is under exposed - and I think also much more then my image. But, at the end he got out very nice result. As I undertand, he under exposed this image with purpose to preserve the sun just on the right side of histogram. I wonder now two things:

1. How was he able to get such a nice result from that under exposed image?
2. Why is he advocating that kind of underexposing if everybody says, that pushing data out of the shadows is not the best thing and will result in more noise at the end?


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

@Climber:

ETTR is very simple: Expose to the right! That's really it. You honestly don't have to get too technical about it, and if you DO try to get too technical about it, your going to spend more time fiddling than photographing. 

The concept is pretty strait forward. Noise in an image signal is a ratio of the saturation of the signal. When using a digital sensor, where exposure in post is effectively "fluid", you should maximize the saturation of your signal as best as possible, and correct the exposure in post. By "exposing to the right", you increase the number of pixels that have a higher signal to noise ratio, and thereby reduce the amount of noise in those pixels. You also put a larger percentage of the image signal above the read noise floor, and usually require a post-process exposure pull in order to correct, meaning you reduce the read noise floor even further than is otherwise the case.

The mechanics are also pretty simple. First, *choose *the _shutter speed_ you REQUIRE in order to freeze the motion in your shot. Then, *push ISO* until your histogram reaches well into the right-most vertical box in the histogram display. You do not want the histogram to ride up the right-hand edge, and to maintain the best color fidelity in the highlights, you want the histogram to peak just a little before the right-hand edge, then fall. 

Regardless of how the exposure looks when you do that, that is considered "correct exposure" in the digital world. Making the image look "correct" to human eyes is a post-processing matter, and a matter of personal taste, so don't bother trying to achieve that in camera. Just expose to the right. It's not really hard, and as you practice with it, you'll get a feel for how far to the right you can push without running the risk of clipping highlights you don't want clipped.

I also want to point out a fact about noise in regards to the processed image Marsu42 shared. He lifted the background shadows quite a bit, and revealed some banding noise. Banding noise like that is primarily a problem at the lower ISO settings. You were at ISO 200. To expose properly (without flash) you would very likely have been at ISO 800 or ISO 1600...at these settings, banding noise is extremely low to non-existent on most current Canon cameras (older cameras, like the 5D II, might still exhibit some banding at higher ISO settings.) You will still have read noise, but you'll be able to lift it more without that unsightly banding. 

I use a Canon 7D myself currently, and I employ ETTR in most of my work. The 7D has terrible banding in the shadows at ISO 100, 200, and 400, but that banding is almost non-existent at ISO 800 and not present at higher ISO settings. I usually shoot at ISO 800 and above, and I often lift the shadows by several stops in photos where I try to preserve the highlights, which results in my key subject ending up mostly in the darker midtones and upper shadow tones. I never have problems with banding.


----------



## klickflip (Feb 10, 2014)

Hi Climber, nice to see someone else shooting skate shots. -hence my screen name  Now is that a make ? looks like an ollie north but back foot looks like a reply sketchy land!! 

Yeah bringing up shadow in shots like these will bring out a fair bit of noise, I generally live with it no ones going to notice too much. Couple of other things look like they need dealt with at time of shooting tho.. 
Isn't sharp! mix of motion blur, camera movement and focus being off. Focus looks like its on the background. 
Dont shoot flash at full power, if its speedlights use them at 1/4 power and it should freeze most things if you can manual so it won't fluctuate and shoot fairly wide open.

Or going for a higher iso and HSS flash so mix ambient and flash at say 1/2000s to get a more even look but think starker flash is better and darkens down distracting backgrounds. 

Personally I tend to do a lot of post in capture one and PS to get a more interesting grade / look to indoor skatepark shots as are generally pretty horrible looking. Black and white tends looks a lot better. 

I've made two quick grades to make it look a bit more stylish and compensate for the lack of colour and hard environment. 

BTW the wee corner QP looks rad and great fun


----------



## pwp (Feb 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> ETTR is very simple: Expose to the right! That's really it. You honestly don't have to get too technical about it....


ETTR is the strongest noise reduction tool you have. I'm consistently gobsmacked how much detail there is hidden in the highlights of not just my 5D3 which is plain phenomenal, but in almost equal measure in files from my 1D Mk4 and my little travel camera, the truly tiny APS-C SL-1 (aka EOS 100D).

ETTR can be counter intuitive particularly for photographers who learned shooting film, but once this very simple technique is mastered you'll barely even think about it. Until you get the feel of it, keep an eye on histograms and highlight alert.

With carefully exposed files, it's extremely rare to go to the noise reduction slider in LR5 or call in the useful abilities of Nik D-fine. Too many steps in post-pro slow things down to a crawl. ETTR is your friend!

-pw


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 11, 2014)

You could have shot at a slower shutter speed to expose the background better since the flash would help freeze the subject.

Also, why care so much about a little noise in a shadow? You only really see "noise" when pixy peepin'. Doubt you"ll notice it in a print, or an image reduced for the webby.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 11, 2014)

@Marsu42,
That's an extreme push on that file! That skater looks purple now. Any file would/ should fall apart being pushed that far.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 11, 2014)

Great thread!


----------



## jabbott (Feb 11, 2014)

I should also mention dragging the shutter may help... depending on your shutter speed it might even provide a nice motion blur effect behind the subject, while the subject is still sharp from the flash. There's a lot of creative possibilities. Here's an article with more info:
http://ilovephotography.com/article9.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> That's an extreme push on that file! That skater looks purple now. Any file would/ should fall apart being pushed that far.



I wasn't editing it for visual beauty, but to show how much data is hidden mind you - and I would speculate that a) if this was ettr'ed the iq would have been better after push and b) the banding is really a bit strange, I wish I would have be able to compare the 6d against that.


----------



## climber (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks to all again, expecially to "jrista" for his comprehensive and understandable explanation.

@klickflip: I really don't know these tricks, I was just shooting.  Ask me something about my hobby, if you want. (its in nickname) 
And I like your corrections.

I just didn't understand why an author of the linked article in dpreview.com said that it is a "must" to shoot at the base ISO. As "jrista" said in his post, the best option is to push ISO as high to reach ETTR with required (desired) shutter speed and f-stop.

I want to ask you one more thing (jrista or anybody else). In what way do you make an ETTR when you have one very very bright part of image. Like sun, small window in a dark room, or anywhere there is big dynamic range. Ok, HDR is one option but let say you want to make a single shoot. Will you sacrifice that bright part of an image with purpose to put the rest of an image into the right side of histogram. Or will you shoot like an author of the previously linked article where he put that window and sun on the right edge, but the major part of image was under exposed?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 11, 2014)

climber said:


> I want to ask you one more thing (jrista or anybody else). In what way do you make an ETTR when you have one very very bright part of image. Like sun, small window in a dark room, or anywhere there is big dynamic range. Ok, HDR is one option but let say you want to make a single shoot. Will you sacrifice that bright part of an image with purpose to put the rest of an image into the right side of histogram. Or will you shoot like an author of the previously linked article where he put that window and sun on the right edge, but the major part of image was under exposed?



My basic rule of thumb here is if there are people in the shot i will expose as far as their faces do not get blinkies if clothes do thats usually fine and will be recoverable but faces and skin tones suffer as the red channel clips first so i expose with aiming to keep the faces in the sweet spot if i blow out a bit of sky it doesnt matter as long as the faces are fine.

a very tiny bit of blinking on the face though and that will show i am as far ETTR as I want to go. 

same would go for anything non people too i guess preserve the most important thing in the shot

now to process the ETTR shot simply drop the overall exposure by 1 to 1.5 or even maybe 2 stops (depends on the shot)
then pull up the shadows 100% and in some places you might need to paint in some extra shadow recovery or pull up the shadow section of your curve and you will have nice clean noise free recovered shadows. might need to pull down some highlights to taste. oh and also set your black point and white point after you have done these changes too

this will give you the cleanest exposure for your shot


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 11, 2014)

On my self calibrating Eizo monitor I see nothing wrong with the exposure of this image and the grain in the shadows is sensor grain. I wouldn't even define it as noise.

Yes, you can get sensor grain. Every sensor has a specific design and feel to it. Shadows show this more because the brightness and colour is all flat vs in the highlights where there is distracting colour and contrast.

For me I'd warm it up slightly with the WB tool but if your idea was to nail the exposure on the skateboarder then you did an excellent job. But next time 1/400 at ISO800 F4. Shoot manually, you're in a constant environment with static lighting.

Also note that when resizing a 5000 pixel wide image to 1024 noise disappears anyway. Same goes for prints. So unless the gallery you want to hang this sucker has a 50 inch screens instead of prints nobody will see or care about it anyway.

Stop worrying, go out and keep shooting. If you really want to see some noise go and shoot a 7D at ISO400.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2014)

climber said:


> I just didn't understand why an author of the linked article in dpreview.com said that it is a "must" to shoot at the base ISO. As "jrista" said in his post, the best option is to push ISO as high to reach ETTR with required (desired) shutter speed and f-stop.



Look at Canon's dynamic range curve: on newer full frame, it doesn't really matter if you shoot iso 100 or 400 unless you're doing extreme shadow recovery (like I did on your shot): http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

climber said:


> Thanks to all again, expecially to "jrista" for his comprehensive and understandable explanation.
> 
> @klickflip: I really don't know these tricks, I was just shooting.  Ask me something about my hobby, if you want. (its in nickname)
> And I like your corrections.
> ...



I'm not sure why he would say that, unless he really doesn't actually understand the purpose of ETTR. The only time when I think always using ISO 100 with ETTR would be valid is for landscapes. Static scenes, where shutter speed can vary at will without any adverse affect, is the only time when you would want to lock yourself into ISO 100. For everything else, you really need to CHOOSE your shutter speed (and aperture, for the DOF you need), then you "push" exposure with ISO. If your shooting skateboarders, then your an action shooter, no question. The most critical factor for you is shutter speed...choose that, then push ISO. Trust me on this.  I've been doing it for several years now with birds and wildlife. 



climber said:


> I want to ask you one more thing (jrista or anybody else). In what way do you make an ETTR when you have one very very bright part of image. Like sun, small window in a dark room, or anywhere there is big dynamic range. Ok, HDR is one option but let say you want to make a single shoot. Will you sacrifice that bright part of an image with purpose to put the rest of an image into the right side of histogram. Or will you shoot like an author of the previously linked article where he put that window and sun on the right edge, but the major part of image was under exposed?



The real question is, what highlights are important? When the sun is in the picture, if there are any shadows at all, you have 20+ stops of dynamic range. Plan and simple. No DSLR camera on earth can capture 20 stops in a single frame. If your scene is static, you can do HDR. If your shooting action, you have two options: Add light to the shadows (i.e. flash or other artificial lighting), or choose what highlights and shadows to preserve, and "discard" the rest. If the sun is actually IN the frame, you can't capture it in any detail. It, and most likely a certain amount of sky around it, will be blown. That's just the fact of the matter.

But...that isn't a problem, either. You don't need, and don't necessarily even WANT, the sun and the deepest shadows to all be visible and detailed. Letting the sun and surrounding sky blow out is actually more desirable...maybe even artistic. Deepening the deepest shadows, while lifting the rest, and recovering highlights, will increase the contrast of the scene. @Kickflip actually demonstrated this very well with his first sample image...he attenuated the contrast curve, which produced a very artistic image. 

It isn't possible to preserve unlimited dynamic range, and you shouldn't bother trying. Preserve what you can...and preserve what is important, and don't worry about the rest. That's what photographers do. It's what they have been doing for decades upon decades. In your work, at least the kind of work with the skateboarder, the only thing that REALLY matters in the scene is the skateboarder and his board. The rest of the scene is background and periphery content...it can be darkened or lightened or whatever you want to do, but the key subject in the scene is the boarder, his board, and maybe part whatever ramp or rail he kicked his trick off of. 

Expose to the right...just shift your exposure as far to the right as YOU PERSONALLY believe is acceptable given the scene, it's lighting, and how much of the highlights YOU want to preserve. And go with that. The fundamental concept is pretty simple. There are no real hard and fast rules...that's probably the only rule you should REALLY learn about your photography: YOU are the photographer, it's YOUR art, own it and make it yours! ETTR is just a technical tool that allows you to create higher quality exposures that preserve more detail with less noise...when possible. But there are no rules...it's just a tool, like your camera, like your flash.


----------



## climber (Feb 11, 2014)

I have to go out and practice. Thanks.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

climber said:


> I have to go out and practice. Thanks.



The quick rule of thumb that I follow with ETTR is, always make sure that some part of the histogram is at least part way into the rightmost histogram section or box (in the background, the histogram is divided up into vertical sections). I always try to make sure that my histograms reach 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way into that rightmost box. I could probably push it farther, however when it comes to birds and wildlife which are always on the move, highlights change too much, and I don't want to clip any. It may be for you that at least 2/3rds to 3/4s of the way into the rightmost box is better. Just give it some experimentation, and you'll get a feel for what works for you, and how much of the highlights you want to preserve.


----------



## climber (Feb 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > I have to go out and practice. Thanks.
> ...



Yes, I know there are vertical sections. Thanks for this advice.

Do you also recommend to shoot with AEB mode with 3-5 shoots and some gap between them? And then to choose the best exposure. This would be appropriate for shooting a landscape from tripod. I know it is not appropriate for sports or any other moving object. I suppose you "over expose" image based on the experience and do only one or maybe two shoots.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

climber said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > climber said:
> ...



No AEB for action. Single shots only. What matters more for you is the number of frames you capture in a second. The more frames per second, the better the chance of you nailing that one perfect moment. You might benefit from some remote flash on stands to give you more control over the lighting of your subject and the backgrounds...but I really don't think that fits with photographing skateboarding. High frame rate and high ISO are basically your realm...outside of having exceptional outdoor light, you will probably find that your shooting at ISO 800 and higher most of the time.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> No AEB for action. Single shots only.



I don't know, I find aeb for action rather useful - on the 60d, I set it to 3x with minimal ev spacing of 1/3ev. It never really hurts, but it makes nice mini-bursts with one shutter press and if the shots are very similar you can select the best exposure so the shutter cycles weren't for nothing


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > No AEB for action. Single shots only.
> ...



I guess you could do that. I think a continuous frame rate for more than three frames while holding down the shutter is more important, as capturing that exact moment is more critical than getting a proper exposure. With digital photography, to a certain degree at the very least, exposure is fluid. You can shift it around in post at will up to four stops on pretty much any camera. 

If you really need the ability to lift shadows more than four stops, then there are other cameras that can do the job better at the moment. I think picking up one of those cameras is probably a better option than bracketing and losing the ability to do continuous AI Servo shooting.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> I guess you could do that. I think a continuous frame rate for more than three frames while holding down the shutter is more important



In the pj-like work I did, I knew about what moment I wanted to shoot but wanted to exclude frames with the people blinking and such - a 3x burst @60d 6fps is very good for that. Usually I don't even servo af for that as it's really not very reliable on single-point 60d and 6d.



jrista said:


> as capturing that exact moment is more critical than getting a proper exposure. With digital photography, to a certain degree at the very least, exposure is fluid. You can shift it around in post at will up to four stops on pretty much any camera.



Of course, but this bracketing isn't really for bracketing but a cheap solution for mini bursts ... the 1/3ev spacing is just the way to do it and have the benefit of a small ev choice if the shots are identical.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you could do that. I think a continuous frame rate for more than three frames while holding down the shutter is more important
> ...



Ah, gocha. I honestly haven't used anything other than the 7D for a couple years solid now. I had a 450D which was more like the 60D/6D in terms of AF points and frame rate...but that was such a long time ago. I got the 7D to avoid the issues I had with it. 

The next camera I plan to get is a 5D III, which is probably even farther from the 60D/6D than the 7D in terms of AF capabilities. But, I do understand if you need short bursts. (Although...does the 6D not give you the option of a "Continuous Low" frame rate? My 7D has both Continuous High and Continuous Low. I get 8fps high, and 3-4fps low. I think the 5D III and 1D X both allow you to configure the low frame rate (or maybe just the 1D X...since it's high is 12fps, you can set low to be anything in a range from I think 3 to 8-10.))


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Although...does the 6D not give you the option of a "Continuous Low" frame rate



Nope, they didn't dare to do that, but in addition to the normal 4.5fps it has "silent continuous" @3fps, the same as 5d3... but of course this includes the silent shutter lag.

My mini-burst method is really not made to look for good moments later on, but to avoid closed eyes and whatnot in the same moment... and just pressing the shutter button is simpler when in a stress situation than remembering to lift the finger again after 3 frames


----------



## JLRoyal42 (Feb 12, 2014)

Well since underexposed shots are kind of my style.. I tried to take my own approach at your shot, and I hope you don't mind. This is probably the direction I would have taken it if I was in your shoes.


----------



## climber (Feb 13, 2014)

Hey. Today I went out to try shooting in "ETTR mode". I over exposed the image below by 1 2/3 EV with center weighted metering. On the camera screen review the whole sky over the castle was blinking. When I open it in LR, first thing that I have noticed was that there is quite a big difference in the sense of over exposing. I mean there was a lot less of blinking in LR compared to camera screen review. Then I made some corrections and the result is below. Actually, the sky is quite well recovered, if I thought that every part of it was blinking on the camera screen.

Do you suggest any other kind of metering mode? Maybe evaluative metering?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 13, 2014)

climber said:


> Do you suggest any other kind of metering mode? Maybe evaluative metering?



*Every* metering mode just meters for the jpeg range and ignores how much you can recover in raw files, so it's about experience on how much +ec you can get away with. As written above, the only proper method to do this is to use Magic Lantern, it has a *raw* histogram that shows you *exactly* if anything is clipped (and can automatically adjust the exposure to perfect ettr).


----------



## Skulker (Feb 13, 2014)

climber said:


> Hey. Today I went out to try shooting in "ETTR mode". I over exposed the image below by 1 2/3 EV with center weighted metering. On the camera screen review the whole sky over the castle was blinking. When I open it in LR, first thing that I have noticed was that there is quite a big difference in the sense of over exposing. I mean there was a lot less of blinking in LR compared to camera screen review. Then I made some corrections and the result is below. Actually, the sky is quite well recovered, if I thought that every part of it was blinking on the camera screen.
> 
> Do you suggest any other kind of metering mode? Maybe evaluative metering?



This shot and your treatment of it shows you have come a long way since the skater shot. If I may be so bold as to judge, no offence intended. ;D

A skilled and talented photographer once told me to pick an exposure mode and to stick to it. Meaning you would get to know the algorithms and how much to compensate to achieve the effect you are after. However I don't follow his advice. I find for me sometimes evaluative is best and other times center weighted is best. What I'm trying to say is listen to the advice you get on here and make your own mind up as what works for you. You will get conflicting advice, some from people who are convinced they know best, but in the end you just make your own choice.

As you said, get out and practice, then do what works for you.


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2014)

climber said:


> Hey. Today I went out to try shooting in "ETTR mode". I over exposed the image below by 1 2/3 EV with center weighted metering. On the camera screen review the whole sky over the castle was blinking. When I open it in LR, first thing that I have noticed was that there is quite a big difference in the sense of over exposing. I mean there was a lot less of blinking in LR compared to camera screen review. Then I made some corrections and the result is below. Actually, the sky is quite well recovered, if I thought that every part of it was blinking on the camera screen.
> 
> Do you suggest any other kind of metering mode? Maybe evaluative metering?



I always use evaluative metering myself. It seems to be the most friendly metering mode for ETTR. The problem with any of the more center-weighted modes (which is really what all the rest are, they are all weighted to the center to one degree or another) is that they don't tell you exactly how the peripheral scene content will render when you use ETTR. When you use Evaluative, it evaluates the ENTIRE scene, and with the iFCL metering system, the camera is already doing it's best to preserve highlights. 

My recommendation is to use ETTR with Evaluative only. If you use a different metering mode, then your kind of indicating that your goals are different, and that you may not really are about any part of the scene outside of the center (and the camera will react accordingly.) To preserve highlights, always use Evaluative.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 13, 2014)

Hi Climber.
Nice work on the highlight recovery. 
Based on the quote below, you will also soon work out whose advice is reliable, and whose advice is less reliable! 
I try not to post unless I am certain, but sometimes I'm certainly wrong! ;D Hopefully never too proud to be corrected or apologise if an apology is necessary. :-[

Cheers Graham.




Skulker said:


> What I'm trying to say is listen to the advice you get on here and make your own mind up as what works for you. You will get conflicting advice, some from people who are convinced they know best, but in the end you just make your own choice.
> 
> As you said, get out and practice, then do what works for you.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 14, 2014)

My 5D3 at 12,800. NR using ACR


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 14, 2014)

Forgot to say. If you are using ACR or LD using the masking slider in the sharpening tab makes a huge difference. You don't sharpen existing noise in the smooth areas as this feature just sharpens edges. I'm usually at about 80. You then apply less luminance NR so you can maintain better sharpness. 

As to your skateboarding shot I really don't see anything disturbing. Maybe at 100%. 

Also for output sharpening for my hobby shots I use this method. Edge sharpening as well. You can only use it in PS. Find any edge sharpening for output method. 

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-really-smart-sharpening.html?search=edge+mask&bool=and

Actually I believe there is some edge sharpening going on behind the scenes when you select sharpening level and media type in LR's export page. The Pixel Genius group developed the output sharpening page for LR.


----------



## flowers (Feb 14, 2014)

Like others said, expose to the right, not for base ISO! ETTR isn't reinventing physics...
N/S ratio on Canon isn't linear, try base-1/3: iso 160, 320, 640, 1250 for less noise. by 2500 you lose the advantage, but 2500 is still less noisy than 3200.


----------



## Skulker (Feb 15, 2014)

digital paradise said:


> My 5D3 at 12,800. NR using ACR



Its just amazing that you can take such a shot at that ISO. We are so lucky to have cameras that can do this.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Its just amazing that you can take such a shot at that ISO. We are so lucky to have cameras that can do this.



Depends on the type of shot - converting to b&w usually reduces a lot of noise and eliminates the problem of missing color accuracy @high iso. This shot also is a good example of texture that is very sympathetic to high noise reduction plus (edge) sharpening - so at this export size, it probably could have been done at iso 102400 and still look the same


----------



## Skulker (Feb 15, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Its just amazing that you can take such a shot at that ISO. We are so lucky to have cameras that can do this.
> ...



Even from your point of view your talking about ISO102400. Lets just assume you are correct and that it depend on the type of shot. Its not so long ago, well within my photographic experience, that ISO 800 was considered high. Now someone can come along and try to prove how clever they are by splitting hairs and saying say something like "well you could push ISO800 film" but whatever spin anyone puts on it from my point of view ISO102400 is just as amazing as ISO12800.

We are lucky to have such equipment.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2014)

Skulker said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > Hey. Today I went out to try shooting in "ETTR mode". I over exposed the image below by 1 2/3 EV with center weighted metering. On the camera screen review the whole sky over the castle was blinking. When I open it in LR, first thing that I have noticed was that there is quite a big difference in the sense of over exposing. I mean there was a lot less of blinking in LR compared to camera screen review. Then I made some corrections and the result is below. Actually, the sky is quite well recovered, if I thought that every part of it was blinking on the camera screen.
> ...



you friend gave good advice personally I stick to spot metering but that because i like it and i meter for what i want and base the exposure on that but everyone is different and thats why really you are best trying out peoples advice here and trying out the different options. then pretty soon you will work out what you prefer and stick with that then you will just eventually know which setttings are right after some experience.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 18, 2014)




----------



## eyeland (Feb 18, 2014)

In regards to Metering, seeing as the 5D owners don't enjoy the benefit of spot-metering linked to AF point, I guess we're better off with evaluative either way (unless of course you only use the center)
I would love to have the option of linking the spot meter to my AF tracking for certain action situations but you can't have it all  
The action stuff I do is mostly dance and acrobatics, where I often have to deal with a completely black background + very strong light on a single subject. Sometimes when they move around in the frame in an unexpected manner, the meter seems rather unreliable  

On another matter, I have a hard time finding definitive info on the digitally pushed ISO on the 5Dmk3 (probably just my internet search skills that are lacking) What is the highest non-digitally pushed ISO on the 5Dmk3 ?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 18, 2014)

eyeland said:


> In regards to Metering, seeing as the 5D owners don't enjoy the benefit of spot-metering linked to AF point, I guess we're better off with evaluative either way (unless of course you only use the center)
> I would love to have the option of linking the spot meter to my AF tracking for certain action situations but you can't have it all
> The action stuff I do is mostly dance and acrobatics, where I often have to deal with a completely black background + very strong light on a single subject. Sometimes when they move around in the frame in an unexpected manner, the meter seems rather unreliable
> 
> On another matter, I have a hard time finding definitive info on the digitally pushed ISO on the 5Dmk3 (probably just my internet search skills that are lacking) What is the highest non-digitally pushed ISO on the 5Dmk3 ?



That is what M Mode is for.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 19, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That is what M Mode is for.


?
Not sure I understand what you mean..
I do dance and acrobatic performances where subjects move quickly and light changes often.
Obviously, I use M and/or TV mode seeing as I need a specific Shutterspeed for freezing action.
I also use auto ISO for the parts where the light changes alot as I would otherwise miss many more shots.
The use of TV is handy because the 5D doesn't support EC in M mode which makes it harder to expose to the right in M mode with auto ISO. 
On that note, I just discovered a magic lantern module from Marsu that implements an EC-AutoIso-M mode 
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8688.0


----------



## mkabi (Feb 19, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > A Canon professional trainer told me, that the 7D has best performing iso - 160 for normal, or multiplicated by 160 (320,...). @ this ISO steps the picture quality will be best.
> ...



Just to add to this... you dont' have to be a professional to know things... you can judge for yourself too.
Here is a video on lower noise at 160-320-640: Canon EOS 7D ISO noise test
Then again, thats just a video for the 7D at factory settings, I'm sure the 5D Mark III is better... plus Magic Lantern with dual ISO can make it even better.


----------



## Grumbaki (Feb 20, 2014)

eyeland said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is what M Mode is for.
> ...



The problem in that case is that you're running auto iso. Fixed iso, full M (of course not focus  ) Spot Meter (so at centrer), expose then compose and focus with any point. In your kind of case you can expose the dancer and it's all fine and dandy, except in case of very violent light changes.

Auto is evil.

At least that the way I roll.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 20, 2014)

400 ISO



Merzlak &amp; Angels 5005 Easyriders 2014 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------

