# Why is my 5D3 so noisy???



## cayenne (May 24, 2013)

I've been seeing a LOT of my shots lately, come out with a ton of noise, on stills and even video it seems.

This is is at ISO4000, and I've seen others post at this high with no problems like I'm seeing.

This is one of many, I've got some that were ISO 1000...and just as noisy and grainy as this one.

I've not altered this at all, straight out of the camera, underexposed, etc....but even with post I can't fix this.

Any suggestions what I've got going wrong here that causes my 5D3 to be so noisy?

Thanks in advance...I'm still (obviously) quite the noob.

cayenne


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

As we've seen, sensor amplification is better than post-processing amplification. If you underexpose a noisy shot, that's worse than raising the ISO to 5000 and getting more noise. At least this is what I've seen in indoor sports. I did way better at EC +2/3 at ISO 6400 than I did shooting -1/3 EV at ISO 6400. I don't know, I did better with ETTR, I don't know why.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

Ok, next question. Why did you use ISO 4000? Your settings were 1/125, f/9, ISO 4000. You don't need f/9 here. I'll let the 1/125 go, because that's reasonable, but my gosh if you had shot at f/4, think what your ISO could have been. 800. You could have then ETTR'd with 1000 or 1250.


----------



## iMagic (May 24, 2013)

F9 indoors?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 24, 2013)

Did you shoot Raw or JPEG? What is your in-camera noise reduction setting?

1. If you shot JPEG with noise reduction on, ISO4000 should not look like that

2. If you shot raw with or without noise reduction on, then this look normal. PP is required for raw. 25 - 30 noise reduction in LR will take care the color noise in your photo.

I agreed with bdunbar79, F9 indoor without flash is not a good idea. f4 or f5.6 will be just fine for this type of photo(that just me of course, there is no right or wrong here)


----------



## PhotographAdventure (May 24, 2013)

iMagic said:


> F9 indoors?



My friend who used to photograph weddings once wondered why his flash couldn't keep up at f5.6 when inside. I have enough troubles at f2.8.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2013)

Did you shoot with RAW or JPEG. If 
jpeg, you will not have much ability to fixup a seriously underexposed image.

Expect to use NR with RAW high ISO images, using them out of camera will be a issue. 

ISO 12800, f/3.2 1/60 sec. Plenty of noise, but it responds well to post production fixes. DR is the biggest issue at very high ISO's.







Here is almost the same scene taking the evening before at ISO 25600, f/2.8 1/80 sec. DR was a big issue so I dropped the shutter speed to 1/60 with my 24-70mm MK II the 2nd night and that dropped ISO a stop. The light was just a little different as the lighting crew got better with practice. Generally, I just shoot the first night of a dress rehearsal for practice


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 24, 2013)

Thanks for starting this thread, I have had similar experiences with my 5D3. I obviously know some of it is down to me lacking some of the skills, but I have also been thinking that it could be something wrong with my camera. 

I always shoot RAW and PP in LR so most of it can be fixed. I do try to ETTR as bdunbar says also, that tends to help alot.

thanks
J


----------



## wickidwombat (May 24, 2013)

PhotographAdventure said:


> iMagic said:
> 
> 
> > F9 indoors?
> ...



so how do those group shots turn out at f2.8

I regularly shoot f4 to f8 indoors at night at weddings with flash, 2nd curtain sync slow shutter speed to keep the iso reasonable. job done.
Its pretty straight forward really. 
To be honest if your friend was wondering that, then I'm wondering what he was doing shooting weddings in the first place.

Also 100% agree with bdunbar ETTR is critical at higher isos make sure your highlight alert is on and shoot as far over exposed without blowing out skin then reduce the exposure in LR dial in some shadow recovery and apply NR typically i'll over expose from the recomended meter settings but 2/3 to 1 and 1/3 stops usually set at 1 stop over and tweek as needed, I always shoot in manual as Av or anything auto will balls this up.


----------



## pwp (May 24, 2013)

When shooting higher iso's, ETTR is an absolute 100% must. 
Right from the start I've been astounded how much detail there is in 5D3 highlights before they blow to 255.

Modified technique on your part should deliver fantastic high iso 5D3 image files. 

-PW


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

Just a quick example. I totally overexposed this shot, because it was so damn dark down there and midcourt was so damn bright. Much easier and cleaner to bring _down_ in post vs. underexposing and lifting:


----------



## cayenne (May 24, 2013)

pwp said:


> When shooting higher iso's, ETTR is an absolute 100% must.
> Right from the start I've been astounded how much detail there is in 5D3 highlights before they blow to 255.
> 
> Modified technique on your part should deliver fantastic high iso 5D3 image files.
> ...



Thank you all so much for the replies.

I'm not familiar with ETTR...what is that?

This was one photo that I gave the camera to my Dad to shoot so I could be in one or two pics.
Most of them shot with f9 towards him, with a window that had sun coming in on one side, and I wanted to have depth of field behind him. But even those shots...were VERY noisy...very!

I don't believe I have any noise reduction in camera turned on....

I only shoot raw. I have Aperture 3..and trying to use the noise reduction on that...but doesn't seem to be doing much of anything.


I'll try to find a representative shot of him, which was more indicative of what I was really shooting with these settings.



Thank you,

C


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I'm not familiar with ETTR...what is that?


Expose to the right...

Edit: iPad changed my word "Expose" to "Exposé"! Wow! Corrected it...


----------



## wickidwombat (May 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Just a quick example. I totally overexposed this shot, because it was so damn dark down there and midcourt was so damn bright. Much easier and cleaner to bring _down_ in post vs. underexposing and lifting:



can you show the unedited shot for reference
also i'm guessing you shot with the 1Dx which will be even better than the 5dmk3


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Just a quick example. I totally overexposed this shot, because it was so damn dark down there and midcourt was so damn bright. Much easier and cleaner to bring _down_ in post vs. underexposing and lifting:
> ...



Well, shoot yeah, that's right I did. I will grab the RAW file anyways, if I've got it, let me look.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2013)

I find that it takes a near perfect exposure at the extreme high ISO's. There is only about 5 stops of DR, and underexposure is very bad. More than 1/2 stop of overexposure can blow out highlights depending on the scene.
Its definitely subject related, so learn the right way to expose for your subjects. Then check to make sure your highlights are not blown out.

The ISO 12800 image above was overexposed 0.3 stops while the ISO 25600 was 1/2 stop over and had some blown highlights.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

Better examples: Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg. I've then included two versions of edited photos. You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point. This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

Now, the alternative here cayenne is to not shoot at ISO 5000 with a 2/3 stop overexposure, but rather shoot where the camera sees 0EV and shoot at ISO 3200. It would have been a tad dark still, and I would have had to raise the exposure in post. Looking at how bad that first file is, what do you think would have happened?


----------



## sanj (May 24, 2013)

rpt said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not familiar with ETTR...what is that?
> ...



Do explain to him 'expose to the right', I am sure he does not understand that.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2013)

Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.

If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.


----------



## drjlo (May 24, 2013)

ETTR explained:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Sure, use ETTR if able to avoid blowing the highlights. If all fails, a really good noise reduction software like Neat Image or Noiseware Pro can save the day IME.


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

sanj said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...




I am sure he googled it already.

Since you insist here are some links...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-exposure-techniques.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 24, 2013)

I'm loving the low noise on my 5D mkIII, but when i don't nail the exposure or not using the right settings for a shot, i have seen some noise (still 10^6x better than my 450D)... I then have re-shot with better success... Try setting up a similar scenario and test your camera with different settings? Then if you are still unsatisfied, take it back to where you bought it?

For me anyway, i usual find it is me not using the tool properly, rather than the tool misbehaving! 

Good luck


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


That would be great. BTW, how much do you push to the right in your indoor sports shots?


----------



## sanj (May 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.
> 
> If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.



Well done


----------



## Dick (May 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.
> 
> If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.



Just curious, what did you do to it? I have my own ways of getting some noise out, but I bet there are better methods.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 24, 2013)

in addition to ETTR, suggest not take an image with hands pointing to camera lens (especially when you are closing to subject), unless you mean to make a story out of it... with any camera, you will have noise even with iso of 100, no exception...

my 2 cents...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 24, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> PhotographAdventure said:
> 
> 
> > iMagic said:
> ...



Lol....which says a lot about a large amount of the current crop of new wedding photographers....have camera...can click a button in Auto. After all, P is for Professional..right?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2013)

Dick said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.
> ...



Very quick global adjustments on the jpeg, so nothing fancy.

I opened it in ACR via Bridge, even though it is a jpeg, this gives you the RAW style noise reduction options that are in Lightroom, I really like ACR/Lightroom noise reduction and can't imagine why people buy NR plugins. I adjusted the luminance noise slider until I was happy (there is no colour noise so I didn't use that adjustment), this is normally much more than most people, I find I can reapply the detail, but you have to get rid of the noise first. I then did a little sharpening in ACR with a heavy mask, this is just with the slider but it allows you to target the detail, his hair and eyes, whilst not touching the noise prone smooth areas. I then opened it in PS and applied global Smart Sharpen and a curves adjustment to the bottom third of the histogram, this kept the highlight detail where it was but gave better general exposure.

It sounds like a lot but there are no selections or layers involved, everything is global, and it took under two minutes. If I had the RAW I could easily get rid of all the noise and retain 99% of the detail using a very similar workflow in a similar time. Indeed for this kind of shot, say an event shoot, if you had 1,000 images all with similar exposure (but not using auto ISO!!!!) you could batch process all the RAW files to output jpegs (or anything else) after recording a simple action.

I find Smart Sharpen in PS way way better than the sharpening options in Lightroom for files with any kind of issues.

Hope this helps.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

rpt said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



With a 1Dx, on CWA, my meter reading typically reads anywhere from +1/3 to +1 EV. I keep it in that window, or try to. I've gone up as high as +1 2/3 and it still came out fine in post-processing, but was pretty bright. With older cams, I kept changing the ISO to keep it around 2/3, but with the 1Dx this isn't necessary if you have time to post-process because the RAW files are just so nice.


----------



## David Hull (May 24, 2013)

Do you have Highlight Tone Priority (User Manual page 146) and Auto Lighting Optimizer (User Manual Page 142) turned "OFF" in the menus? I didn't bother to read through the replies so perhaps this has been mentioned already but that is the first thing I did when I noticed that my 5D3 had more noise than I expected.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 24, 2013)

ETTR, and Process noise in LR. Easily making great ISO 12,800 shots.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Better examples: Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg. I've then included two versions of edited photos. You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point. This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.



Wow, That's pretty good and cropped on top of that.


----------



## rpt (May 24, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Thanks! I was guessing +1 EV. Was not sure about that. While shooting film on my AE1 I was "told" that EC needed to be -1/3 and that had to be compensated by setting the ISO appropriately - well I did, and magically most prints came out fine.

Little did I comprehend that "print" needs a whole second level of "adjustment"...

Hopefully tomorrow or the day after I will do a non-Einsteinian experiment...

Don't even attempt to ask...


----------



## distant.star (May 24, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographAdventure said:
> ...




Do you think this is really true? It's disheartening for me to think that any professional photographers are shooting this way. Most of the young folks I talk with who are getting into the business have some decent training and really understand theory and their equipment. I can't see any of them working that way.


----------



## PhotographAdventure (May 24, 2013)

distant.star said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



But don't bash P mode too bad. If done correctly, there is a 'Professional' technique to using it. I saw it on Creative Live. I forget the photographers name doing the session, but he was definitely a high end wedding photographer using P mode to get an initial exposure, locking it, recomposing, and capturing the photo. He said it allowed him to dial into the proper exposure quickly to capture those instant moments. This versus using manual or av mode, which he said slowed him down and he would often miss the moment.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

Thanks guys.

I do not have the RAW file anymore from the first shot. They go quickly, sorry. 

@rpt, when I print 8x10's I do have to add exposure in post, it seems no matter how much I ETTR. So I hear you on the printing part!


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > This is is at ISO4000, and I've seen others post at this high with no problems like I'm seeing.
> ...



According to a paper I have, the +1/3's are pulled up and +2/3's are pulled down (from the next real ISO).


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Better examples: Photo 1 is the unedited RAW file converted straight to jpg. I've then included two versions of edited photos. You can edit it them any way you'd want, I just applied two presets I happened to have to illustrate the point. This shot is at ISO 5000 and shot about +2/3 at this end of the court.
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

dilbert said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Because you said ISO 5000 is 3200 amplified by 2/3 stops. Did you, or did you not, imply that? When in fact, according to my paper, it is not.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2013)

Realizing that there is not a whole lot that can be done with a low resolution jpeg, here is my try using lightroom. I brightened it up 1.5 stops, corrected colors, added NR, and sharpness.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

Thanks. I understand what you are saying. I'm not sure, but I read somewhere where the last real ISO on the 1Dx was higher than 3200. I have to find it though so I don't want to say for sure. At any rate, my 5000 shots are less noisy than 6400, for sure. I'm not sure about my 5D3, I haven't used it much that high.

But I do get what you are saying.


----------



## cayenne (May 29, 2013)

rpt said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not familiar with ETTR...what is that?
> ...




Ahh..ok. A new acronym to learn.

So, the advice I'm getting, is to overexpose on darker indoor pics, right?

I'm still VERY much the noob.

I'm trying to learn to only shoot manual. I generally pick an aperture I want, then ISO as low as I can guess I can get it, and then when shooting, I try to adjust shutter speed till the exposure is about right.

When I've been doing video, I'd found that it worked MUCH better if I slightly underexposed, and in Post I've been able to do much more with it. 

It seems the advice here so far, is, that I should over expose at higher ISO's indoors...for still images?

Also, I'm wondering if something may be amiss with my lens. I was using my 17-40mm f/4 lens.

I've found many of my images not only seem noisy, but also BAD with focus. I was shooting the other night with it, and I have it set to One Shot, with AF set to the first expansion using the 4 points surrounding the center (cross shaped). Anyway, the other night using it, I noticed on many shots, the focus points didn't seem to illuminate red like they usually do, I wonder if something might be amiss with the lens? I bought it used....

I do use the 'joystick' controller on the back to move the focus around to where I want it....

I'm attaching 3x more..these were more indicative of my shooting with the bright behind my dad, etc.

I know, bad WB, I saw that later.

I'll admit, I was indulging quite a bit in the cocktails...but even so, most of these were only after one drink starting the 2nd one. 

Of late, MANY of my shots just seem to look like [email protected] like this....


These were shot in RAW, and I've just made jpgs of them at 50% size...these are straight out of the camera.
I can fix a lot in post usually, but I can't seem to make anything useful out of these with the noise and focus problems.

Thanks so far for all the advice, I'm still trying to digest it all.....please keep the suggestions coming.

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (May 29, 2013)

David Hull said:


> Do you have Highlight Tone Priority (User Manual page 146) and Auto Lighting Optimizer (User Manual Page 142) turned "OFF" in the menus? I didn't bother to read through the replies so perhaps this has been mentioned already but that is the first thing I did when I noticed that my 5D3 had more noise than I expected.


No, both of those are turned off.


----------



## cayenne (May 29, 2013)

Is there a way to get the RAW files posted on here for ya'll to play with and maybe give me some pointers on?

C


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2013)

again massive under exposure mate

here is how i have my camera setup
- spot metering  I use this 99% of the time and very rarely i switch it to evaluative
- always meter on the persons face
- manual mode only (not being snobby but I just can't use AV or TV or auto anything properly it always comes out wrong
- in the viewfinder on the little meter scale with the center of the frame over the persons face i adjust my shutter speed or iso so the little marker is over +1 over what the camera meters then take a shot from here i'm either happy and leave it at +1 or i adjust it over or under by 1/3rd of a stop to taste
coupled with this its essential to have highlight alert enabled aka the blinkies (you know the screen flashes black and white in blown highlight areas) ensure no skin has the blinkies and dont worry if it looks over exposed.

no be aware as iso increase your available dynamic range reduces alot so the higher you go the less highlight headroom you have . this is why auto anything pretty much always underexposes to protect tghe highlights even if you might not care if those highlights it is protecting blow or not. Focus on the face exposure forget the rest and its all good.

this sounds like alot of work but at night in an event the lighting is often pretty constant even if it is crap and its basically set and forget with the odd iso or SS tweak where needed. Especially if you are using flash with ETTL it gets a whole lot easier

then in post pull down the exposure by a stop or so overall and boost the shadows which come back clean and not full of gain noise or apply a curve trim the highlights as required and then look at contrast etc. very basic

the key is dont blow out the skin highlights and expose as far over as you can without blowing key highlights


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2013)

Here is a rework of the last shot all done in Lightroom with the adjustment panel as well.

WB on plate.

I adjusted the exposure for my monitor at 100cd/m², I suspect most peoples monitors are too bright and the shirt and table will have little detail, but it is there.


----------



## steven kessel (May 29, 2013)

I don't know much about the technical aspects, I just love to take pictures. I know this, however: my 5Diii does a better job handling noise than any camera I've used. Its predecessor is a 7D. I do mostly wildlife photography and my "prime lens" is the 100-400 F4-5.6L. A lot of my pictures are cropped, sometimes cropped quite a bit. At ISO 640 I can crop an image down to about 1/4 of its original size without any discernible noise at ISO 640. That would be impossible with my 7D.


----------



## rpt (May 29, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Here is a rework of the last shot all done in Lightroom with the adjustment panel as well.
> 
> WB on plate.
> 
> I adjusted the exposure for my monitor at 100cd/m², I suspect most peoples monitors are too bright and the shirt and table will have little detail, but it is there.


A question for you. Why did you set color NR to 0 from the default of 25? Is it because you pulled blacks down to -22?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 29, 2013)

rpt said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a rework of the last shot all done in Lightroom with the adjustment panel as well.
> ...



Good eye! I have all noise reduction zeroed on import into Lightroom, that means unless I apply something it is not automatically applied. I see no colour noise that needed dealing with, only luminance noise, so it stayed at zero.

Actually I have all kinds of import presets for Lightroom but they are all for my cameras at specific iso levels. Import presets are a very powerful feature of Lightroom that is often overlooked.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> again massive under exposure mate
> 
> here is how i have my camera setup
> - spot metering I use this 99% of the time and very rarely i switch it to evaluative
> ...



This.

CAYENNE: THIS!


----------



## cayenne (May 29, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> again massive under exposure mate
> 
> here is how i have my camera setup
> - spot metering I use this 99% of the time and very rarely i switch it to evaluative
> ...



Thanks for the advice!!

I'm not familiar with the 'blinkies' highlight alert setting....I didn't know there was a way to set up the viewfinder to have it flash when something is overexposed....I'll start to research where that is set at!!

I don't have Lightroom, I'm currently using Apeture 3. I also have the NIK plugins. I can adjust the WB, and get them looking decent with regard to color, and with bringing down that glare in the windows...

But even with shapening and trying to use the Apeture noise reduction, it looks horrible.

I just seem to rarely ever get the super tack sharp, clear, like your could reach through and touch images that most others post on here. LIke at the beginning of the thread, those with the sports shots, likely shot in MUCH tougher conditions that I have, and they look very pro....so much of mine looks like [email protected]

If I set up poses, like I did with a friend of mine with headshots, I can get some really good looking images, but when out and about like eating at a restaurant or taking snaps around the Quarter with friends, I just never seem to be able to get really crisp pro looking shots for the most part.

But ya'll have given me something to work on...the +1 exposure on the meter, and exposing spot for the face, I'll start working on those.

BY the way...I have a dropbox set up with these RAW images in them if anyone wants to play with them and post what you'd do to correct and let me see how much noise you can clean from them, PM me and I'll give you the link and maybe you can post the jpg back to this thread?

Again THANK YOU all very much for all the input and suggestions. I know the best way is to get it right in camera and I'm definitely taking notes here!!!

cayenne


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2013)

the blinkies are on the LCD not in the viewfinder its a playback review option so any blown highligths flash
the exposure meter is along the bottom of the veiwfinder so you can see realtime what the camera is metering


----------



## cayenne (May 29, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> the blinkies are on the LCD not in the viewfinder its a playback review option so any blown highligths flash
> the exposure meter is along the bottom of the veiwfinder so you can see realtime what the camera is metering



Oh...Live view...ok.

So, you're saying to take a test shot....play it back and look there to see what is blown out, etc...and adjust for next shot?

Thank you for the replies!

C


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2013)

cayenne said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > the blinkies are on the LCD not in the viewfinder its a playback review option so any blown highligths flash
> ...



yep I do this automatically when the situations change take a general test shot with my settings as i eyeball it then check and adjust then i know it's right 

something else to consider is the picture on the screen is actually a jpg so the raw will actually only clip higher than what is displayed so even if you do get a little clipping on the screen that will still be recoverable in the raw basically if you work off the image on the screen and the clipping warning (blinkies) you will be conservative and still have enough raw highlight protection the amount of that extra raw headroom is dependent on iso, the higher your iso the less raw headroom you have here


----------



## horshack (May 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ETTR, and Process noise in LR. Easily making great ISO 12,800 shots.


High ISO is typically used when the scene is shutter speed and aperture limited, meaning it's necessary to increase ISO in order to achieve an acceptable level of output brightness for a given DOF and shutter speed. In such situations ETTR is not available because it would require decreasing the DOF or shutter speed below the already minimum necessary for the scene, the minimums that necessitated increasing the ISO to begin with.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2013)

horshack said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ETTR, and Process noise in LR. Easily making great ISO 12,800 shots.
> ...



actually it is. you are better off exposing a little higher say iso 8000 or 12800 even vs iso 6400 rather than try push that 6400 in post if the 6400 shot results in an exposure that is underexposed. This is where it takes some practice to know how much latitude you will have with highlights at the higher iso levels trial and error is the key here. Basically though the higher the iso the more critical it is to nail the exposure high iso is very unforgiving of under exposure and has alot less highlight headroom than low iso so you have a lower ability to ETTR but never the less its still better to expose a little right than risk being under even if it mean jacking up the in camera iso


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 29, 2013)

dilbert said:


> If you look at the graph on this page:
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#D800e,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III
> 
> ...


 
+1

That's been my experience. At high ISO's, there is no extra DR to allow for much overexposure, exposure really needs to be as close as you can reasonably get it. Even so, a small overexposure is usually better than a small underexposure.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > When shooting higher iso's, ETTR is an absolute 100% must.
> ...



Oh dear!

Anybody thinking results from an Olympus can be transposed to a Canon is beyond help. Why in gods name would you even dream of putting a magenta filter on a camera that is very well known to favour the red channel? If you were interested in using the above technique on a Canon you would need to use a cyan or better yet, azure filter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The light energy and wavelength are the same regardless you are shooting with a Olympus or a Canon.



Are the CFAs the same, too? Or does that not matter?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > The light energy and wavelength are the same regardless you are shooting with a Olympus or a Canon.
> ...



Exactly, you beat me to it, again


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Only if a channel histogram shows the green values higher than red or blue, like the Olympus in the link. That is not the case the vast majority of the time with Canon cameras, just look at your channel histograms, they tend to have higher red values, the way to balance that with filters would be to use a Cyan filter. 

Of course you would still need to do colour corrections in post but you wouldn't clip the red channel as quickly.


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2013)

Hey,

Thanks to everyone for all the advice. I'd never heard of ETTR till this thread, and I'm gonna make sure and try to remember that next time out shooting higher ISO. 

Also, I remembered while messing with these in post, that I had purchased the NIK plugins awhile back for Aperture 3, and had forgotten that includes a de-noiser...which I think I've had some success with.

Here is my take on that original image....it was pretty messed up, but I think I've done a decent job in post with it.

I tried setting up my Dropbox to have the .CR2 raw files to let folks look at, but for some reason, the raw files don't seem to make it unadulterated into the dropbox share....once there, they all show the same size (like 114K or something ridiculous). SO, I'm working to figure that out for future uses.

Anyway, here's what I was able to do with it.....comments?

(I'm editing to attach the orig to compare with it.)

TIA,

cayenne


----------



## archiea (May 31, 2013)

Confucius say: "Canon 5D only as noisy as user!" ;D


----------

