# 5d Mark iii noise at 1600



## yulia (May 12, 2012)

I was just doing some test shots and when i opened them in DPP...well, am i missing something here? i still hope that i pressed the wrong button, or chose the wrong settings...something that produced so much noise....Oh maybe i expect too much....But do you guys think this noise is fine? at iso 1600...I am not very happy with that...









thanks


----------



## Wideopen (May 12, 2012)

That kinda looks like the noise level out of my 7d at around iso 800


----------



## Z (May 12, 2012)

Do you have any other examples?


----------



## yulia (May 12, 2012)

here...

iso 800





iso 1250...red jacket is awful...





this one is a bit better at iso 1600 but what is this red pixel on her right arm?


----------



## Z (May 12, 2012)

I'm not sure... I don't have a 5D III for comparison, but they don't look great, do they?

I tend to import my images into ACR with at least a little NR by default, anyway. What do these same photos look like with minor processing?

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, what is the sixth serial number digit of your camera?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 12, 2012)

If you are shooting raw, and have no NR or sharpening, you will see some chroma noise at ISO 1600, even at 800. There is a minimal amount of NR required. Nikon does it in camera, but Canon lets you choose how much to use.

I went to my original raw images and turned off all nr and sharpening, and do see some chroma noise at 1600. Not a issue, it goes away with just a touch of chroma nr.


----------



## Aglet (May 12, 2012)

Gheez! Those first 2 examples with strong midtone banding at ISO 1600 are the worst I've seen from _any_ body without a major exposure push. That's just nasty.

Auto Lighting Optimizer is contributing to it but if you wanted to recurve the image a little in post you'd still get the same problem.

My 5D2 used to be nearly that bad with the original 1.x.x firmware at ISO 100 to 400. It's more usable now. (love-hate that camera like I do my sometimes also very bandy 7D)

Hmmm.. the image quality we thought we'd paid for... ??? I don't think so.

I'd contact Canon with a complaint and send them the files they'll request. As for the red hot-pixel in the last example, it's unfortunate, but that happens on occasion. There should be a way to have it mapped out in-camera though. I don't know if the firmware will accomplish this on its own somehow or whether it needs to be done at a Canon service location.


----------



## dericcainphoto (May 12, 2012)

I would have that looked at. My 5D Mark III is superb at 1600.


----------



## yulia (May 12, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you are shooting raw, and have no NR or sharpening, you will see some chroma noise at ISO 1600, even at 800. There is a minimal amount of NR required. Nikon does it in camera, but Canon lets you choose how much to use.
> 
> I went to my original raw images and turned off all nr and sharpening, and do see some chroma noise at 1600. Not a issue, it goes away with just a touch of chroma nr.


i just started using DPP and can't figure out why i can't apply noise reduction? It's grey and i can't move the sliders?...

ps

Z, 6th number is "3"


----------



## swampler (May 12, 2012)

I don't see that noise in my ISO 1600 either. Could your spot metering have metered for the white background, making everything too dark, then your software automatically adjusted it back up where it should be, thus creating the noise?

Here's an example at 100% and, while not full frame, slightly cropped for usage frame:


----------



## oberpfaelzer1977 (May 12, 2012)

Hi,
do you tried to turn of the Auto Lighting Optimizer?

On my 50D, it is the reason for noisy images. Specially in the darker parts of the pictures.

Bye
Martin


----------



## yulia (May 12, 2012)

swampler said:


> I don't see that noise in my ISO 1600 either. Could your spot metering have metered for the white background, making everything too dark, then your software automatically adjusted it back up where it should be, thus creating the noise?
> 
> Here's an example at 100% and, while not full frame, slightly cropped for usage frame:


nice photo!
i was just snapping pictures/testing camera...so i didn't do anything to the settings...first picture metering is on black jacket and second - on pink coat


----------



## victorwol (May 12, 2012)

I don't see those levels of noise on my MKIII.


----------



## RunAndGun (May 12, 2012)

Yeah, something doesn't look right. That looks like some test images I've gotten out of mine at like 25,600. I shot a night softball game earlier this week and a lot of the images were 3200 and 6400 and they were cleaner than that.


----------



## Radiating (May 12, 2012)

Looks like you're using the camera without any noise reduction whatsoever and auto light optimizer on. Just change the settings on your camera, the images should be extremely clean at ISO 1600.


----------



## yulia (May 12, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Looks like you're using the camera without any noise reduction whatsoever and auto light optimizer on. Just change the settings on your camera, the images should be extremely clean at ISO 1600.



can you recommend me the setting i should try?

ps
could it be that my computer's settings are off?


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (May 12, 2012)

I have been shooting at ISO in the 1000 - 3200 range and did not notice noise is a problem.

The Coyote photos were at ISO = 2000 and the Rabit at 100% crop was taken at ISO = 3200


----------



## Dragon Ace (May 12, 2012)

swampler said:


> I don't see that noise in my ISO 1600 either. Could your spot metering have metered for the white background, making everything too dark, then your software automatically adjusted it back up where it should be, thus creating the noise?
> 
> Here's an example at 100% and, while not full frame, slightly cropped for usage frame:



Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not the image in question is in RAW file and your example is in JPeg? Tnx


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 12, 2012)

yulia said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting raw, and have no NR or sharpening, you will see some chroma noise at ISO 1600, even at 800. There is a minimal amount of NR required. Nikon does it in camera, but Canon lets you choose how much to use.
> ...


 
I can't help you with the DPP issue, mine works fine. Try a reinstall. Also reset your camera to the default settings, you turned on some paramaters like the ALO which can increase noise in dark areas.

Its best to take your first images with the default camera settings (other than aperture, shutter, and ISO), then you can prove to yourself that the camera is taking good images, and, if it isn't, return it.


----------



## Axilrod (May 12, 2012)

Yeah these are definitely not typical results. I would turn off spot metering, that's not something you want to shoot with at random. I'm not sure, but something looks off. Maybe turn the sharpness down a bit?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 13, 2012)

My 5D III, JPG file, ISO 4000, Zero PP, straight out from camera:

1st pix at normal size and 2nd is 100% crop


----------



## RichATL (May 13, 2012)

My guess (looking at your metadata) is that you underexposed it, and the software bumped it up... creating the noise (as someone said)

Why do I think that? Well... You were shooting on Shutter priority, at 1/500th... and your lens was at 2.8 (it's maxim aperture). It's easy to underexpose on Shutter priority, especially indoors.

Make a proper digital exposure (over exposing slightly/"expose to the right.. maximizing data), and then see if the noise is still a problem.

My 5d3 is stellar all the way to 6400 with a properly exposed image.


----------



## revup67 (May 13, 2012)

> I don't see that noise in my ISO 1600 either. Could your spot metering have metered for the white background, making everything too dark, then your software automatically adjusted it back up where it should be, thus creating the noise?



I agree with several others. Turn off that Spot Metering. Useful (for my purpose) in a scene were you have all blue sky and only a bird which is your focal point. It ignores the sky and grabs only the exposure on the subject up to 3% of the center of the image if my memory serves me correctly. Partial metering is roughly 9% at the center. Use these modes only when needed, not as an every day default. Note on this site: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm where the author states: "...the camera's light meter will incorrectly calculate under or over-exposure, respectively." Hence if the area is under exposed then you found your culprit. I'm also not a big fan of AWB when indoors without flash. I prefer a gray scale card and K WB mode to get those colors spot on.

PS I have the Blue Crane DVD's on the EOS 7D and they claim ALO (auto lighting optimizer) does increase noise. So I've turned that off and use it sparingly only when needed.

Hope this helps you.


----------



## yulia (May 13, 2012)

Thank you all, i will try everything recommended...

I don't usually shoot on Shutter priority so maybe i am not aware of all the details that go with this setting...

What is odd is that i didn't turn this ALO on...I don't turn on things that i don't know/remember the purpose of...


I was ready to pack the camera and send it back...now i will give it (or me?) a second chance


----------



## mdm041 (May 13, 2012)

I don't see that level of noise on mine.


----------



## Dragon Ace (May 13, 2012)

A good quality camera especially at the MkIII's price range should not give you any under par performance be it shooting in Tv, Av or full manual for that matter. The fact your MkIII is performing somewhat inconsistent or less desirable compared to others, I suggest send it back to Canon to be checked if not exchanged. 

Secondly, so far all the comparison we have seen are between your RAW file images againts JPeg images. May I suggest our friends to post any example in RAW files at ISO 1600 or higher please so we can see a if the noise level is the same or is it just everytime you shoot in RAW? Tnx


----------



## yulia (May 14, 2012)

:-[


----------



## yulia (May 14, 2012)

what is that bright-pink dot i see?

it was on one of the other photos as well...


----------



## nightbreath (May 14, 2012)

yulia said:


> what is that bright-pink dot i see?
> 
> it was on one of the other photos as well...



I saw similar artifacts when using old version of RAW converters. Try updating your photo editing software.


----------



## yulia (May 14, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > what is that bright-pink dot i see?
> ...


well, i am using latest software - any older software does not read mark iii's files....


----------



## Dylan777 (May 14, 2012)

yulia said:


> :-[



yulia,
If your camera is still under 30days return policy, I say you return it and get another BRAND NEW unit. You might have a bad copy :-\


----------



## yulia (May 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > :-[
> ...



Yes, i did tell the store i want to return it... I just wanted to make sure that this photos are result of bad camera, not all mark iii's problem or problem of me doing something wrong...


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 14, 2012)

yulia said:


> Yes, i did tell the store i want to return it... I just wanted to make sure that this photos are result of bad camera, not all mark iii's problem or problem of me doing something wrong...



Are your store a techy store? If so, you might be able to check it through with them as well before finally parting ways with it..

Much respect for investigating before getting rid of it. Many people don't...


----------



## yulia (May 14, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, i did tell the store i want to return it... I just wanted to make sure that this photos are result of bad camera, not all mark iii's problem or problem of me doing something wrong...
> ...



Thank you! I ordered from onecall, they told me a tech will call me today....

Meanwhile...i am still trying to figure out if there is a mistake on my end...

When i open DPP...when i have jpg file the Noise reduction tab is enabled, i can move the slides etc...When i open RAW file...everything in Noise Reduction Tab is just grey and i can't use it...Is it always like that? (still hoping something is wrong with me, my computer, dpp... but not the camera he he)


----------



## RuneL (May 14, 2012)

That's unacceptable, return it, something is terribly wrong with the settings or the camera itsef. For reference this is a 1600 ISO shot from a 1D IV cropped at 100, the results from the 5D III should be a lot better than this:


----------



## swampler (May 15, 2012)

yulia said:


> When i open DPP...when i have jpg file the Noise reduction tab is enabled, i can move the slides etc...When i open RAW file...everything in Noise Reduction Tab is just grey and i can't use it...Is it always like that? (still hoping something is wrong with me, my computer, dpp... but not the camera he he)


The apply button in DPP is grey until you make a change to the sliders, then it will turn active.


----------



## yulia (May 15, 2012)

swampler said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > When i open DPP...when i have jpg file the Noise reduction tab is enabled, i can move the slides etc...When i open RAW file...everything in Noise Reduction Tab is just grey and i can't use it...Is it always like that? (still hoping something is wrong with me, my computer, dpp... but not the camera he he)
> ...



the sliders DON'T move at all  
they do move with jpegs, but not RAW


----------



## Sycotek (May 15, 2012)

I returned mine due to the same problem mate - trust me you arent the only one - the demo unit in store had the exact same issue. the 1D4 is significantly better I!/Banding/Noise (as it should)

I wont touch another one personally.


----------



## TotoEC (May 15, 2012)

yulia said:


> swampler said:
> 
> 
> > yulia said:
> ...



The latest (corrected) DPP version is 3.11.26. If you are editing RAW files, the slider should be active and the TIFF/JPeg sliders should be grayed out and vise versa.


----------



## MazV-L (May 15, 2012)

yulia said:


> swampler said:
> 
> 
> > yulia said:
> ...


Do you have the general settings in DPP (under Preferences) on High Speed rather than High Quality, because Noise Reduction is switched off when you have it set to High Speed.


----------



## Sycotek (May 16, 2012)

Hi Mate, I don't have a 5D3 anymore but I didn't try one combination.

FYI the Latest DPP raped my 5d3 cr2s - best combination i found was DNG to LR4

One thing i noticed looking at the sample shots on the canon website and wondering WTF my iso 400 raws don't look as good as their iso 3200 jpegs - is that they used the in-body convertor.

Please see samples below:

1dx http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos1dx/downloads/010.jpg

5d3 http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/downloads/15.jpg


The 5d3 iso 3200 image they used shot by the same tog in the same location 800mm FL on the 5d3 has no banding… blows the 1dx out of the water.

Where is that noise profile on the production model 5d3?!!

On that 5d3 sample page the 5d3 indoor iso 3200 wedding shot is banding free also... something fishy going on...

As noteed at the bottom – in camera raw conversion – maybe the body knows something dpp/acr/DNG doesn’t.

I can't confirm if the in-body convertor is the key, I wont be able to test till the weekend when i get my hands on another 5d3 but something to consider and try out


----------



## yulia (May 16, 2012)

MazV-L said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > swampler said:
> ...



THANK YOU! that did it!


----------



## Z (May 16, 2012)

yulia said:


> THANK YOU! that did it!



So all is fine with your camera? Good news.


----------



## yulia (May 17, 2012)

Z said:


> yulia said:
> 
> 
> > THANK YOU! that did it!
> ...



no, all is good with my software ;D

camera, unfortunately, is going back to the store...i already got another one and it looks much better, i think...for $3500 i don't want to look for solutions and fixes for more then a week...my 50 1.4 came in yesterday as well, so i am one happy girl


----------



## photokid (May 19, 2012)

Newbie here, having problems with my 5D3 images, was shooting my first time indoor arena, daughters ice skating practice. Operator error, or do i have a faulty camera, all my images are a bit graineier than i would want to be honest, and all seem a little soft, this is one of the better ones, Ive had the camera since beginning of april, but this is the first time I've had to use it in low light, i seem to remember my 5D2 looking better and sharper with same lens at ISO5000 with Jpeg when shooting some Martial arts, should i demand a fix/repalcement?


----------



## Dr. Benway (Jun 19, 2012)

Help!!!

What do you make of these - 5D MKIII @ 1600iso.

Does anyone have definitive settings for the lowest noise with the MKIII?


----------



## Z (Jun 19, 2012)

Dr. Benway said:


> Help!!!
> 
> What do you make of these - 5D MKIII @ 1600iso.


Um... that looks absolutely normal in the shadow areas of dark orange light. Give the camera a chance!


----------



## Dr. Benway (Jun 20, 2012)

I get your point but I was expecting more from the 5D MKIII.

Here's some more - why the blockiness in the shadow areas?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 20, 2012)

underexposed images are always going to show higher noise levels in shadow regions and this will be amplified when pushed

the noise is actually very clean and comes up very nice using something like topaz denoise where you can apply different degrees of NR to shadows highlights midtones and colour channels


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 20, 2012)

Boy haven't we gotten spoiled... 4 years ago with my 30D 1600 was practically unusable and 800 was pushing the limits... in film 1600 was good for small prints only... now we can shoot 1600 and not think twice... oh well.


----------



## bkorcel (Jun 20, 2012)

Looks great to me! How large are you going to print these pictures? 16x20 or larger may not be possible.



Dr. Benway said:


> I get your point but I was expecting more from the 5D MKIII.
> 
> Here's some more - why the blockiness in the shadow areas?


----------



## swampler (Jun 20, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> Looks great to me! How large are you going to print these pictures? 16x20 or larger may not be possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I got good 16 x 20 @ ISO 6400 from my 50D. 1600 on 5D is much better than that!


----------



## Dr. Benway (Jun 22, 2012)

You can see the LR metadata.

The first shot - the dog - is that shadow noise acceptable?

The second shot is from a 5D Classic.

I will have some 8x10's printed tomorrow.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2012)

I can't take this anymore. You are underexposing badly. In digital photography, if you underexpose, you can't really fix it without adding noise. You can't just add light with LR retroactively; if you didn't collect it, it's not there. Now let me help you out. I'd like you to see some success. You want to slightly overexpose in digital if you are going to be off in your metering. +1/3 is best, but +2/3 and +1 are salvageable, as long as you don't have blown highlights. For instance, in landscape photography I meter off the sky, set the shutter speed accordingly, then expose +2/3 typically. If I overexpose slightly, that's not a problem in LR, underexposing is. 

Your porch photo is difficult because it's a high contrast situation, much like shooting in the woods on a hot sunny day. In that case, meter off the brightest face, then exposure bracket, 5D Mark III will do a bunch of bracketing, I'd do -1/3, 0, +1/3, +2/3, +1. Pick the best photo. When you get better than shoot only on shot with no bracketing.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I can't take this anymore. You are underexposing badly. In digital photography, if you underexpose, you can't really fix it without adding noise. You can't just add light with LR retroactively; if you didn't collect it, it's not there. Now let me help you out. I'd like you to see some success. You want to slightly overexpose in digital if you are going to be off in your metering. +1/3 is best, but +2/3 and +1 are salvageable, as long as you don't have blown highlights. For instance, in landscape photography I meter off the sky, set the shutter speed accordingly, then expose +2/3 typically. If I overexpose slightly, that's not a problem in LR, underexposing is.
> 
> Your porch photo is difficult because it's a high contrast situation, much like shooting in the woods on a hot sunny day. In that case, meter off the brightest face, then exposure bracket, 5D Mark III will do a bunch of bracketing, I'd do -1/3, 0, +1/3, +2/3, +1. Pick the best photo. When you get better than shoot only on shot with no bracketing.



I would go even further will the porch picture - large amounts of flash would sort the whole thing out, putting light on the important things (the people) and reducing the ambient highlights

... and reduce the iso to 100/200


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't take this anymore. You are underexposing badly. In digital photography, if you underexpose, you can't really fix it without adding noise. You can't just add light with LR retroactively; if you didn't collect it, it's not there. Now let me help you out. I'd like you to see some success. You want to slightly overexpose in digital if you are going to be off in your metering. +1/3 is best, but +2/3 and +1 are salvageable, as long as you don't have blown highlights. For instance, in landscape photography I meter off the sky, set the shutter speed accordingly, then expose +2/3 typically. If I overexpose slightly, that's not a problem in LR, underexposing is.
> ...



Yes. Good point.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 24, 2012)

I did my own test at ISO 12,800 with no NR and 100 NR setting in Adobe Camera Raw. 

Photo 1 is no NR, photo 2 with NR. 5D Mark III, with 100-400L lens, 100mm, 1/200s, ISO 12,800, f/8.


----------



## impresario7 (Jun 26, 2012)

My first post on this forum.

I purchased my 5D Mark III in late May and after testing it for a few weeks using mostly L lenses, I thought I had a defective camera body because I was seeing noise at not only 1600 iso but even at lower ISO levels (starting faintly at 800 iso and gradually increasing). My camera retailer (Looking Glass Photo in Berkeley) decided to test the camera before they sent it back to Canon and when they didn't find any problems when making direct comparisons with a 5D Mark II (and saw less noise on the Mark III images at all iso levels, especially visible at higher iso levels), we began to talk about workflow and software. I have been using Lightroom 4.1 to process my files, which appears to be the culprit. Processing with Canon's proprietary Digital Photo Professional made a world of difference. The "haze" of noise (mostly luminance, but also some chroma) was completely gone and the colors were more saturated (perhaps more than I'd prefer, but in many ways, better than what I was seeing in Lightroom). I wasn't certain about whether Lightroom uses Adobe Camera Raw or a different RAW processing algorithm, but the contrast between the screen view of RAW images is significant. I went back to look at those problematic files and re-processed them in Digital Photo Professional and was struck every time by the lack of noise using Canon's RAW processing engine.

If anyone can suggest how to obtain the same level of noise-free processing in Lightroom, please share your settings. (I hadn't made any changes to Lightroom between using my 5D Mark II and when I started using the Mark III body other than upgrading to 4.1, first 4.1 RC then 4.1 Final.)

Incidentally, I recently tried processing in DxO Optics Pro 7 Elite and the RAW images also look better than in Lightroom 4.1. I haven't been able to make comparisons between DxO and Digital Photo Professional, but I hope I'll be able to go back to using Lightroom because of the Develop module.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 27, 2012)

ALso, lightroom sharpens by 25 as a default for 5D3 files. Sharpening any noise in the process.


----------



## SandyP (Jun 27, 2012)

Some of you people are HILARIOUS. Taking underexposed photos at high ISO and judging them at near 100% level for noise. Oh boy. SOUNDS FUN. 

If you expose an image properly, some areas may indeed still have shadows, obviously. I shoot RAW, I load into LR4 with default settings in LR4, I don't do any extra noise reduction, it looks fantastic. Having shot with a 5D2 since the first few months that camera came out, I can say that some of you are insane. Get out there and do some serious shooting with this. You're just wasting your time doing these ridiculous "tests".


----------



## Tammy (Jun 27, 2012)

impresario7 said:


> My first post on this forum.
> 
> I purchased my 5D Mark III in late May and after testing it for a few weeks using mostly L lenses, I thought I had a defective camera body because I was seeing noise at not only 1600 iso but even at lower ISO levels (starting faintly at 800 iso and gradually increasing). My camera retailer (Looking Glass Photo in Berkeley) decided to test the camera before they sent it back to Canon and when they didn't find any problems when making direct comparisons with a 5D Mark II (and saw less noise on the Mark III images at all iso levels, especially visible at higher iso levels), we began to talk about workflow and software. I have been using Lightroom 4.1 to process my files, which appears to be the culprit. Processing with Canon's proprietary Digital Photo Professional made a world of difference. The "haze" of noise (mostly luminance, but also some chroma) was completely gone and the colors were more saturated (perhaps more than I'd prefer, but in many ways, better than what I was seeing in Lightroom). I wasn't certain about whether Lightroom uses Adobe Camera Raw or a different RAW processing algorithm, but the contrast between the screen view of RAW images is significant. I went back to look at those problematic files and re-processed them in Digital Photo Professional and was struck every time by the lack of noise using Canon's RAW processing engine.
> 
> ...



anyone know the link to the thread where people from this forum posted their examples of LR vs DPP processing that clearly shows the poor shadow noise produced specifically in LR RAW processing?? it was a really great thread. If not for that I would have processed my 5D3 RAWs in LR just for simplicity's sake, as that's what i primarily use in my workflow for editing.


----------



## ckwaller (Feb 11, 2013)

My sincerest apologies for resurrecting such an old thread, but I've just gone through a near-identical experience as the OP and other posters in the thread.

Long story short, I noticed some considerable noise when shooting w/ my 5D Mark III at ISO levels of 4,000. This was encountered in both dim and moderately-lit locations. Obviously, I'm aware that the images shot in dimmer areas would have more noticeable noise due to shadows and underexposing of the image. However, I Was curious as to why there was still noticeable noise in the ISO 4000 images in well lit areas (especially when compared to photos from other people).

Fearing I had a lemon, I contacted the Canon Repair Center in Chesapeake Bay, and was advised to upload my files (CR2) into Canon DPP and then compare the same image (untouched) in Adobe Lightroom 4.1, which is my standard photo processor. I did so and was completely blown away by the difference in quality. As has been said, the images in DPP featured superior noise reduction compare to those in Lightroom, which had a look of "Sandpaper" when blown up to 100%.

My question is the same as the post before mine: Is there a way to incorporate DPP into my workflow (Essentially Camera - SD Card - Lightroom - Photoshop/Publish)? I can save the images from DPP as .tif files, but when I bring them into Lightroom, I lose the ability to adjust the white balance (i.e., setting it to Flash, daylight, shade, custom, etc). I'm aware that this happens whenever you bring a tiff into Lightroom.

Alternatively, are there Lightroom settings that I can use that'll mimic the results shown in DPP? Losing total control of the white balance isn't a complete dealbreaker for me, but I'd prefer not to.

I've scoured threads here in the CR Forums and can't find an answer, sadly.

Also, I'm currently on Lightroom 4.1...does anyone know if the noise issues with the 5D Mark III have been corrected in Lightroom 4.3?

Thanks and again, my apologies for digging up old bones.


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 11, 2013)

I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know what was previously discussed, but I've found the default lightroom sharpening to be too agressive... accentuating high-iso noise. Also, under Camera Calibrationrofile, try Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral...it may give you a better rendering than Adobe Standard depending on what you are going for. Let me know if any of that helps you out. I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 11, 2013)

That is why it is so critical to use masking in the Detail pallet. I usually wind up around 80. If you don't then you just sharpen any existing noise in the smooth/background areas. You only want to sharpen edges.

And yes most of those images were underexposed. Add high ISO you are going to get noise. Chrominance noise will really
show the splotches. 

These two with my 5D2 at ISO 6,400. I used a flash so I got good exposures. I did do some NR using LR.


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 12, 2013)

ISO 1600 with my 5D3. No NR applied


----------



## ckwaller (Feb 12, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know what was previously discussed, but I've found the default lightroom sharpening to be too agressive... accentuating high-iso noise. Also, under Camera Calibrationrofile, try Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral...it may give you a better rendering than Adobe Standard depending on what you are going for. Let me know if any of that helps you out. I'm genuinely curious.



Thanks for the info. I tried the Neutral/Faithful profiles and they didn't do much to alleviate the noise. As you said, Lightroom's Standard noise level (25) is far too harsh, and I had better results when dragging the Sharpening slider to '0.' There was still a bit of noise left when compared to the raw file in DPP.

*Digital Paradise*, I love the photo of the dog shot @ 1600 ISO. You mentioned applying no NR for this photo. Do you mind me asking which program you ran it through, or was it straight out of camera?

I'll post a comparison of a LR photo and that same photo in DPP later this evening/tomorrow to show the difference I'm getting. As mentioned, I'd love to find a way to mimic DPP's effects directly in Lightroom. However if I have to, I suppose I'll just add DPP as the precursor step to Lightroom in my overall workflow, to alleviate the noise.

I'm curious, has anyone with a 5D3 + LR noticed this (Seeming) software problem? Or is it just a few?


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 12, 2013)

The dog picture has been resized down to 900px wide. You really aren't going to see any noise in an image resized that small anyway.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 12, 2013)

So noise is ok as long as it's not patterned noise. Consider back in the film days when we shot with ASA400 film and we had grain to deal with. In most cases the grain was random and the eye would tend to ignore it. If it's patterned as happens when you over sharpen ISO 1600 images, the noise can be obnoxious. So the trick as mentioned before is to apply masking and sharpening and use just enough noise reduction to de-pattern what is left. Any Chrominance noise in the shadows can be easily removed in PS or lightroom through that noise reduction filter.

So the important thing is to use enough noise reduction and masking to get rid of the noise patterns. You can also mask some of the random noise that's left over by printing on Luster papers or Canvas.



ckwaller said:


> My sincerest apologies for resurrecting such an old thread, but I've just gone through a near-identical experience as the OP and other posters in the thread.
> 
> Long story short, I noticed some considerable noise when shooting w/ my 5D Mark III at ISO levels of 4,000. This was encountered in both dim and moderately-lit locations. Obviously, I'm aware that the images shot in dimmer areas would have more noticeable noise due to shadows and underexposing of the image. However, I Was curious as to why there was still noticeable noise in the ISO 4000 images in well lit areas (especially when compared to photos from other people).
> 
> ...


----------



## digital paradise (Feb 13, 2013)

ckwaller said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know what was previously discussed, but I've found the default lightroom sharpening to be too agressive... accentuating high-iso noise. Also, under Camera Calibrationrofile, try Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral...it may give you a better rendering than Adobe Standard depending on what you are going for. Let me know if any of that helps you out. I'm genuinely curious.
> ...



I used PS but LR which I own is the same. Straight out of camera but there was an oops. PS/LR color noise defaults to 25 and I forgot to turn it off. Here is another one with colour NR off. Made little difference. I mask at about 80 in the detail pallet which helps.


----------

