Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:54 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1164
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I just copied the exif data, just curious why the f/22 ?
Wouldn`t f11 have produced a similar result at 4 times faster shutterspeed.
Also makes me wonder how good a lens is at f22??
Just thinking of hyperfocal distance, that is all.

Exposure 2.5
Aperture f/22.0
Focal Length 17 mm
ISO Speed 200

But yes there appears to be some noise there, but at such a long shutterspeed and f22 it could be something else.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:51 pm 
That's a fair point. I had previously shot some pictures right on the shore with the tripod very low.

I was trying to make creative use of perspective distortion that a wide angle lens produces.

I didn't change it back though, that's why the f/22 . What would you think the noise is caused by though?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:45 pm 
The exposure is a bit weird. I for one never used a lower aperture than F16,the quality suffered way too much. I don't know about the noise,if the difraction effect added to the noise.

What lens was used? Because that affects the noise too,somewhat.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:05 pm 
I used the 17-40mm USM Ultra Wide Angle L lens


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:34 am 
I'm stuck then..


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:36 am
Posts: 620
Location: Toronto, ON
Lenses don't contribute noise :S Sensors do...

While the 100%-crop image was up I looked at it and tbqh the "noise" wasn't anything over what you should expect out of a 7D's 18mp APS-C sensor. It's not a landscape camera to the same extent that a 5DmkII is... its noiser at all ISOs than the 5DmkII and as such the 100% crops won't look nearly as good. Also, you're coming from a Rebel XS that has larger pixels which when shooting at low ISOs means cleaner-looking files at 100%. 100% crops are bad...

The 100%-crop you posted on Flickr looked like you hadn't applied any noise-reduction either, which is kind of a necessary step when shooting RAW, even for a 5DmkII

If you're going to HDR, you need to have better processing techniques... one of which is better noise-reduction before you begin the tone-mapping process. Any noise in the combination of exposures will get exaggerated, especially if you increase microcontrast on the final output.

TLDR - process the files more (noise reduction) before you HDR it, and sharpen AFTER the fact. Also, 100% crops are bad.

_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 7D | Canon Digital Rebel XSi | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | EF 135mm f/2L | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 580EX II | LumoPro LP-120

My Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:16 pm 
Quote:
Lenses don't contribute noise :S Sensors do...

While the 100%-crop image was up I looked at it and tbqh the "noise" wasn't anything over what you should expect out of a 7D's 18mp APS-C sensor. It's not a landscape camera to the same extent that a 5DmkII is... its noiser at all ISOs than the 5DmkII and as such the 100% crops won't look nearly as good. Also, you're coming from a Rebel XS that has larger pixels which when shooting at low ISOs means cleaner-looking files at 100%. 100% crops are bad...

The 100%-crop you posted on Flickr looked like you hadn't applied any noise-reduction either, which is kind of a necessary step when shooting RAW, even for a 5DmkII

If you're going to HDR, you need to have better processing techniques... one of which is better noise-reduction before you begin the tone-mapping process. Any noise in the combination of exposures will get exaggerated, especially if you increase microcontrast on the final output.

TLDR - process the files more (noise reduction) before you HDR it, and sharpen AFTER the fact. Also, 100% crops are bad.



That's something I've started looking into. The 7D is a much bigger sensor than my rebel Xs so I'm guessing that I have to pay more attention to the noise, etc when I'm processing my images.

@Plymer, do you have a certain workflow guideline that can help me?[/list]


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:36 am
Posts: 620
Location: Toronto, ON
In the spirit of full disclosure, I very rarely do HDR, but I do know from past attempts that my normal processing techniques to do not lend well to multi-exposure processing.

What I suggest is performing minimal processing on your bracketed shots in Camera RAW/Lightroom, and by minimal I mean:
    correct white balance
    linear contrast curve
    noise reduction to taste
    remove vignetting
    fix chromatic aberrations
    de-fringe edges
    no sharpening


and that's about it. Then run your "cleaned up" and tonemap-ready images through your HDR software and go to town. Once you've finished the HDR export, bring the photo back into Photoshop or Lightroom and play with all the other settings you want, sharpening being the last action you perform. This should get you to be as artifact-free as possible... but keep in mind that there will always be some kind of fuzziness going on if there's any movement in your frames.

Let me know if that helps... good luck :)

_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 7D | Canon Digital Rebel XSi | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | EF 135mm f/2L | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 580EX II | LumoPro LP-120

My Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:16 am 
Thanks! I'll try this out post some results here soon. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:14 am 
Quote:
Lenses don't contribute noise

aqsually,there is a relation between the quality of glass & the final image quality recorded. for example,shots made with my D80 had different noise "designs" with my 35mm & my 85mm attached(ISO 400 used). the images with my 85mm looked much cleaner. and as a last example,some photos with the 18-105mm,at the same ISO 400,looked noisier than the 35mm photos.
light is being read & analysed by the glass & sensor. since the sensor is the same & the the quality of the glass is different,I think it's a fair argument.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:36 am
Posts: 620
Location: Toronto, ON
Razvan, I can appreciate what you're saying - I can tell the difference between a shot with my 100mm, my 50mm, and my 18-55 if I'm looking closely at it, because all of those lenses have different levels of sharpness and contrast... but noise is inherently caused by the reading of an electronic signal from the photosites on the sensor that may or may not be contaminated with extra non-information. Lenses transmit light while modifying it to correct aberrations, but they cannot cause noise. They can produce a less-than-sharp image on the sensor, which makes noise more apparent because there is less detail, which then makes any noise more noticeable - case in point, the sky example posted earlier, or any shot I make with a smoothly-blurred background. Any time there isn't any natural detail that stands out, the noise pattern will be the dominant "interest" in terms of where the eye wants to look (when we're talking 100% crops).

_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 7D | Canon Digital Rebel XSi | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | EF 135mm f/2L | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 580EX II | LumoPro LP-120

My Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:59 pm 
Sure sure,I was referring to the noise in the output photos :) Tehnically,only the sensor & processing is responsable for producing it.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group