Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Dec 2013 (Friday) 11:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is banding a practical concern or just a bogeyman?

 
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4039
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Dec 07, 2013 10:20 |  #46

Gobeatty wrote in post #16508626 (external link)
Regrettably, printing technology hasn't progressed much and his camera has way more dr than the final media. He notes we always have to have the client in mind. Magazine editors will reject images if contrast is too high forcing key areas to unintentionally black or white out. This means the dr has to be compressed if you routinely shoot very high dr images and can give a flat look. This is an artistic choice you can make, but just understand that many choose not to shoot or edit this way and value other attributes of the tools we use.

To the OP, I don't see banding in my 6D photos. If, though, a key part of your workflow is lifting shadows as far as you can, the Nikon or Sony will serve you better in that regard.

Funny, this scene has a fairly high DR yet it compressed just fine:

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8266/8676137165_74222567d6_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tltichy/8676137​165/  (external link)
Tomorrowland Aglow (external link) by tltichy (external link), on Flickr


BTW, with the clean DR of the current crop of exmor sensors, this could have been done in one exposure.

VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4039
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Dec 07, 2013 10:22 |  #47

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16508660 (external link)
........High dynamic range looks flat in the raw file. If you don't bring the highlights and shadows to where you want them, it's not the equipment fault. But it's always nice to have the high DR camera, because you can toss information away and make less DR. Or better yet push subtle detail in both highlights and shadows while maintaining contrast.

But you can't get a high DR image from a low DR file.

^This.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gobeatty
Senior Member
513 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2013
     
Dec 07, 2013 10:40 as a reply to  @ Scatterbrained's post |  #48

"If you shoot landscapes, your image will fall apart before you get it to where you want it."

I believe the 'where you want it' is the key bit. We have different shooting styles and different end goals in how we want our images to look. My images do not fall apart due to how I shoot.

I just spent more time lifting shadows and I can't force banding with files from my 6D. I'm surprised how well some of the files lift, even files shot at 3200 but avoid noise when lifted. I have other shots at lower ISO that are noisier - noise is a strange animal. Can't say I will never see banding, but it isn't a practical concern, for me.

If you want the Nikon, buy the Nikon and be done with it. I shot Nikon for 30 years. It's a fine camera.


6D | 35 f2 | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 28 - 135 f3.5 - 5.6 | 70-210 f4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,636 posts
Likes: 124
Joined Dec 2010
     
Dec 07, 2013 11:35 |  #49

I got tired of dealing with it and moved on to another manufacturer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Dec 07, 2013 13:17 |  #50

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16508638 (external link)
....... If you shoot landscapes, your image will fall apart before you get it to where you want it.

Landscapes are my thing, so if what you say is true you would expect me to see lots of banding, but I don't.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 07, 2013 13:30 |  #51

Lowner wrote in post #16508980 (external link)
Landscapes are my thing, so if what you say is true you would expect me to see lots of banding, but I don't.

I should've stated that less unequivocably and added something along the lines of: "if you push it far enough" or "compared to sony sensors, when pushed... "

One can certainly make great images with canon sensors, even with no post processing at all.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,630 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 493
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 07, 2013 13:54 |  #52

Lowner wrote in post #16508980 (external link)
Landscapes are my thing, so if what you say is true you would expect me to see lots of banding, but I don't.

Yea, me too and I do manipulate my landscapes quite a bit (although I don't lift shadows by several stops).

While I have had some images 'ruined' by banding, it it certainly a very small minority. So I can see how these discussions come about - whether it is an issue depends on many factors. It's not enough of an issue for me to want to move to Nikon.

It is definitely NOT restricted to high ISO's. In fact on the 5DII, it is the opposite - there is actually less banding at the high ISO's. People might see it more because they tend to underexpose at high ISO and push the exposure, but if you do the same thing with low ISO's it is worse.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RayinAlaska
Senior Member
425 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 39
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Alaska's interior
     
Dec 07, 2013 15:32 |  #53

pwm2 wrote in post #16506879 (external link)
I wouldn't say "a lot of people". I really don't think that it is a large group in relation to the number of POTN members. But they are quite good at making themselves heard.

Agree with you. It's mostly a very small but vocal number of people. In fact, I have seen some posts about Nikon users switching to Canon. And if you look at Art Wolfe's enormous landscape images, you won't see any banding. Also, while the Sony sensor offer more DR, some Canon sensors offer higher ISO/less noise capabilities.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RayinAlaska
Senior Member
425 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 39
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Alaska's interior
     
Dec 07, 2013 15:38 |  #54

rick_reno wrote in post #16508806 (external link)
I got tired of dealing with it and moved on to another manufacturer.

Anything is possible if you have the cash :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,456 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:06 |  #55

rick_reno wrote in post #16508806 (external link)
I got tired of dealing with it and moved on to another manufacturer.

How is that working out for you?


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
speedync
Goldmember
1,211 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 182
Joined May 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:12 |  #56

Hogloff wrote in post #16508333 (external link)
You obviously don't understand the problem.

Then feel free to enlighten me. Current Canon cameras seem quite capable of lifting exposure by a couple of stops without banding. To get more than that, one has to deliberately underexpose even more than that, to capture extreme highlights as well. So we're told. And then try to compensate for the color shifts associated with such techniques. And I've actually seen this happen, as a family member happens to shoot Nikon.
But, this is all a mute point now anyway, as the second coming of the full frame camera has arrived, in the shape of the Sony A7 series, with its magical DR, which will also happily take all your Canon glass, with no need to loose money on a changeover. All for the price of a body. Which we can only hope will end all the complaining and moaning about the poor performance of Canon product.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,541 posts
Likes: 400
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:39 |  #57

speedync wrote in post #16509457 (external link)
Then feel free to enlighten me. Current Canon cameras seem quite capable of lifting exposure by a couple of stops without banding. To get more than that, one has to deliberately underexpose even more than that, to capture extreme highlights as well. So we're told. And then try to compensate for the color shifts associated with such techniques. And I've actually seen this happen, as a family member happens to shoot Nikon.
But, this is all a mute point now anyway, as the second coming of the full frame camera has arrived, in the shape of the Sony A7 series, with its magical DR, which will also happily take all your Canon glass, with no need to loose money on a changeover. All for the price of a body. Which we can only hope will end all the complaining and moaning about the poor performance of Canon product.

Hey, if you are tired about discussing dynamic range, why don't you leave it alone then? Why do you continue to come back to the topic if it really is not a concern to you. I shoot mainly with manual focus so any topics that don't interest me on AF, I just stay away from them. Try this technique, it might alieve all the pain this complaining is causing you.

You: "Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this"
Doc: "Then don't do that."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
speedync
Goldmember
1,211 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 182
Joined May 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:43 |  #58

Hogloff wrote in post #16509497 (external link)
Hey, if you are tired about discussing dynamic range, why don't you leave it alone then? Why do you continue to come back to the topic if it really is not a concern to you. I shoot mainly with manual focus so any topics that don't interest me on AF, I just stay away from them. Try this technique, it might alieve all the pain this complaining is causing you.

You: "Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this"
Doc: "Then don't do that."

Still no enlightenment




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:45 |  #59

speedync wrote in post #16509457 (external link)
Which we can only hope will end all the complaining and moaning about the poor performance of Canon product.

Why are you hoping that? You feel that the Canon sensors is suddenly much better because the Sony alternative?

The Sony will not match the AF you get with the Canon lenses mounted to a Canon body, so the real solution for people with lots of Canon lenses is a new Canon sensor - the Sony is more of a work-around possible for some users.

In the end, there are two views on this.
- The Canon sensor isn't lacking behind the Exmor, so anyone complaining is "moaning".
- The Canon sensor is behind, in which case it is meaningful to complain, until Canon makes a new sensor available.

Remember that history is irrelevant here. Saying "the current sensor has managed lots of superb photos" is irrelevant. What is relevant: Is it keeping up with the best alternatives from the competitors, and are there types of photos that aren't practical to get with the current Canon sensors that is with the competition.

Only if yo can say that the Canon sensors can match the competition for all types of photography can you use the term "moaning" in a meaningful way. If the Canon sensors can't, then it is actually you, that is moaning and refusing to accept that other people see other needs. So - are you a moaner?


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4039
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Dec 07, 2013 17:54 |  #60

speedync wrote in post #16509504 (external link)
Still no enlightenment

The link I posted earlier from Fred Miranda was pretty straight forward.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,161 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is banding a practical concern or just a bogeyman?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is STKI
701 guests, 262 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.