Official: Canon 1D Mk IV

I am a wedding photographer and no way would I want to spend the time running NR on every shot.

It's simple enough for me - the D3 gives me files captured as raw and processed using Lightroom that are good enough for 30" canvases, and double-page full-bleed 35x25cm albums using ISO6400, and I've had single page full-bleeds at ISO 10000.

Not one single client has complained about a lack of detail and frankly there's no reason why they should. The prints are fine for detail, print very nicely and make me lots of money.

Lovely. As Ales Ross says, the rest is just noise. And not noise of the photographic kind.

James is very correct - the endless arguments about 'noise', which camera best that camera, and so on fail to take into account the purpose of photography. That capture of a moment in time, what Cartier-Bresson dubbed 'the decisive moment'. The pursuit of timeless, meaningful images that may well have the emotional punch that beggars belief.

That's what photography is about.

It takes about...

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8896892
We can't go home or go to a laptop and take 5-10 minutes post processing each image when we have 150 images to send out that need to be sent out to our publishers yesterday.

...About 15-20secs per file (measured on PentiumIV 3.0Ghz, for back-compatibility purpose).

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8896892
While your process may work for you, I'll take the slightly-less-detailed-but-still-more-than-good-enough-for-a-publication in-camera JPEGs from cameras like the 1D4/D3, thank you.

...It's a matter of choices: you can already activate on-board NR on DiGiCIII implementations, which will work very well up to ISo3200 and will leave ISo6400 files that can be used (by means of the criteria presented here by others).

However, I personally want the very best, I want the last bit of juice the cam. can give, and if getting the best takes a few extra secs., it definitely works for me. Nothing wrong, in essence, there.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that having such level of quality ON-BOARD is surely the holy-grail of productivity and convenience... but we are certainly distant from that point.

Cheers,

PIX

radiohead wrote in post #8898209
James is very correct - the endless arguments about 'noise', which camera best that camera, and so on fail to take into account the purpose of photography. That capture of a moment in time, what Cartier-Bresson dubbed 'the decisive moment'. The pursuit of timeless, meaningful images that may well have the emotional punch that beggars belief.

That's what photography is about.

It's great that you can contain/label/define art that way.
Certainly not my style...but you are what you think you are.

You are off-topic...

radiohead wrote in post #8898209
I am a wedding photographer and no way would I want to spend the time running NR on every shot.

It's simple enough for me - the D3 gives me files captured as raw and processed using Lightroom that are good enough for 30" canvases, and double-page full-bleed 35x25cm albums using ISO6400, and I've had single page full-bleeds at ISO 10000.

Just slide NR from OFF to ON (any level, Luma or Chroma) in LR, and watch your processing times going up by 25%-35%, on the spot...

You probably need or must resort to LR for every one of your files... and that is, in essence, a lot more cumbersome than my baseline workflow, in which I defer going to LR until I find some troublesome issues that can't be addressed by .JPGs. (the .JPGs that come out of the 1D3 are simply wonderful, color/tonality/sharpne​ss-wise).

Not sure where exactly you are going, though. If you are not happy with the troublesome WB renderings, foul skin-tones and blown-out reds from your current gear, that does not mean (in any form or shape) that I am experiencing the same problems, and I am also forced to go to LR to get them right, though.

PIX

PIXmantra wrote in post #8898496
...About 15-20secs per file (measured on PentiumIV 3.0Ghz, for back-compatibility purpose).



...It's a matter of choices: you can already activate on-board NR on DiGiCIII implementations, which will work very well up to ISo3200 and will leave ISo6400 files that can be used (by means of the criteria presented here by others).

However, I personally want the very best, I want the last bit of juice the cam. can give, and if getting the best takes a few extra secs., it definitely works for me. Nothing wrong, in essence, there.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that having such level of quality ON-BOARD is surely the holy-grail of productivity and convenience... but we are certainly distant from that point.

Cheers,

PIX

So, at an NBA game, at halftime, to process 50 images for the media to grab would take about 17 minutes. Halftime is 15 minutes. About 10 minutes are used simply picking out which of the 300 or so photos from the first half are good for the first run. That leaves 5 minutes to tag, caption, and upload. Sorry, it just isn't happening.

When you have all the time in the world to post process, yes, it's a fine process. The fact is, not everybody has all the time in the world to post process images. When time is the difference between getting the sale and not getting it, you don't waste your time running post processing on a bunch of images when the camera can do a perfectly fine job for the intended purposes of the image, which is to be run in a newspaper or on the evening news on TV.

If you're wanting to squeeze every single drop of performance out of your camera, you're going to be shooting either in good light or with strobes, and if you really do have to bump the ISO, you'll be shooting RAW and doing post processing. I won't argue with that. My argument is that it is not practical for photojournalists, and I have just outlined one out of many, many examples that should clearly show why. This is why Canon and Nikon are doing what they're doing with the 1D4 and D3s. High ISO performance that is acceptable straight out of the camera.

After rereading your post I think we're kind of in agreement here. Different situations call for different processes.

nicksan wrote in post #8898507
It's great that you can contain/label/define art that way.
Certainly not my style...but you are what you think you are.

Not sure what you mean here. I read this as an insult.

PIXmantra wrote in post #8898561
Just slide NR from OFF to ON (any level, Luma or Chroma) in LR, and watch your processing times going up by 25%-35%, on the spot...

Now why on earth would I do that and add to my processing times?

PIXmantra wrote in post #8898561
You probably need or must resort to LR for every one of your files... and that is, in essence, a lot more cumbersome than my baseline workflow, in which I defer going to LR until I find some troublesome issues that can't be addressed by .JPGs. (the .JPGs that come out of the 1D3 are simply wonderful, color/tonality/sharpne​ss-wise).

I choose to use it. The workflow suits me, I like the results, and more importantly so do those paying me.

It's not a question of resorting to anything.

PIXmantra wrote in post #8898561
Not sure where exactly you are going, though. If you are not happy with the troublesome WB renderings, foul skin-tones and blown-out reds from your current gear, that does not mean (in any form or shape) that I am experiencing the same problems, and I am also forced to go to LR to get them right, though.

PIX

Not sure where exactly you are going, though.

Again, you seem intent on saying to everyone that the way you choose to work is the only way, the true way and that other ways are wrong. It's almost a religious doctrine for you isn't it? Perhaps you should let Marcus Bell and Cliff Mauntner know that their global success using Nikon can't have happened and they've dreamt it.

Are you a full-time professional photographer, by the way?

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8898628
So, at an NBA game, at halftime, to process 50 images for the media to grab would take about 17 minutes. Halftime is 15 minutes. About 10 minutes are used simply picking out which of the 300 or so photos from the first half are good for the first run. That leaves 5 minutes to tag, caption, and upload. Sorry, it just isn't happening.

I seriously doubt that all those sports photographers that use the 1D2 and 1D3 are spending 17 minutes processing any images. They pass on their in-camera JPG images just like everyone else. Maybe keep the RAW version for later consideration. In fact, they may have already passed the images on by wireless transmitter rather than uploading their CF/ SD cards at halftime. So the folks in the studio get to sort through and tweak the images for them as needed.

I'm not sure that the camera - any camera - does a "perfectly fine job" regardless of the intended purpose, but as long as it is good enough for the intended purpose, that's fine. The stuff you see in Monday's newspaper sports section doesn't require nearly the quality of a double-spread in Sports Illustrated. One processes accordingly.

I agree. I enjoy having the time to tweak a few images in a leisurely fashion, but when I'm shooting an event of some sort where time is important, what comes out of the camera has to be acceptable.

Tom W wrote in post #8898733
I seriously doubt that all those sports photographers that use the 1D2 and 1D3 are spending 17 minutes processing any images. They pass on their in-camera JPG images just like everyone else. Maybe keep the RAW version for later consideration. In fact, they may have already passed the images on by wireless transmitter rather than uploading their CF/ SD cards at halftime. So the folks in the studio get to sort through and tweak the images for them as needed.

I am one of those sports photographers. My point is that PIXmantra's process, which takes 15-20 seconds per image, would create an overhead that would make it impossible to do our job. I was stating exactly what you just did.

We shoot a white card, shoot RAW on one card, JPEG on another, load up the JPEG images at the half and after the game, pick out the ones to transmit, tag and caption them, and we're done in about 10 minutes. Later on we process the RAWs and process and transmit the real golden shots for larger prints, but that isn't part of the "get it to the news" workflow.

Generally in the NBA we don't use wireless transmitters. The only exception is the playoffs, and even then we don't always use them. The finals though, absolutely. We're sending the photos to our press room as we shoot and they're doing their thing the whole game, uploading the shots as it happens.

Tom W wrote in post #8898733
I'm not sure that the camera - any camera - does a "perfectly fine job" regardless of the intended purpose, but as long as it is good enough for the intended purpose, that's fine. The stuff you see in Monday's newspaper sports section doesn't require nearly the quality of a double-spread in Sports Illustrated. One processes accordingly.

Yup, no disagreement there. As stated above, there's a reason we shoot RAW+JPEG.

Tom W wrote in post #8898733
I agree. I enjoy having the time to tweak a few images in a leisurely fashion, but when I'm shooting an event of some sort where time is important, what comes out of the camera has to be acceptable.

And agreed again.

I generally find long-winded ways of agreeing with people.

Thanks for the bit of information on the inner workings of photography in the NBA.

Correction...

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8898628
So, at an NBA game, at halftime, to process 50 images for the media to grab would take about 17 minutes.

In today's machines, it may take 1/3rd to 1/4th of my conservative times... most likely about five (5-6) mins., assuming ISO-variance is correctly classified.

Thalagyrt wrote in post #8898628
Halftime is 15 minutes. About 10 minutes are used simply picking out which of the 300 or so photos from the first half are good for the first run. That leaves 5 minutes to tag, caption, and upload. Sorry, it just isn't happening.

That would be correct. Then, if 5-6 mins is not good enough, it is clear than that FlexNR is not for you, and that is just Ok.

PIX

Well...

radiohead wrote in post #8898706
Not sure what you mean here. I read this as an insult.

...Sounds like paper-thin fragility, on your side.

PIX

AdamLewis wrote in post #8892208
I can shoot raw with Canon, go home, open them up in Zoom Browser, open those up in Canon RIT, convert to a 16bit TIFF, open it up in Photoshop, run Neat Image, resize, and call it a day..

Then, just why is it that you are on a Canon forum?

Fidelity wrote in post #8899747
Then, just why is it that you are on a Canon forum?

Some of us are here for the community, not the brand.

JBF wrote in post #8893406
Anything said yet about the release date for the 1D Mark IV? Also, why do Nikon users continue to come into the Canon Forums and tell us how bad our cameras are and how smart they are for realizing that Nikons are far superior? I for one am tired of it. I don't feel the need to go to Nikon forums and try to flame them, why do they feel the need to do it here?

Amen, brother! They apparently are insecure in their choice and they come here to vainly attempt to have Canonites switch to Nikon to validate their choice. A complete waste of time, since nearly all Canonites are content. In fairness, though, most of the Nikonians stay on their own boards and are objective and reasonable. Only those who come over here and spend most of their time trashing Canon are the pathetic, nonsensical trolls.

Fidelity wrote in post #8899797
Amen, brother! They apparently are insecure in their choice and they come here to vainly attempt to have Canonites switch to Nikon to validate their choice. A complete waste of time, since nearly all Canonites are content. In fairness, though, most of the Nikonians stay on their own boards and are objective and reasonable. Only those who come over here and spend most of their time trashing Canon are the pathetic, nonsensical trolls.

Since that was a direct attack at myself and Adam Lewis, among a few other people who have posted here, it sounds a bit like you're insecure to be honest. I've never tried to tell anyone to switch to Nikon, and I've never bashed Canon. People like myself and the others have presented other points of view about noise reduction, but that's about it. Settle down.