Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much, but does this look like something that should come from a 5Dmk2 at 100 iso, on a tripod?
Looks like 1600 iso or higher to me. 
Michaelmjc not cool enough 4,834 posts Joined May 2004 Location: Toronto, Ontario More info | May 15, 2010 22:39 | #1 Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much, but does this look like something that should come from a 5Dmk2 at 100 iso, on a tripod?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gjl711 "spouting off stupid things" 57,720 posts Likes: 4044 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Deep in the heart of Texas More info | May 15, 2010 22:39 | #2 No pic. Not sure why, but call me JJ.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
WesM Member 206 posts Joined Apr 2010 Location: Southern California More info | May 15, 2010 22:42 | #3 That looks pretty noisy to me... | 5D Mk. II | 24-105L | Manfrotto 190XB/498RC2 |
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Michaelmjc THREAD STARTER not cool enough 4,834 posts Joined May 2004 Location: Toronto, Ontario More info | May 15, 2010 22:42 | #4 Sorry updated, it's a 100% crop.. but I think something might be wrong.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | May 15, 2010 22:42 | #5 I can't see the pic either, but if you have deep shadows and try to boost them a lot, you'll see noise no matter what the ISO -- in fact you will get better results shooting with ISO 1600 than you will shooting with ISO 100 but 4 stops underexposed. Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
spiralspirit Senior Member 940 posts Joined Dec 2009 Location: Manitoba, Canada More info | May 15, 2010 22:43 | #6 1) post the entire picture resized so we have some context canon 1dmk2* Canon XSi * Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG * Canon 17-40mm f/4L * Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX * Canon 50mm f/1.8 *
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Michaelmjc THREAD STARTER not cool enough 4,834 posts Joined May 2004 Location: Toronto, Ontario More info | May 15, 2010 22:47 | #7 Here is the full size image.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | May 15, 2010 22:55 | #8 That's too small for me to see anything -- can you crop a small portion of the image that shows the problem you are seeing, post it at a decent size, describe what you are seeing, and tell what processing you've done to it? Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Michaelmjc THREAD STARTER not cool enough 4,834 posts Joined May 2004 Location: Toronto, Ontario More info | May 15, 2010 23:05 | #9 Here's a larger version of it. No editing has been done to it at all. These are straight from the RAW file. Lately I've been noticing a lot of weird banding and noise in very low iso shots. I feel it should be extremely clean. The top left corner is the problematic area, well actually it's all over the image you can see the noise.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
spiralspirit Senior Member 940 posts Joined Dec 2009 Location: Manitoba, Canada More info | May 15, 2010 23:29 | #10 I think you're pixel peeping too much. 100% on a 21megapixel sensor will appear to be more noisy than the 100% on a ten megapixel sensor, when in fact it is not. Your image looks great. canon 1dmk2* Canon XSi * Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG * Canon 17-40mm f/4L * Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX * Canon 50mm f/1.8 *
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CJMPhotography Senior Member 726 posts Joined Sep 2009 More info | Permanent banwhat was the exposure? could be noise from a long exposure. Canon T1i- gripped - 70-200 F4L IS - 430exII - Lowepro Fastpack 350
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | May 15, 2010 23:53 | #12 Hmm, I don't see anything bad here, but that's just me, and at my age I think I need reading glasses for my reading glasses -- maybe someone with sharp eyes will spot something, but if you are seeing something that looks obvious to you it may be something other than your image. Have you checked this out on other equipment? Is it possible that your monitor is adjusted in some off way or is simply too bright? Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
May 16, 2010 00:22 | #13 Well, you have a relatively bright foreground subject (the pig), and in order to keep that nice and unclipping (is that a word?), you'll sacrifice some of the shadows. SONY A7RIII | SONY A7III | SONY RX10 IV | SONY RX100 | 24-70 2.8 GM | 70-200 2.8 GM | 16-35 F/4 | PZ 18-105 F/4 | FE 85 1.8 | FE 28-70 | SIGMA 35 1.4 ART | SIGMA 150-600 C | ROKINON 14 2.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Wilt Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1] More info | May 16, 2010 00:46 | #14 Pixel peeping a 5DII at 100% is like looking at a 46x enlargement from 10" away. You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.php
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tonylong ...winded More info | May 16, 2010 00:53 | #15 Wilt wrote in post #10188710 Pixel peeping a 5DII at 100% is like looking at a 46x enlargement from 10" away. Digital photographers are overly obsessed with 'noise'...you should see a 135 format film blown up to that magnification and see the clearly visible grain at the same magnification! We used 6-8x magnifiers on 10x enlargements when focusing enlargers in the darkroom by visualizing grain! Well, except for the fact that a 5D2 file well exposed at ISO 100 should not look noisy at 100%. And I don't myself see noise/banding in the shot. The main thing that can show up with a high res image is camera shakiness, but no more than if it was shot with a 20D/30D. If my camera was shaking enough to be blurry at a 100% view, I'd want to know about it and correct my technique. If my camera was producing noisy images when well-exposed at ISO 100 I'd want to know about it too. Tony
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Monkeytoes 1372 guests, 175 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||