My 5D2 Has Low Iso Banding

It seems to me that this discussion has started to get repetitive and quite boring.

Don't wait up for me

I push shadows (to a reasonable degree) all the time in my 5d2 files and I've never seen any banding in my images. Maybe if I pixel-peeped at 100% at a shadow area I might see it, but I've never seen it in large files on my LCD or in large prints (and that's what matters to me). And it might be sacriligious to say so, but I like my 5d2 much more than I ever liked my 5d.

Here's an example from the weekend. That foreground tree was almost black, with no appreciable detail in the original image - good amount of fill light and local dodging with the brush tool in LR....

5d2, 35 f/2, ISO 400, f/7.1 ....

versedmb wrote in post #11164281
I push shadows (to a reasonable degree) all the time in my 5d2 files and I've never seen any banding in my images. Maybe if I pixel-peeped at 100% at a shadow area I might see it, but I've never seen it in large files on my LCD or in large prints (and that's what matters to me). And it might be sacriligious to say so, but I like my 5d2 much more than I ever liked my 5d.

Here's an example from the weekend. That foreground tree was almost black in the original image - good amount of fill light and local dodging with the brush tool....

5d2, 35 f/2, ISO 400, f/7.1 ....

Looks good to me.

^^^^^beautiful

^ - thanks.

And here's the original so you can see how much I pushed the shadows...(If I can get away with pushing shadows that much and have a nice image, I have nothing to complain about)...

^I should go out and buy a 5D II.

Poe wrote in post #11164186
Looks like you don't understand what a black frame is, or what you can do with it to improve your images.

I don't need a black frame thingy or some obscure windows based piece of software.
ACR latest version works wonders.
btw where are your personal examples? Taken any?

Here's the sample by alpha_1976 after post processing using acr and photoshop cs5 and a 100% crop following
see if the banding is so obvious or is it acceptable?
amazing if you know what you are doing how you can achieve aceptable results from very underexposed shots.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

jdizzle wrote in post #11164336
^I should go out and buy a 5D II.

...

^The banding is there.

jdizzle wrote in post #11164389
^The banding is there.

Never said it wasn't but is it acceptable?
I think it is because the original cr2 was very underexposed.

Nikolas wrote in post #11164398
Never said it wasn't but is it acceptable?
I think it is because the original cr2 was very underexposed.

I guess it depends on what's acceptable to you. If you print it larger than 16x24, will the noise show up?

jdizzle wrote in post #11164417
I guess it depends on what's acceptable to you. If you print it larger than 16x24, will the noise show up?

It won't in the image I posted above (Well, maybe if you look with a magnifying glass).

I underexposed it deliberately to get the hell out of it but I couldn't see banding that is obvious like it seems is the case if you read all on this thread.

I would suggest it will print up very fine , personally I wouldn't even use such an underexposed shot unless I absolutely HAD to.

versedmb wrote in post #11164460
It won't in the image I posted above (Well, maybe if you look with a magnifying glass).

Well, your shot is fine.