5D3 high ISO images

[MLeeK]

I've updated... I am updating again to see if I have missed something somewhere. I couldn't open them. Wonder if the raw/DNG converter will do it? Might check that next!

 

[Trever1t]

just checked and although ACR 6.6 Supports the D800 it doesn't support the 5DIII. Extend | Adobe Photoshop CS5

 

[Dao]

Need to stop looking at those sample photos. ( 8^ O`)`````

 

[apples]

frantically searches pockets for change...

 

[pgriz]

"Be careful what you wish for..."

Yup, we all wanted a camera that can handle high ISO with minimal noise... check.
We wanted an modern autofocus... check.
We wanted a high, "real" frame rate... check.

So what this all means is that...

Fauxtographers don't need to worry about lighting - the equipment will pull out decent images with miserable light.
Fauxtographers don't need to worry about missing the focus, because the equipment will lock on pretty much every time.
Fauxtographers don't need to catch the decisive moment, there's a good image hiding somewhere in that burst...

Damn, I feel like a luddite. But really, the equipment is going to make it easier to take decently-exposed images under pretty crappy conditions. Granted, it won't fix bad composition or framing or subject selection. And there is the "potentially" saving grace that most fauxtographers won't/can't pay thousands to get the top-of-the-line equipment. Still, can't help but feel that what we wished for will just open the door wider for people who don't care about the niceties of image-making. And then we will have discussions like:
"Yes it is perfectly exposed and perfectly focused, but it just sucks from compositional, esthetic, artistic, visually-pleasing perspectives."
"Pfft. MY camera is more expensive than what you can afford. So your artistic comments are just jealous sour grapes because you can't afford my toys. "
"No, what I mean is that your image has no soul, no emotion, no interest..."
"Nah, nah.. you're just jealous that I could get a great shot of little Johnny lit by candle-light in the other room. And you can't."

Sigh.

But then I suppose, every techological advance was met by sceptics who bemoaned the death of the craft because it was easier than before. So, yeah. Call me a luddite.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

"Be careful what you wish for..."

Yup, we all wanted a camera that can handle high ISO with minimal noise... check.
We wanted an modern autofocus... check.
We wanted a high, "real" frame rate... check.

So what this all means is that...

Fauxtographers don't need to worry about lighting - the equipment will pull out decent images with miserable light.
Fauxtographers don't need to worry about missing the focus, because the equipment will lock on pretty much every time.
Fauxtographers don't need to catch the decisive moment, there's a good image hiding somewhere in that burst...

Damn, I feel like a luddite. But really, the equipment is going to make it easier to take decently-exposed images under pretty crappy conditions. Granted, it won't fix bad composition or framing or subject selection. And there is the "potentially" saving grace that most fauxtographers won't/can't pay thousands to get the top-of-the-line equipment. Still, can't help but feel that what we wished for will just open the door wider for people who don't care about the niceties of image-making. And then we will have discussions like:
"Yes it is perfectly exposed and perfectly focused, but it just sucks from compositional, esthetic, artistic, visually-pleasing perspectives."
"Pfft. MY camera is more expensive than what you can afford. So your artistic comments are just jealous sour grapes because you can't afford my toys. "
"No, what I mean is that your image has no soul, no emotion, no interest..."
"Nah, nah.. you're just jealous that I could get a great shot of little Johnny lit by candle-light in the other room. And you can't."

Sigh.

But then I suppose, every techological advance was met by sceptics who bemoaned the death of the craft because it was easier than before. So, yeah. Call me a luddite.

^^^^^thats been happening ever since technology has been evolving (with both camera hardware and computer software)

 

[2WheelPhoto]

just checked and although ACR 6.6 Supports the D800 it doesn't support the 5DIII. Extend | Adobe Photoshop CS5

Adobe will have it right in good time

 

[bentcountershaft]

It opens fine with Canon's Zoom Browser EX.

 

[fokker]

I think it would work better if the dark background didn't look like it had artifacts in the first place, lol.

I agree, it's hard to tell where the background ends and the noise begins.

 

[Rhodes454]

Finally got it working. Had to adjust a lot of levels and WB settings as the pics were all either magenta or green. This was using Darktable and Linux (I know, I know, but at least it's working). They look clear enough, but it's hard to tell the absolute quality from a snapshot under artificial lighting.

 

[Cinka]

I officially hate my 40D and cannot be happy until it is mine.

 

[jaomul]

"Be careful what you wish for..."

Yup, we all wanted a camera that can handle high ISO with minimal noise... check.
We wanted an modern autofocus... check.
We wanted a high, "real" frame rate... check.

So what this all means is that...

Fauxtographers don't need to worry about lighting - the equipment will pull out decent images with miserable light.
Fauxtographers don't need to worry about missing the focus, because the equipment will lock on pretty much every time.
Fauxtographers don't need to catch the decisive moment, there's a good image hiding somewhere in that burst...

Damn, I feel like a luddite. But really, the equipment is going to make it easier to take decently-exposed images under pretty crappy conditions. Granted, it won't fix bad composition or framing or subject selection. And there is the "potentially" saving grace that most fauxtographers won't/can't pay thousands to get the top-of-the-line equipment. Still, can't help but feel that what we wished for will just open the door wider for people who don't care about the niceties of image-making. And then we will have discussions like:
"Yes it is perfectly exposed and perfectly focused, but it just sucks from compositional, esthetic, artistic, visually-pleasing perspectives."
"Pfft. MY camera is more expensive than what you can afford. So your artistic comments are just jealous sour grapes because you can't afford my toys. "
"No, what I mean is that your image has no soul, no emotion, no interest..."
"Nah, nah.. you're just jealous that I could get a great shot of little Johnny lit by candle-light in the other room. And you can't."

Sigh.

But then I suppose, every techological advance was met by sceptics who bemoaned the death of the craft because it was easier than before. So, yeah. Call me a luddite.

The camera won't replace ability. A friend of mine takes way better shots than me with a cheap p+s and I have a fairly decent dslr. (sad face here)

 

[Sw1tchFX]

just checked and although ACR 6.6 Supports the D800 it doesn't support the 5DIII. Extend | Adobe Photoshop CS5

you need the ACR 6.7 beta and you can't open them up in LR.

 

[MLeeK]

"Be careful what you wish for..."

Yup, we all wanted a camera that can handle high ISO with minimal noise... check.
We wanted an modern autofocus... check.
We wanted a high, "real" frame rate... check.

So what this all means is that...

Fauxtographers don't need to worry about lighting - the equipment will pull out decent images with miserable light.
Fauxtographers don't need to worry about missing the focus, because the equipment will lock on pretty much every time.
Fauxtographers don't need to catch the decisive moment, there's a good image hiding somewhere in that burst...

Damn, I feel like a luddite. But really, the equipment is going to make it easier to take decently-exposed images under pretty crappy conditions. Granted, it won't fix bad composition or framing or subject selection. And there is the "potentially" saving grace that most fauxtographers won't/can't pay thousands to get the top-of-the-line equipment. Still, can't help but feel that what we wished for will just open the door wider for people who don't care about the niceties of image-making. And then we will have discussions like:
"Yes it is perfectly exposed and perfectly focused, but it just sucks from compositional, esthetic, artistic, visually-pleasing perspectives."
"Pfft. MY camera is more expensive than what you can afford. So your artistic comments are just jealous sour grapes because you can't afford my toys. "
"No, what I mean is that your image has no soul, no emotion, no interest..."
"Nah, nah.. you're just jealous that I could get a great shot of little Johnny lit by candle-light in the other room. And you can't."

Sigh.

But then I suppose, every techological advance was met by sceptics who bemoaned the death of the craft because it was easier than before. So, yeah. Call me a luddite.

yeah, but just think, if we don't have to worry about all of that easy stuff we can work on the OTHER harder stuff!! It just ups the WHOLE game for everyone.

 

[MLeeK]

just checked and although ACR 6.6 Supports the D800 it doesn't support the 5DIII. Extend | Adobe Photoshop CS5

you need the ACR 6.7 beta and you can't open them up in LR.

Wanna tell me where the heck I find that? Thanks!