Issue with Color noise @ 1000 Iso Canon 5D MarkII, 50mm f1.4, jpg.

[elrafo]

Jerry,

thanks a lot for this example, Actually no problem to edit this picture, I send the high resolution so feel free

I also tried from my side to play in the canon photo editor and quite removed all the chroma noise in the raw file.
I will do some other tests and check if I still get this kind of artefacts.
I also see that NR has a big impact on details, and it is quite hard to keep hairs while removing noise...
I think I like to keep luminance noise, it reminds me the film grain, so that is quite good for me, thanks for your test!

Raph

 

[JerryPH]

My NR application on your pic had some very negative effects, but I just cranked the settings up to full on purpose so you could see the worst case scenario. Second, they were done on a 8-bit JPG, not the 16-bit RAW, and that never helps.

In real life, if I was doing something important like a large print for a client or family member, I would be working on the 14-bit RAW or 16-bit TIFF file and use about 10-30% of the maximum strength settings so that I had reduced noise with as little drop in detail as possible. My in camera NR would be completely turned off (software NR is always superior... at least today). Mike had a very valid point... it would not be too visible to spot this level of noise on a print, but you could improve it a little without any loss of detail, if needed.

You can also do a pretty good job on a 16-bit image manually by going into ProPhoto space and reducing the noise in the A and B channels or using a gaussian blur in photoshop before outputting it to a JPG. For those that have PS CS3/4, but not a good NR software, this is the "poor man's" way of getting the job done.

 

[elrafo]

sure, and regadring NR tools don't you think that the best is to edit the noise from the Real dedicated camera image editor with raw files ?

 

[K_Pugh]

there seems to be a lot of green and purple 'fringing' sort of effect all around the photo, too.. lens issue I'm guessing.

or is it just me.

pity about the noise though..

so, people say it's better to overexpose with high ISO's? by how much do yous generally overexpose? and by overexposing i'm guessing you'd have put the ISO up (generally) in the first place as you needed a fast shutter speed and/or you were already wide open - SO, does the advantage on going up another ISO solely for the purpose of overexposing really have any benifit over staying with the lower ISO to keep a 'proper' exposure? hope that makes sense.

 

[JerryPH]

sure, and regadring NR tools don't you think that the best is to edit the noise from the Real dedicated camera image editor with raw files ?

You always, always, always want to edit in the highest quality file you can. You should also set PS to *NOT* convert it into 8-bit mode as it imports (which is the default action, BTW!).

You want to work on a 12-bit or, even better, a 14-bit RAW file, or a 16-bit TIFF or a 16-bit PSD file... that's it, that's all. Once you are finished and happy with the photo... THEN output a nice 8-bit JPG file.

If you were to draw out your workflow from A-Z... the word "8-bit" appears NOWHERE in the workflow except at the last and final step.

 

[JerryPH]

so, people say it's better to overexpose with high ISO's?

Not quite.
You want to "expose to the right", not overexpose. Now I've talked about that before, and I do not call it "expose to the right"... I call it making a PROPER exposure. The term "expose to the right" comes from film... and may "conceptually" work, but in fact, the BEST way to expose in the digital world is to expose for the midtones, and not for the highlights... *another* difference of technique from the film days.

by how much do yous generally overexpose?

You never, ever overexpose.. thats bad. Overexpose = blown highlights = bad.

How much do you add to the exposure? No fixed answer, however the answer comes from:
- what is the scene you are shooting now?
- what are your camera settings?
- how good is your camera at higher ISO settings?
- does your camera underexpose to help save you from blowing out highlights?

That's just for starters. There are other factors to consider too... like histograms, and I am not taking JUST the luminance histogram, but the RGB ones as well.

and by overexposing i'm guessing you'd have put the ISO up (generally) in the first place as you needed a fast shutter speed and/or you were already wide open - SO, does the advantage on going up another ISO solely for the purpose of overexposing really have any benifit over staying with the lower ISO to keep a 'proper' exposure? hope that makes sense.

Yeah, it kinda-sorta does make sense.
But no, you don't "shoot to the right" only by raising ISO. You do it by increasing shutter times or widening the aperture.

Raising ISO can be used, but it is a tool of LAST RESORT, to be used ONLY when all else fails. Why? Because *ALL* cameras shoot with their widest dynamic range and best final results at their base ISO setting over any other higher setting.

Personally, I am of the school of "get your exposure right in camera based on your needs" train of thought using the Zone System for my exposure settings. The concept of pushing it in camera and then lowering it in PP becuase it is too bright has not really showed me any advantages. Not with my D200 and certainly not with my D700.

 

[K_Pugh]

yeah i used the term 'overexpose' as that's what was used, relatively, to your desired exposure.. not actually overexposed and losing highlight detail

Yeah I think I didn't make much sense. I know raising the ISO is a last resort thing (I still use a D200, c'mon ) hence that's why I said that the user would already have used the widest aperture possible and the slowest shutter speed possible and hence why he needed to increase the ISO anyway, therefore if he wanted to 'overexpose' he'd have to increase the ISO further. Just asking if the compromise of further increasing the ISO to 'overexpose' and reduce noise was actually better than shooting at the 'desired exposure' on the lower ISO.

lol doesn't matter, I'm the same, tend to get exposure for my subject right in camera rather than adjusting in software later.

 

[itsjustme2]

Hi,
Your noise is most definitely not normal. I'm experiencing the same thing - it popped up out of nowhere a few days ago. A bunch of chroma noise and an overall loss of detail and sharpness. Mine is a bit worse than yours though.

After some exhaustive tests, micro adjustments, settings, etc, I've come to the conclusion that my brand new camera needs some service.

When it's working well, the MKII's noise reduction is fantastic and I didn't see much, if any visible chroma noise until I hit ISO 1600 and even then I'd really have to be looking for it.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's probably just going to get worse :/

Hello there,


Here is a sample of a picture I did this WE, I have updated the Firmware of the camera to the 1.0.0.7 because I heard about some bending problems on the 5D.

It was shooten in JPG Large size, If you look on the background, on the dark Out of focus part of the picture, you can see clearly a strange noise problem with greens, and reds colors. I am not found of that , particularly for a 3,000$ camera...Is is normal??

here is a crop:

and full resolution:
http://raphael.lacoste.free.fr/thephotoforum/IMG_7097.JPG

Are there some Canon users down here? do you think it is a normal issue with this condition of lighting ?


thanks!

 

[Village Idiot]

ISO 4000

No NR, RAW, completely acceptable.

Compare.

 

[JerryPH]

Thats a HUGE difference between this pic and elrafo's.

 

[Village Idiot]

Thats a HUGE difference between this pic and elrafo's.

Yeah, there's a ton of color noise in his at ISO 1000 and there shouldn't be. It could be the JPG conversion in camera, but then the noise reduction should take care of it and make it look plasticy. What could have happened is that it was underexposed and whatever program he uses to browse/edit bumped up the exposure to get an acceptable histogram, which in turn created more noise from the photo.

I'm just posting a photo that was taken as a 5D MKII RAW file at 4000 ISO with no noise reduction and no editing besides the conversion from Canon RAW to JPG.

 

[elrafo]

hey there,

Have seen that some other people are having noise issue, must be exposure problem, or lens aperture/iso?

here is on aother forum: 5D Mark II noise... - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Also, here is another picture I did at 3200 iso, with 85mm f/1.8 lens, there is less chroma noise that my 1000 iso picture... lighting condition exposure and lens must have a big part in the problem...

and the full size picture:
http://raphael.lacoste.free.fr/thephotoforum/IMG_7345.JPG

 

[elrafo]

Hey Village Idiot , (sounds like I am insulting you lol)

Did you turn off also NR in Digital Photo Professional Editor before exporting? seems like there is a default value (4-luminance 5-Chroma) if you don't even use NR in the camera settings. If I really turn off these settings to 0 and Apply on a raw file in the editor, I can clearly see green and red dots.

 

[Village Idiot]

Hey Village Idiot , (sounds like I am insulting you lol)

Did you turn off also NR in Digital Photo Professional Editor before exporting? seems like there is a default value (4-luminance 5-Chroma) if you don't even use NR in the camera settings. If I really turn off these settings to 0 and Apply on a raw file in the editor, I can clearly see green and red dots.

I use Adobe Photo Shop CS4.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Not quite.
You want to "expose to the right", not overexpose. Now I've talked about that before, and I do not call it "expose to the right"... I call it making a PROPER exposure. The term "expose to the right" comes from film... and may "conceptually" work, but in fact, the BEST way to expose in the digital world is to expose for the midtones, and not for the highlights... *another* difference of technique from the film days.


You never, ever overexpose.. thats bad. Overexpose = blown highlights = bad.

Watching you dance around exposing the right is almost humorous. Jerry, thousands of digital photographers expose to right as common practise. Thousands of digital photographers call this EXPOSING TO THE RIGHT. Your stubborn attempt at renaming/rebranding this technique is lunacy.

An overexposed image does not = blown highlights. An image can be overexposed with clipping highlights.

The more you push ALL THE TONES to the right WITHOUT CLIPPING (grayscale, RGB) = MORE TONAL DATA RECORDED BY YOUR SENSOR.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

THIS MEANS LESS DATA LOST

THIS MEANS MORE DATA FOR POST PROCESSING

THIS MEANS LESS NOISE


Go here : https://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml