What happened.
Apr 7, 2012 11:45:16 #
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
85mm prime, F16, iso 50, 1/3200sec
Apr 7, 2012 11:53:20 #
Apr 7, 2012 12:40:01 #
I like your photo, Art, but it is very underexposed. Therefore your background is very, very underexposed, and that's where you'll find the most "noise". You can probably "bring it up" in LR.
Apr 7, 2012 12:56:57 #
Artsmith wrote:
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
Yes, I agree with the other post. In order to render any sort of help to you, we would need to see the original image, before any PP was attempted.
That being said, your settings seem to be a bit extreme. I tend to think an ISO of 400; f/11; and, 1/400th sec. might offer up a better image? Can't really tell until we see the original image.
Apr 7, 2012 14:51:58 #
Apr 7, 2012 15:33:01 #
Artsmith wrote:
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
You sure about that metadata Art? ISO 50, F/16 at 1/3200 of a sec? 8-)
Apr 8, 2012 00:46:13 #
Artsmith wrote:
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
At ISO 50 the Mark II should natively produce the least noise. Therefore, since it appears that the background is noisy it must have been introduced during PP. What exactly did you do in PP?
In examining the photo it doesn't look like digital noise but rather like a texture overlay or JPEG artifacts. The edges are very soft and the texture ( "noise" ) is not only visible in the background but also in the highlights.
Apr 8, 2012 01:00:46 #
Apr 8, 2012 07:46:26 #
I agree that this image is massively underexposed and unrecoverable.
The thing that pops into my mind though, why are you at f/16?
You have a fast lens which gives of it's best between f/4 and f/8.
At f/16 the performance has dropped well away.
The thing that pops into my mind though, why are you at f/16?
You have a fast lens which gives of it's best between f/4 and f/8.
At f/16 the performance has dropped well away.
Apr 8, 2012 11:54:06 #
You all are right it is very under exposed (4X ND filter) I was testing. The metadata is correct. I was shooting manual and forgot to stop it down. I was shooting in bright sun light at f1.4 @1/3200 sec. iso 50 and shot at each f stop to see the different effects on DOF and brokeh. Then I used 4X ND filter without opening up f stop or slowing down shutter.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.
Apr 8, 2012 22:45:57 #
Artsmith wrote:
You all are right it is very under exposed (4X ND filter) I was testing. The metadata is correct. I was shooting manual and forgot to stop it down. I was shooting in bright sun light at f1.4 @1/3200 sec. iso 50 and shot at each f stop to see the different effects on DOF and brokeh. Then I used 4X ND filter without opening up f stop or slowing down shutter.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.
Was this just a test?
Apr 8, 2012 22:52:43 #
Bmac wrote:
You sure about that metadata Art? ISO 50, F/16 at 1/3200 of a sec? 8-)
Artsmith wrote:
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
You sure about that metadata Art? ISO 50, F/16 at 1/3200 of a sec? 8-)
Here is the camera data.
Apr 9, 2012 13:57:09 #
Then I used 4X ND filter without opening up f stop or slowing down shutter.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.[/quote]
You did good in catching such even lighting of a sunlit white subject. Your DOF may be a bit too deep. Does the bloom at viewers left need to be so sharp.
We all agree it's underexposed, about 1.5 stops in your posted, which is easily corrected in PP cause info is still there. A nice little feature is that correction darkens the hideous background. Sorry if it is your wallpaper, but it detracts in every way.
Other replies ask what PP you did for that is likely source of all the noise in dark ang up to the semi spectral whites. I suspect too, that PP is why contrast is so low - there's not a true black in there.
If you post the out-of-camera image we can better guide you. If you re-shoot maybe you can set the lily pot on a box to keep the angle while getting rid of the blue(?) wall.
Again I really like the lighting so shoot same time on a sunny day. You either have an excellent eye for lighting - or are damned lucky.
Lightroom strained to get a image at all.[/quote]
You did good in catching such even lighting of a sunlit white subject. Your DOF may be a bit too deep. Does the bloom at viewers left need to be so sharp.
We all agree it's underexposed, about 1.5 stops in your posted, which is easily corrected in PP cause info is still there. A nice little feature is that correction darkens the hideous background. Sorry if it is your wallpaper, but it detracts in every way.
Other replies ask what PP you did for that is likely source of all the noise in dark ang up to the semi spectral whites. I suspect too, that PP is why contrast is so low - there's not a true black in there.
If you post the out-of-camera image we can better guide you. If you re-shoot maybe you can set the lily pot on a box to keep the angle while getting rid of the blue(?) wall.
Again I really like the lighting so shoot same time on a sunny day. You either have an excellent eye for lighting - or are damned lucky.
Apr 10, 2012 01:55:24 #
ISO 50 (equivalent to a very slow film), f-stop 16 and 1/3200 of a second exposure - you could have been taking that photo in a closet! You were challenging your camera to produce any kind of an image, and that's why there's so much noise. Next time, set the camera on Auto and look at the camera's settings. You'll probably see something more like ISO 200, f/16 and 1/200 second than what you shot. You can alter your settings for different effects, but you need to let some light into your camera.
Apr 10, 2012 11:02:22 #
Bmac wrote:
You sure about that metadata Art? ISO 50, F/16 at 1/3200 of a sec? 8-)
Artsmith wrote:
Is this just really under exposed? What would cause background to be so noisy? I used LR4 to PP.
You sure about that metadata Art? ISO 50, F/16 at 1/3200 of a sec? 8-)
In direct sunlight that photo is underexposed by 4 or 4 1/2 stops. Even compensating for the white flowers, you are still around 3 stops under. If you used shadow fill in LR to bring the background up, that also adds noise. The combination is deadly. I don't think there is any salvaging this shot. It's a reshoot, in my opinion.
If you metered strictly off the flowers, that would explain what happened. The meter was trying to make the flowers 17% gray and the background went off the chart on the left hand end. Manual exposure taken from a gray card and then under exposed by 1/2 to a full stop would have solved the problem. Then in Post the background could have been more easily brought up, I you wanted, with some shadow fill because it wouldn't have been so underexposed.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.