tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

For those who participated in my initial post about image noise in my son's wedding photos, I have learned that the images are NOT proofs but the final product, unfortunately. The couple was given a presentation box, a bottle of champagne, and the thumb drive with the noisy images. I did not ask if she was a professional or how they found her as their photographer because of the sensitivity of the issue (they are, at least on the surface, pleased with the images). They will not receive any prints, but are free to print their pictures from the drive. I am still mystified how 20mb images were made with quality equipment resulting in such noisy images. Thanks to all who have voiced an opinion or taken interest in this discussion.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Any chance of seeing any?

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Here is a typical example...I have uploaded the entire large file, when viewed full size in download you will see the problem! ISO 160 f1.4 1/2000 with Canon 5DMIII and 35mm 1.4 Canon lens.

(Download)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

No wonder...its from a Canon.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Interesting. Good camera and good ISO.

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

Man that is a mess!

canon Lee

Given the photographer had good updated equipment, no reason the images should be noticeably noisy, unless the entire wedding was held out doors at night. Todays DSLR's have excellent noise control since the ISO can be turned up to 1600% or better, (especially in post editing programs like Light room, which have additional noise cancellation generators). If she had a fast lens, 1.4~2.8mm, was allowed to use a flash ( or not), noise should not be an issue. I have taken action shots in a gym with low ambient light and no flash, at ISO 1600% and had excellent results. The problem is the photographer. There are companies like David's bridal or Craigs list that do weddings cheap because they are not pro's. I have never had noise in my photos, even in ambient light or indoors. Personally I would ask for my money back. Letting photographers get away with incompetence just perpetuates bad photographers. Just because anyone has bought a pro camera/lens doesn't guarantee good results. I would love to see her camera settings. The meta data might be on the images on the flash drive. Im sure we photographers would love to see the data. It just upsets me that some people are charging for weddings and are not pros. To all you uncles, friends or family members of the bride or groom, please don't shoot weddings, but as a wedding gift, hire a pro.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

I really wish someone could explain to me how it is possible to take a Canon 5d MKIII with a high end lens and produce 20mb images that look like this?

canon Lee

It looks soft. its an outdoor shot. no one should have any problems with noise outdoors?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Do consumers print images onto paper, or do they view on smartphone iPad? Even if you got one of those 8x10 or 4x5 picture viewer tablets (cannot remember exact name, but you know what they are), the noise would not be noticeable. It also could have been a result of the negotiated price of the shoot. Want better, sharper, printable images, then the upcharge is...

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I feel that operator was using the 5DMIII as a point and shoot. post processing may have included excessive sharpening with out addressing luminous noise.
But I guess we'll never know and that's a shame because knowing what happened here would be a valuable lesson.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canon Lee - the photographer had the good sense to truncate the EXIF data. They don't have their name / copyright info embedded in the files nor have any keywords been applied. Only exposure, camera and lens info (all 5DIII and EF 35 f/1.4L II) can be seen from those posted so far, even the larger 20mb ish examples. None of the camera settings, other than manual exposure. The file was processed by Lightroom v6.8. The slight vignette seems film like; but actually, the operator has failed to load the lens profile to the camera body. The example posted here, similar to earlier examples, is an interesting, artistic view from the wedding day showing good skill working with the couple and composing / framing the image. But, the resulting image file shows a relative lack of technical skill in the processing.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

They would have gotten better results had they been shot with a Cannon!!! LoL

SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tin, that's not noise, at least not noise that I've ever seen!
That's some kind of heavy-handed PP possibly to mask noise. I think its some kind of process with over sharpening applied.
I'm not a big PP'r, but my noise NEVER looks like that, and yes, I shoot with a variety of Canons.
Maybe you could get ahold of one of the Raws and take a look at it. It's no secret what the pics look like, she obviously knows and couldn't handle the post, or the shots where taken poorly.
Wouldn't hurt to ask!!!
SS

canon Lee

I would not shoot a wedding for less than $1600.00 ($1200.00 burned to a disc). All day shoot ( average 10hrs shoot time + 3hours editing time ), travel, assistant( $200.00), post editing time, print charge. Imperfections on a photo are not noticeable in a thumbnail image on line. It becomes noticeable when printed and enlarged. Considering burned to a disc, assistant pay, gas, that would be about $1000.00 divide that by 13 hours= $75 per hour. I know that most will think $1200.00 is a lot to charge but its not. You can get on Craigs list a wedding shoot for $500~750. It makes simple sense that you get what you get from an amateur that asks for less than the pros get.