Excessive Image Noise 5dMKIII
Sep 12, 2017 11:13:19 #
My son's wedding photos (by professional photographer) were very disappointing from my point of view because of poor image quality. The shots were made with a Canon 5dMKIII, 1.4 35mm lens. What is bothersome to me is the excessive noise. Cake image ISO 1000, 1.4, suit fabric ISO 160 (taken outside full daylight) again at 1.4. All of the images (900 of them!) have this noise issue when viewed full size. Any thoughts? All of the files are approximately 18 -20 mb.
Sep 12, 2017 11:34:15 #
Sep 12, 2017 11:35:31 #
Did you sample the photographers work before you hired him or her to shoot your sons wedding?
Sep 12, 2017 11:38:55 #
Sep 12, 2017 11:39:47 #
tinplater wrote:
My son's wedding photos (by professional photographer) were very disappointing from my point of view because of poor image quality. The shots were made with a Canon 5dMKIII, 1.4 35mm lens. What is bothersome to me is the excessive noise. Cake image ISO 1000, 1.4, suit fabric ISO 160 (taken outside full daylight) again at 1.4. All of the images (900 of them!) have this noise issue when viewed full size. Any thoughts?
It's not excessive, but if these are final images, then the pro isn't really a pro to present his work in such a state. If these are proofs, then it's more than fine. If the pro shot these as raw, then it's even better, since there are more opportunities for noise reduction and detail retention.
When you say full size do you mean at 100% on the screen?
I suggest you pick a representative image and ask the pro to do a final treatment on it, and provide a print. My guess is that once the image is properly finished and downsampled to 11x14 or whatever, you are not likely to see the noise.
On the other hand if you are going to pixel peep, you will see noise, especially on a proof set.
First image below is full sized jpeg, out of the camera, no noise reduction applied, D800, ISO 1000.
Second is same image, full size jpeg, with noise reduction.
Third is downsampled to 2048x1492 good for an 8x12 print.
These are not finished images, and would require some sharpening, cleanup, retouching, etc for finalization.
Sep 12, 2017 12:01:06 #
I looked closely at the cake image. It is approx 1 MB, 1368 X 912 pixels. By no means is that a full image from a 5DMIII.
Sep 12, 2017 12:01:36 #
Fellow members have already pointed to a few points while I was looking into the details of some of your posted images. Your "pro" didn't give their best effort, or they need some skill refresher training if this was their best effort and the final result ... Do you know anything about how the photographer captured the images? That is: RAW or JPEG? How did they process the images? Again, is this a proof or a final result to be paid for as-is?
I took your crop and overlaid to a zoomed version of the larger image. Your crop would need it's own processing to look as clean as the larger original.
Do you have access to the SOOC version of the cake, as a consistent point of reference for any ongoing discussion? I have a sneaking feeling this image was captured slightly (or more) underexposed and the exposure was increased in processing, making the noise / grain worse due to the processing.
I'll have to read into your text some assumptions: you have all the images from the shoot that number around 900? The file sizes referenced sounds like large JPEGs rather than RAW. As asked about the cake, to what extent have the files been processed and can you get access to the originals from the camera? The cake file is less than 1MB rather than 18MB - 20MB as you referenced. What processing have you performed prior to posting this question with these attachments? Do you have your own tools to run a quick batch run of noise reduction although this task is certainly not something you paid for ...
I took your crop and overlaid to a zoomed version of the larger image. Your crop would need it's own processing to look as clean as the larger original.
Do you have access to the SOOC version of the cake, as a consistent point of reference for any ongoing discussion? I have a sneaking feeling this image was captured slightly (or more) underexposed and the exposure was increased in processing, making the noise / grain worse due to the processing.
I'll have to read into your text some assumptions: you have all the images from the shoot that number around 900? The file sizes referenced sounds like large JPEGs rather than RAW. As asked about the cake, to what extent have the files been processed and can you get access to the originals from the camera? The cake file is less than 1MB rather than 18MB - 20MB as you referenced. What processing have you performed prior to posting this question with these attachments? Do you have your own tools to run a quick batch run of noise reduction although this task is certainly not something you paid for ...
Sep 12, 2017 12:20:00 #
67skylark27
Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI
Why are the outdoor shots taken at f1.4? Closer shots will have a
short focus depth yes??
short focus depth yes??
Sep 12, 2017 12:42:53 #
67skylark27 wrote:
Why are the outdoor shots taken at f1.4? Closer shots will have a
short focus depth yes??
short focus depth yes??
That would be a question best directed to the photographer, rather than the customer's father posting questions here ... The suit jacket is just a crop so we have no way to tell from this post whether the wide aperture was a successful artistic decision ...
Sep 12, 2017 12:44:59 #
I don't use SOOC JPEGs so this is a question firmly grounded in ignorance.
Is a SOOC JPEG sharpened in camera to some extent? And wouldn't that tend to enhance, rather then decrease noise?
Is a SOOC JPEG sharpened in camera to some extent? And wouldn't that tend to enhance, rather then decrease noise?
Sep 12, 2017 12:54:20 #
Rich1939 wrote:
I don't use SOOC JPEGs so this is a question firmly grounded in ignorance.
Is a SOOC JPEG sharpened in camera to some extent? And wouldn't that tend to enhance, rather then decrease noise?
Is a SOOC JPEG sharpened in camera to some extent? And wouldn't that tend to enhance, rather then decrease noise?
Yes, the camera's native noise processing capabilities are applied to the JPEG image created by / in the camera with a few caveats: the camera operator can adjust the camera's defaults by enhancing or decreasing the native capabilities of the camera. The camera operator can select a picture style setting that causes no in-camera processing, faithful being the setting in an EOS body.
Assuming picture style = Canon Standard and no operator adjustments, ISO-1000 JPEGs should look very good (noise and overall sharpness) coming SOOC from a 5DIII, again with an assumed good exposure and sharp focus by the operator ...
Sep 12, 2017 14:00:30 #
tinplater wrote:
My son's wedding photos (by professional photographer) were very disappointing from my point of view because of poor image quality. The shots were made with a Canon 5dMKIII, 1.4 35mm lens. What is bothersome to me is the excessive noise. Cake image ISO 1000, 1.4, suit fabric ISO 160 (taken outside full daylight) again at 1.4. All of the images (900 of them!) have this noise issue when viewed full size. Any thoughts? All of the files are approximately 18 -20 mb.
You're sure it's ISO 1000, not 20.000? I certainly do not get noise like that, even if I shoot a 10,000!
Sep 12, 2017 14:43:38 #
67skylark27
Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI
CHG_CANON wrote:
That would be a question best directed to the photographer, rather than the customer's father posting questions here ... The suit jacket is just a crop so we have no way to tell from this post whether the wide aperture was a successful artistic decision ...
The father is the one posting, and if it were a successful artistic decision he wouldn't have posted it as an example.
I'm raising the discussion of a possible connection between out of focus bokeh and ISO noise.
Sep 12, 2017 15:55:12 #
Thanks for the interest! The images were given to me on a flash drive, all JPEG. I have no clue what if any processing was done; all I can discern is when I view them in lightroom the information I have is ISO, camera, lens, aperture, etc. I do not know if these are proofs, but how does a "proof" have a 20MB Jpeg file size and have all this electronic noise? Is it possible that the photographer "added" noise to make them proofs? I have attached additional photos to give more visual information. ISO 200 F1.4
And yes, I was not the photographer, chosen by the couple.
And yes, I was not the photographer, chosen by the couple.
Sep 12, 2017 16:13:23 #
Although the file is full-sized at 5663x3775 pixels, the EXIF data from the camera has been truncated (shown below). This file has some level of processing applied. The photographer would have to explain what was provided on the thumbdrive, in the context of the image capture and processing activities as specified in the signed agreement.
The lens and camera will perform much better in qualified hands, both straight out of camera and in the processed results. The photographer is the one to state whether these are work-in-progress examples or the final results.
The lens and camera will perform much better in qualified hands, both straight out of camera and in the processed results. The photographer is the one to state whether these are work-in-progress examples or the final results.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.