JPL

Yes, something is seriously wrong here.
One possibility is that he has applied some excessive sharpening to the photos, that can give this kind of result. I would suggest you get the raw files and edit the photos your self.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Thanks to all,
Obviously this is a sensitive issue for my son and daughter in law who are, on the surface, satisfied with their images. I will ask them if these are in some way proofs. I just do not know how you get such noise from a quality camera and lens? My cell phone produces less noise, and none of my cameras, Canon, Sony has this degree of degradation. Virtually everything the photographer took was at f1.4...indoors, outdoors, close up, far away. She also liked very fast shutter speeds, hence the high ISO. (as shown in the group photo above)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The group photo was ISO-200, indistinguishable from ISO-100. The posing is superb. The lens at f/1.4 performed excellent with no loss of sharpness to the faces on both the left and right of center. A fast shutter speed assures no blurring of the participants due to subject movement. The issue is the processing of the images. Reference to the terms of the contract is the first, next step.

mrpentaxk5ii

Something does not add up, is photo #3, Suit fabric posted as he took the photo? there is no way in hell that the photo looks that bad taken outside ot ISO 160.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

I agree, and the skin on the bride in the group photo is totally mottled. It just doesn't make sense to me unless somehow these artifacts were added as some post exposure manipulation.

mrpentaxk5ii

I can't believe that every one missed the boat with this one, if you download the photo that was posted and check the resolution data, you will find out that the files he was given were from about 3mp. The pixel data is half of a 6mp APSC camera. that is why his files suck. My APSC Pentax K5 ii 16mp as a full resolution JPEG is 4928 x 3264 at 300 dpi, his file read as 1290 x 930 72 dpi half of the info from my Pentax K100D super at a 6mp camera the file is as such, 2964 x 1932 at 72 dpi twice the info he was given from a full frame Canon camera.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Mr P ... have a look at the final attachment with the bride in the center and reconsider the possible causes ...

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

I downloaded and applied noise reduction and pulled down the highlights on the dress... Made it much better even on a jpeg that has very small subjects in a large frame....
If the photgrapher has the RAW files, this should be an easy fix to make it better
(sharpening didnt seem to help ..even a minor amount with some masking...raw file may give better results.

The photo is perfectly framed from a parallel and vertical lines so unless he is a wizard at hand-holding and framing or is using a tripod....he must have tweaked the photo in post to get it perfect....why he did not apply noise reduction is a bit odd...

Anyway, I would ask the photgrapher if he applied noise reduction. If not, he should be able to run a batch tweak in lightroom on all the images in RAW and then run a batch export .
Shouldn't cost them too much time.

I must admit I have made mistakes in post when grinding through all the wedding photos and made mistakes in expsoure etc and have had to introduce noise to correct. I cringe at some of the photos I have provided in the past. They loved them but I knew they were much less than my standard of professional quality.... but if ALL the photos are missing noise reduction, then I think it is fair to inquire....

catalint Loc: oslo

I've been reading this thread with much interest, cause during my learning curve I've struggled with same problem. I mean this is how I learned much about exposure. The need to use light, what happens with treating underexposed pictures, and other forms of photographer error.

From all the comments here it made me raise the question ? did he used any light/flash ? Since I've been shooting a long time without flash, this is the biggest problem I faced. Tried to avoid noise all the time, and using low ISO as possible should eliminate that, I thought. It's just not the case with underexposed photos. I tended to be happy with underexposed photos, cause I knew how much "magic" I could apply to them in order to save them. Only to discover how much noise I have to apply in order to bring back the details I wanted. Especially when not using any type of light.

F1.4 was used , and makes me think he tried to compensate for poor light, and need it a little speed to avoid blur. Picture became underexposed and had to recover details and shadows. That will most likely result in even more noise.

If the photographer is a so called Pro, then I want to upgrade myself from advanced amateur, Entusiast/Pro :D

Have a grate day folx
C.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

I'd have to agree that it's very difficult to shoot this much noise with a 5dIII. This camera is a low light beast, with very little noise even at 6400.

I think we need to know if these are proofs or the final product.

kubota king Loc: NW , Pa.

I would have to agree . I only have a canon 7D and my main lens I use for close up photos is a canon 15-85mm which I used Saturday to take photos of our home town fair parade . I shot in TV mode with ISO on auto , Raw format , Adobe RGB color mode . And I got very high quality photos . Even when looking at them zoomed in . I open them as 16bit in PS , PS is set to Adobe RGB , and monitor set to Adobe RGB and save them to Tiff for me and save a copy as a 2 to 5mb Jpeg if I am giving a copy to friends after I make all my adjustments to them . Even the 2 to 5mb Jpeg is still without any noticeable noise . I'm really sorry for you and your family if the photos are finals . Did the couple pay for them yet , or is this a sample he sent to you or them to pick from ?. Most photographers won't give you a good sample that you can print out your own if you haven't paid for them . Tommy

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Yes, I will ask the same question: why did the "pro" use f1.4 in out door light?

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Thanks again to all for continuing input. The photographer is from Toronto, I have no idea of her credentials as she was chosen by my son and bride. I was there, of course, during the shoot, and everything was available light, hand held, she did have an assistant with a second camera. In reviewing all these images one gets the idea that she just dials in 1.4, high ISO and fires away. I remain perplexed how these large file images have such low quality. I personally shoot available light at 1.4 and ISO 1000 or greater indoors with Sony A7rII and have never encountered the degree of noise present in these wedding photos.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

I don't know if they are paid for, or if there are final images to come. I don't want to express my concern with my son/wife because I want them to continue to enjoy the photos (I am certain they have not looked at them full size). I will discreetly try and find out if there are more images to come.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

If underexposed and not using flash perhaps some exposure compensation should have been used to overcome the underexposure.

Best,
Todd Ferguson