Poor Canon 5D Images HELP!

[Thomas Krüger]

@Chris,

what about getting Michael's video tutorial "From Camera to Print"?
They mention the calibration of the camera with AcrCalibrator:
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/support/?w=GettingStarted

Also taking a picture of a small grey/white card on location is a great help later on in front of the monitor, because setting the white balance from the target you get your starting point to manipulate your raw file.

So once you have control over the whole workflow it should also be clear what you have to change to archive your desired results.

[NikosR]

nikosr, youre getting at me coz youre saying im not proficient etc etc and saying about my attitude...i suggest you re-read my post propperly and you will see i havent been rude or short about anything for goodness sake! ive come on here for some help...how can i be saying i know it all? both of you need to stop getting on your high horses and just offer some practical advice, thats all i wanted in the first place? so can we be adults and drop this please?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Listen mate. I spent more than an hour writing that post to you and honestly trying to be helpful. Now, of course, I feel like a fool. You're getting what you deserve in here and I wouldn't mind if you got more of the same.

I will ignore any more of your posts.

[Jonathan Wienke]

'jon's' comment on manipulating the image got me wound up because it was a deliberate bite at what i was saying, nikosr, youre getting at me coz youre saying im not proficient etc etc and saying about my attitude...i suggest you re-read my post propperly and you will see i havent been rude or short about anything for goodness sake!

You most certainly have been rude in every one of your posts beginning with your reply to Wayne Fox accusing him of having an attitude and hassling you, when all he did was ask why you thought analog image adjustments were superior to digital adjustments. Wayne's question was entirely appropriate, since your views in that area are part of the reason you're not getting what you want from your 5D. And you've directed snide comments toward almost everyone who has tried to help you in this thread. Put your ego aside and quit trying to bite the hands of those trying to help you, and you'll get a lot more helpful advice tha you will if you continue in your current rudeness.

[Diapositivo]

May I suggest to post here one or two small crops, actual pixels size, of the original image, so that the readers of the forum can get a more precise idea of the noise and the "digitised" appearance.

I don't have a digital camera but those who have one can probably recognise the problem if you post the crops.

It might well be a configuration problem somewhere on the camera or on the converter.

I also suggest you give your RAW file to somebody who can develop it with their own raw converter and see what comes out, so that the problem can be cirmuscribed to the camera, or to the conversion process.

Maybe you could also try to reset the camera and the converter at their factory defaults and do some shots to see if the problem is still there.

Cheers
Fabrizio

[Wayne Fox]

"So your OK using an analog means to alter the image, but not OK with using digital means to alter the image?"

Wayne, not sure whats with the attitude. Came on here for some help, not to have hassel!  Im not sure you grasp why we use filters in the first place. Yes digital makes 'some' filters obsolete, eg colour correcting, but ND grads are a means to balance contrast only within a scene. This is not 'altering the image' as you like to put it, as we are not adding something that is not there, neither are we adding colour or anything else for that matter, purely to record what our natural eyes see and can compensate for. Why would I want to spend time on a PC creating ND grads, when I can pull one out of my case and use it there and then? Ive had these kind of discussions with people before, and as far as I can see, the digital medium has robbed photography of the technical ability and skill it takes to aquire an image, in its natural form. Yes digital has opened a new way, but it doesnt make it the best or the correct way...Even if I get it wrong, Id rather test my thinking than make it easy on myself, its not a way I want to work...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see others have explained my point rather well.  I really don't have an "attitude", just trying to help you gain the epiphany that most of us using digital for a great number of years had many years ago.  It seems to be a new thing for you and part of your struggle is coming to terms with the reality of creating images digitally.   Digital doesn't work like film, and you don't shoot it like film.

As far as making it easy on yourself by using photoshop... not true.  To create multiple exposures and effectively blend in photoshop takes as much if not more skill, with the added control and flexibility that you cannot achieve with filters on a camera. Heck, I have all of those filters as well, and tried to use them when I first starting shooting digital, until I realized it just didn't make sense any more.  It is not "manipulation" of any data to do this in photoshop, just a different way (and superior way) to balance the scene.

I appreciate the effort to remain a "purist".  I personally try to maintain that approach in my work.  However, in todays world where enlargers are rare, and output devices spit ink on art paper or lasers streak accross photo paper, we no longer can do many things that we used to.  But we can replicate the exact effect of those things.  Yes, we can also do much more if we choose to, but that is a choice you make, not something that happens. Just because you set your white balance in Lightroom or Photoshop instead of setting your white balance in the camera (or instead of setting your white balance when choosing the film you load) doesn't make it less pure.  Doing this is just doing things in a different way, and in fact pretty much the only way.

Personally I like the new way better.

[marcmccalmont]

Send me a raw of an example (preferably w/o a filter) and I'll see what I can do with DxO.  The 24-105 IS is a nice lens and if you need wider I find stitching a better solution than a wide lens. DxO will help the softness and vignetting a lot.
Marc

mach1acoustics@hotmail.com

[nchopp]

You've gotten a lot of good advice here. Instead of taking umbrage at the fact that your attitude is being criticized, maybe it would be more advantageous to step back, take a deep breath, and dive into this new world of digital.

[Mark D Segal]

The following image is a panorama/digital exposure blend that would have been very hard/impossible to capture with filters.



Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard - gorgeous (as usual). Have I seen this before and asked you how you did it? Or was it another one?

Mark

[sniper]

I use Canon and Nikon gear, and get lovely bright vibrant results, looking at the pic you posted theres flat-ish lighting and limited colours, can you post a more colourfull pic for us to see how your RAW conversions look? it's very hard to tell from just one shot.   Canons are famous for their "low noise" I'm wondering if theres not some other problem there.
If you want to upload a RAW to filesupload.com for us to play with, I'll happly give it a go and post it back (or here if you'd rather)   Wayne

[gingerbaker]

First off - don't use ISO 50.  

Use ISO 100, as ISO 50 decreases contrast.  The native contrast of the 5D is ISO 100 - ISO 50 is a digitally manufactured setting, designed to roll off highlights - not what you are looking for.

Also, it is possible that f18 is too small an aperture with that lens, and you are seeing some loss of detail because of diffraction.  Not sure on that - you would have to test it.  

I don't know why you are seeing a lot of noise - are you pushing the brightness up?

If you start with a well exposed image at ISO 100, and you still see a lot of noise, there may be something wrong with your camera.

There is a thread here at LL forums that goes into using multiple exposures to reduce noise - that might be helpful.  

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard - gorgeous (as usual). Have I seen this before and asked you how you did it? Or was it another one?

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143259\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You probably have, this is one a year old example.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jjj]

now all im trying to say is that since getting the 5D, i just cant seem to get a natural, clear, sharp image even shooting RAW. i dont know whether theres a setting is my PS2 or if im shooting wrong? lets forget filtering techniques seeing id rather use filters,and you guys would rather blend, thats personal shooting methods, but why...to me anyway, does this shot look very 'digitised'. surely by looking at it, it doesnt look 'real'...if i look at other photographers work, their 5D images are tack sharp and just as good as velvia...i dont understand what im doing wrong...ok..this image was shot RAW, its at ISO50, 6 secs @ f/18, 17mm on a 17-40 L lens...WB was set manually to 5500K. on tripod, using mirror lock and cable release...ive tried processing in PS2 and CaptureOne LE. There is noise, actually quite a bit, which for a camera which supposed great low noise, i find a bit worrying. i dont sharpen in RAW as i find more control in PS2. All i did was slightly give it some colour sat, mild s-curve, WB to 5500K...does this help you guys better?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You need to learn to 'develop' your digital image, just like you developed your film image. The beauty of RAW over film is you can develop an image and if it's not right, you can develop it again. And again and again....
Oh and a native RAW file out of camera looks like cack, until developed to taste and it's softness is to be expected, as it needs sharpening, again to taste.

Different RAW programmes like Aperture, ACR, C1 are also like different developers, with differing results from each one - at 'neutral' settings. The 'best' one is the one that produces the images you prefer.
A 5D is good with noise, but you can always reduce colour noise in ACR or C1..etc if you have taken shots that are noisy. As mentioned above, there's no point in using 50ISO over 100ISO with a 5D. It's digital, not film so some of the rules have changed.


Going back to the manipulation argument. All photography is manipulation, that's the point of it. From deciding what film to use, where to stand, what exposure, adding lighting, using filters, using ACR and not C1....it's all manipulation. Stating 'Digital' manipulation being bad [as people are wont to do] is a load of crock uttered by ignoramuses.

[BernardLanguillier]

if i look at other photographers work, their 5D images are tack sharp and just as good as velvia...i dont understand what im doing wrong...ok..this image was shot RAW, its at ISO50, 6 secs @ f/18, 17mm on a 17-40 L lens...WB was set manually to 5500K. on tripod, using mirror lock and cable release...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How to you assess the sharpeness of other photographer's images? Is your comment based on prints, or on 100% viewing on screen? Do they use the same lens? Is is the same type of scenes?

- print: sharpening technique has more impact on print perceived sharpness than camera characteristics,
- lens: The Canon wides are notoriously not that great on FF compared to offerings from other vendors. This could also be part of the issue,
- Subject: some scenes convey a stronger feeling of sharpeness because of air clarity, color contrast,...

Your shooting parameters/technique sound good to me. f18 might be pushing it a little too close to the diffraction limit for digital, I'd personnally stick to f16.

Regarding colors, Canon has been seemingly focussing on delivering very accurate rendering of color charts. My - largely un-substantiated - belief is that they might not be as proficient as other models in terms of rendering in a pleasing way the vastly larger range of colors/tones present in real world scenes.

Nonetheless, PS2 and C1 have been designed/optimized using Canon cameras. It is possible to significantly enhance the default rendring using tools like Color vibrance of clarity. Digital images also often need the application of a slight S curve to get more pops and global contrast.

You might also want to try DxO to get an out of the box rendring closer to Velvia.

ive tried processing in PS2 and CaptureOne LE. There is noise, actually quite a bit, which for a camera which supposed great low noise, i find a bit worrying. i dont sharpen in RAW as i find more control in PS2. All i did was slightly give it some colour sat, mild s-curve, WB to 5500K...does this help you guys better?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 5D is regarded as a low noise camera at high uso. What it means is that it just noisy at 1600 instead of being very noisy like a D2x.

At low ISO, cameras like the d2x are known to have less noise that the 5D. I would say that the 5D is good at low ISO, but not outstanding. This of course depends on the type of scene etc...

Regards,
Bernard

[Morgan_Moore]

One idea is to 'profile' your camera

simple method one

shoot a grey card on a half cloudy day

load that image in your chosen raw converter

click a grey balance

save that as a setting or whatever its called on that converter.

Paste that setting to all your images

Then a tungsten light will look yellow and a sunset yellow and a portrait under a tree green

That is a simple way of 'locking down' your camera like film is 'locked down'

A more complex method for ACR is to photograph a gregtag card and use 'chromaholix' script (google it)

This again will 'lock down' your camera

With your camera 'locked down' in this manner you will have a more film like experience

This is a method I like because, like national geographic, where tungsten bulbs are allowed to glow yellow it IMO creates a pure look

It is a rubbish method for say shooting products in a studio

I think that may help you with your initial question.

----

Should you choose to do multiple RAW conversions or layer different exposures is then your choice later - there is no right or wrong

Personally I think a bit of grad can improve and image by controlling the contrast especially if your saubject is moving (!)

and for landscape I would consider multiple exposures and blending images which to me is ethically no different from dodging burning and filtering in the darkroom IMO

I would also be of the opinion that the wider the dynamic range of digital capture will lead to a flat image unless you do some conversions

My sinar camera which has a huge dynamic range produces very flat images without some maniplation - it is the saecond side of the same coin

Good luck

S