Still Getting Noisy Images.

[Dale.]

I wasn't sure where to put this one but I guess it's a gear question.

I've been using a little Canon M5 this last few months at my kingfishers. I have been staggered by the image quality, for what it is, it's way better than anything I ever got out of a 7D. That said, if I were to mess up the exposure, it would be noisy but I could live with that as it's a Canon crop sensor after all and also, if the exposure was pants, it was my bad and not the camera's fault.

This last week or so, I've got my kingfishers where I want them, in good light with a nice background and about 12 feet from the end of my lens. My goal has always been to reach a standard that you might expect from a paid hide and I think it's been getting close to that this week. I'd said to myself, if I ever achieve that, I would start using my 5Div, which I did last Sunday.

Kingfishers are difficult to expose for, the white bits on thier throats and side of the head are a pain, especially in bright light. I have been exposing to the right, it's second nature now, to get the most out of the sensor/files, which has meant I've been exposing for the midtones, which as it goes, is usually the kingfisher itself. This results in the white bits being close to blown in most cases. I can live with that though, as they are a small part of the image and a bit of trickery in PP can help.

I'd been exposing this way all afternoon on Sunday. The images looked great on the camera (apart from the white bits) and I left the site excited to see them on my PC. Settings on Sunday were generally f6.3, ISO 1000 and a shutter speed of around 1/1000/sec. The 5D shouldn't break sweat at ISO 1000.

I have noticed though that the background on most of the images is grainy. The background was generally darker than the kingfisher and perch, so technically, underexposed. I was disappointed to see the grain and sometimes, blockiness. I'm not blaming my cameras, I know what they can do but I think I am going wrong somewhere. Any PP also seems to make it worse and then it really gets quite bad if I upload them anywhere.

I'm at a loss, I can't do much more than ETTR and accept the almost blown whites (even if the histogram says I'm barely clipping them) and fix them later. The histogram has tones from left to right, just touching either end. It's the best compromise I can come up with.

Should I really expect grainy backgrounds from a 5D at ISO 1000 with, according to the histogram, a nailed exposure? Or is it something to do with my processing workflow, which is very basic to be fair, or a PC hardware issue.

Or am I taking too much notice?

Uploaded (RAW) file more or less straight out of camera.

 

[KIPAX]

You have uploaded a jpg which in itself will compact and therefore lose some of the noise (raw will always be noisier than a jpg) .. plus the size of the file is so small as to not show any noise. therefore the pic looks ok here

 

[woof woof]

That doesn't look bad on my screen but if you say there's noise then perhaps there is something you could try. You could try applying selective exposure compensation and noise reduction.

If you haven't done this it is pretty easy to select an object, in this case the bird, and adjust everything except the selected object and you can also paint on exposure compensation and/or noise reduction for example to your blown whites. It may be possible to pull something back if they're not completely blown.

 

[Box Brownie]

Just a thought.....

I found in all the Canon bodies I used to own (350D, 40D, 7D and 5D3) that they underexposed by 1/3 stop so my setup was to put +0.3 Exposure Compensation.....plus my preferred metering was Centre Weighted Average. Either or both of those settings could aid shooting a lighter subject against a darker background.

As for the preview on the back of the camera and teaching you how to suck eggs, when shooting in raw you are seeing the embedded JPEG with a Cano default 'processing'. On all cameras I have only ever relied on the preview to check for OOF and in the case of the dSLR the histogram for clipping areas. NB on mirrorless of course you can see the histogram before you press the shutter

 

[Dale.]

You have uploaded a jpg which in itself will compact and therefore lose some of the noise (raw will always be noisier than a jpg) .. plus the size of the file is so small as to not show any noise. therefore the pic looks ok here

Thanks, all noted. I have noticed even more of the grain/blockiness when uploading images due to compression.

I think 38Mb of 5Div RAW file might break the server.

That doesn't look bad on my screen but if you say there's noise then perhaps there is something you could try. You could try applying selective exposure compensation and noise reduction.

If you haven't done this it is pretty easy to select an object, in this case the bird, and adjust everything except the selected object and you can also paint on exposure compensation and/or noise reduction for example to your blown whites. It may be possible to pull something back if they're not completely blown.

Interesting that you say it doesn't look too bad. I have had other people say this too. It's got me thinking it's something my side, maybe even my monitor settings.

 

[Dale.]

Just a thought.....

I found in all the Canon bodies I used to own (350D, 40D, 7D and 5D3) that they underexposed by 1/3 stop so my setup was to put +0.3 Exposure Compensation.....plus my preferred metering was Centre Weighted Average. Either or both of those settings could aid shooting a lighter subject against a darker background.

As for the preview on the back of the camera and teaching you how to suck eggs, when shooting in raw you are seeing the embedded JPEG with a Cano default 'processing'. On all cameras I have only ever relied on the preview to check for OOF and in the case of the dSLR the histogram for clipping areas. NB on mirrorless of course you can see the histogram before you press the shutter

Thanks.

With the M5, the histogram in the VF is a gamechanger. I do miss it in the 5D, albeit I can get it in liveview.

The JPEG rendering of the camera on the rear screen was something I was hoping would be rendered in DPP4. The files are cleaner in DPP though, it's when I finish up in PS that things go a little awry.

 

[SFTPhotography]

It won't be PC hardware.

Try a free trial of DXO photolab 4 - and use the DeepPrime noise reduction. It works really well.

 

[snerkler]

Looks OK to me too. A tad soft (but that's typical of photos displayed on TP) but noise looks OK to me, at least at this image size.

 

[Dale.]

Looks OK to me too. A tad soft (but that's typical of photos displayed on TP) but noise looks OK to me, at least at this image size.

Good to hear, thanks for confirming.

Maybe just me.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

It won't be PC hardware.

Try a free trial of DXO photolab 4 - and use the DeepPrime noise reduction. It works really well.

At least you're not telling him to buy a 645Z

 

[SFTPhotography]

At least you're not telling him to buy a 645Z

I would but no lens long enough on a 645z, or GFX system for what @Dale. does. They are stupendously clean but 300mm is as long as the lens range goes - which is a field of view equivalent to 240mm on the small format. Even with the superior resolution - it's still too big a crop to really work.

 

[checkmate91]

@Dale. not a kingfisher but this is the remains of a buddleia taken from my upstairs office window just now. Canon 5Div Sigma 150-600C at 600, f6.3 ISO1000, 1/400 @ 4 metres to give you something to compare:contrast backgrounds. My green background is lawn 8 feet under the flower. This is a jpeg straight off the card (user def 1 settings 6 4 4 so a bit of sharpening applied). Does it tell you anything? My sigma doesn't take too kindly to heavy crops and I wonder if you're reaching the limit of what the lens can offer?

 

[Dale.]

View attachment 328277
@Dale. not a kingfisher but this is the remains of a buddleia taken from my upstairs office window just now. Canon 5Div Sigma 150-600C at 600, f6.3 ISO1000, 1/400 @ 4 metres to give you something to compare:contrast backgrounds. My green background is lawn 8 feet under the flower. This is a jpeg straight off the card (user def 1 settings 6 4 4 so a bit of sharpening applied). Does it tell you anything? My sigma doesn't take too kindly to heavy crops and I wonder if you're reaching the limit of what the lens can offer?

Thanks for that, very helpful.



I'd never actually considered that, the Sigma is probably limited in what it can resolve on the Canon sensor. Your background looks slightly cleaner than mine but mine is naturally more blotchy as it's trees and undergrowth. The darker areas of my background seem to be the noisiest and the most blocky.


I'm sure I'm taking too much notice but maybe I see a 600 f4 in my future.

 

[Dale.]

@Dale. not a kingfisher but this is the remains of a buddleia taken from my upstairs office window just now. Canon 5Div Sigma 150-600C at 600, f6.3 ISO1000, 1/400 @ 4 metres to give you something to compare:contrast backgrounds. My green background is lawn 8 feet under the flower. This is a jpeg straight off the card (user def 1 settings 6 4 4 so a bit of sharpening applied). Does it tell you anything? My sigma doesn't take too kindly to heavy crops and I wonder if you're reaching the limit of what the lens can offer?

Meant to ask, is that cropped? Mine is.

Tempted to try my 300L f4 + 2x TCiii, next time, although I will be at F8 with the TC. The background is far enough away to still be mushy but at f8, I'd struggle with shutter speeds later in the day.

 

[checkmate91]

No prob, happy to help. And no, not cropped, SD card straight into laptop and uploaded. In my experience the siggy looks great in the viewfinder but can disappoint on the monitor. It works well on my youngest's 80d, is pretty ropey on my 7D and, as you can see is "alright" on my 5D (this site does seem to soften images).

I've looked at loads of images on the birds pics messages and have thought to myself "I wouldn't be proud of that" and yet folks say "great shot!" so it clearly depends on whether you're looking for a "record" shot (the recent cattle egret thread is a great example) or a money shot for a book etc.

A 600 f4 is out of my justification zone but a 300 or new 100-400 and 2x might be but yet I like the siggy, it's beautifully built but needs a lot of help/light/luck/user.

 

[Brentor]

Have you tried Topazlabs denoise?

 

[yzfmike]

Are you sharpening? If so, are you applying it to the whole image, because that will introduce noise, which will be most noticeable in even toned area like your background.
If this is your problem try applying the sharpening, selectively,only to the bird.

 

[holty]

1000 sec shutter speed for a sitting bird seems a tad high to me
you don't need a long lens if the bird is only 12 ft away
just saying

 

[Box Brownie]

1000 sec shutter speed for a sitting bird seems a tad high to me
you don't need a long lens if the bird is only 12 ft away
just saying

An interesting statement. Can I ask have you photographed many perched birds let alone a smaller bird like a Kingfisher?

They can take flight very suddenly & more rapidly than one might imagine.......hence higher shutter speeds can be desirable to catch a moment of takeoff flight.

As for the distance (camera to bird) what FL would you recommend and have found works well for you?

 

[pooley]

Dale,

What you're seeing is posterization. Its not noise per se, and its especially prevalent in fairly solid green or very dark backgrounds, especially when they're underexposed,

Not a lot you can do about it once you've resized and reduced to a jpeg. Most PP work will only make it worse.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

Don't sweat, its 'one of those things'

Mike

 

[snerkler]

1000 sec shutter speed for a sitting bird seems a tad high to me
you don't need a long lens if the bird is only 12 ft away
just saying

I disagree, head movement can require fast shutter speeds and at 12ft with a 600mm lens I doubt a kingfisher fills the frame. I’ve shot blue tits from 8ft away with a 600mm lens and they didn’t fill the frame.

 

[woof woof]

I disagree, head movement can require fast shutter speeds and at 12ft with a 600mm lens I doubt a kingfisher fills the frame. I’ve shot blue tits from 8ft away with a 600mm lens and they didn’t fill the frame.

Yup.

 

[Dale.]

No prob, happy to help. And no, not cropped, SD card straight into laptop and uploaded. In my experience the siggy looks great in the viewfinder but can disappoint on the monitor. It works well on my youngest's 80d, is pretty ropey on my 7D and, as you can see is "alright" on my 5D (this site does seem to soften images).

I've looked at loads of images on the birds pics messages and have thought to myself "I wouldn't be proud of that" and yet folks say "great shot!" so it clearly depends on whether you're looking for a "record" shot (the recent cattle egret thread is a great example) or a money shot for a book etc.

A 600 f4 is out of my justification zone but a 300 or new 100-400 and 2x might be but yet I like the siggy, it's beautifully built but needs a lot of help/light/luck/user.

Thanks.

Now you mention it, the Sigma does seem happier on my M5, which is the same sensor as the 80D, I believe.

Have you tried Topazlabs denoise?

I did but found it a little clunky, my PC is 5 years old, which didn't help. To be fair, I didn't give it a fair go as I didn't have the time to sit and wait for it to work it's magic then. I've heard it's excellent though, I wouldn't rule it out and I may re visit that option.

Are you sharpening? If so, are you applying it to the whole image, because that will introduce noise, which will be most noticeable in even toned area like your background.
If this is your problem try applying the sharpening, selectively,only to the bird.

Good call.

Only sharpening is in Lightroom but that will be globally of course. I may dial it back to 0 as it's set at 15 by default and use the radial tool on the subject instead.

1000 sec shutter speed for a sitting bird seems a tad high to me
you don't need a long lens if the bird is only 12 ft away
just saying

Nope, 1000 sec is the minimum of where I'd want to be to be honest. That said, later in the day, I'm down to 1/250sec sometimes as the light is erratic at times on site. Even pushing the ISO to 6400, at f6.3 on the Sigma can result in 250/sec or slower. I have to take what I can reasonably get.

Straight off the camera at 600mm. I'd maybe revise the distance as I haven't measured it but it's 15-18 feet at most.

An interesting statement. Can I ask have you photographed many perched birds let alone a smaller bird like a Kingfisher?

They can take flight very suddenly & more rapidly than one might imagine.......hence higher shutter speeds can be desirable to catch a moment of takeoff flight.

As for the distance (camera to bird) what FL would you recommend and have found works well for you?

Yup , even perched and still, it only takes a breath of wind to blur the feathers.

Dale,

What you're seeing is posterization. Its not noise per se, and its especially prevalent in fairly solid green or very dark backgrounds, especially when they're underexposed,

Not a lot you can do about it once you've resized and reduced to a jpeg. Most PP work will only make it worse.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm

Don't sweat, its 'one of those things'

Mike

Thanks Mike, steadying the ship.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks.

Now you mention it, the Sigma does seem happier on my M5, which is the same sensor as the 80D, I believe.




I did but found it a little clunky, my PC is 5 years old, which didn't help. To be fair, I didn't give it a fair go as I didn't have the time to sit and wait for it to work it's magic then. I've heard it's excellent though, I wouldn't rule it out and I may re visit that option.



Good call.

Only sharpening is in Lightroom but that will be globally of course. I may dial it back to 0 as it's set at 15 by default and use the radial tool on the subject instead.





Nope, 1000 sec is the minimum of where I'd want to be to be honest. That said, later in the day, I'm down to 1/250sec sometimes as the light is erratic at times on site. Even pushing the ISO to 6400, at f6.3 on the Sigma can result in 250/sec or slower. I have to take what I can reasonably get.

Straight off the camera at 600mm. I'd maybe revise the distance as I haven't measured it but it's 15-18 feet at most.

View attachment 328326







Yup , even perched and still, it only takes a breath of wind to blur the feathers.






Thanks Mike, steadying the ship.

That's a lovely image. I'm still yet to see a kingfisher let alone be lucky enough to photography one

 

[Dale.]

That's a lovely image. I'm still yet to see a kingfisher let alone be lucky enough to photography one

Thanks. No processing on those, just sized and converted for here.

 

[Brentor]

I will have a go with Denoise if you would like and are prepared to send me a raw file. I am no expert, but it should give you an idea.

 

[Mike.P]

I had the loan of a Canon R5 a while back and used my Sigma 150-600mm sport on it. Apparently the lens has the same insides as the "C" version, I shot this at ISO 1000 and from what I can remember there was very minimal noise reduction. I would have thought the 5D IV would have been close tbh.


BB7A2584_Jpg by Michael Pursey, on Flickr

 

[GeoffColl]

I could only hope to emulate the quality of these shots! Little wrong with them on my screen!

 

[Joeturner11]

1000 sec shutter speed for a sitting bird seems a tad high to me
you don't need a long lens if the bird is only 12 ft away
just saying

Its one of them, you can use 1/1000 always helps for them sudden movement shots, you never know with wildlife whats going to happen, personally I shoot static shots if I'm after that all the way down to 1/100 to keep that ISO low, even at 500/700mm and still will come out pin sharp. If I'm after the action shots or something different I'll naturally sit higher speed, swings and roundabouts really no right and wrongs in this situation IMHO

 

[Dale.]

Thanks for the replies, once again, very helpful.

@Mike.P, that's very clean. One thing that strikes me is the brighter background, compared to mine. The 'noise' I'm seeing seems to be in darker areas of my images, it's been a bit like too much shadow recovery effect, although I've been reducing the exposure in post.

I could only hope to emulate the quality of these shots! Little wrong with them on my screen!

Thank you.

Its one of them, you can use 1/1000 always helps for them sudden movement shots, you never know with wildlife whats going to happen, personally I shoot static shots if I'm after that all the way down to 1/100 to keep that ISO low, even at 500/700mm and still will come out pin sharp. If I'm after the action shots or something different I'll naturally sit higher speed, swings and roundabouts really no right and wrongs in this situation IMHO

Yup, exactly. I like to be fast as possible, then I can relax a little and just worry about the focus. You're right though, I have photogrpahed birds at 1/100 sec and still had them sharp, you just have to wait for them to freeze, which geenrally, they do, for a second or 2 whilst perched.



I''ve been pondering the noise all weekend. I've decided it's been a combination of a dark, blotchy background, which when compared to exposing for the perch and the whites on the KF, effectively underexposes the background. At ISO 1000 or higher at times, it's not going to help the background with it technically being underexposed. Then, with the crops involved and the PP too, it exacerbates it, then uploading anywhere exacerbates it even more. I think this is what causes the posterization, which is actually what I'm seeing, not 'noise' as such.

I've had my wobble, I'm, not going to worry about it anymore, I'll concentrate now on improving my background and exposure and , which will be a challenge at a heavily overgrown river bank but that's part of the fun. I think a new appoach to PP will help too.