Underexposure, ISO 400, and noise in the shadows

[ckchen72]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everybody!

 

I know I've been reading a lot about the M9 and underexposure, and I have to agree I think it underexposes by about 1/2 to a full stop. I know it's an easy correction now, but I have some shots at iso 400 that when I tried to get the shadow detail back, I end up getting a lot more noise than I expected.

 

Any recommendations for postprocessing to reduce the noise? I had to increase the exposure almost by 1 1/2 stops. Jamie Roberts I would love your advice on this!! Noise Ninja? or other actions in photoshop? It's an important image to me!!!

 

Calvin

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ckchen72]

After doing more reading, I am really starting to get worried about the M9's handling of ISO 400, noise, and shadow detail. Sorry I am still using ACR and photoshop cs3. But in these 2 images, the first, with the boy in the foreground I am getting so much noise as I try to increase the exposure. Would noise Ninja be the best? At least this is understandable since I underexposed the original image.

 

However, with the boy jumping, there is almost a complete lack of detail in his legs. The boy himself looks almost completely "digitized" and this was shot at ISO 160!! Is there anyway to get any of this back?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Ecar]

I'm afraid there's no magic cure for captures where the original exposure was way off.

However, when it comes to handling noise, Lightroom 3 beta (and the corresponding latest ACR version) do a much better job than previous releases. You may want to try that.

[asfeir]

I'm afraid there's no magic cure for captures where the original exposure was way off.

However, when it comes to handling noise, Lightroom 3 beta (and the corresponding latest ACR version) do a much better job than previous releases. You may want to try that.

 

Fully agree. I rarely use Noise Ninja now since Lightroom 3 has been around. It does an excellent job with noise in darker zones.

[Jamie Roberts]

Hey Calvin,

 

I know this is going to sound weird, but I think the black point on your monitor is off. I'm not seeing any adverse noise in the shots you posted. My system is calibrated for print... have you printed these? What sizes and what process?

 

Underexposure with digital is always a problem, but all the RAW converters these days are pretty darn good. Lose ACR 3; get LR 3 or C1 V5... they're years better IMO. Also, ACR and LR set the blackpoint in a really weird way, which messes up midtones, IMO. Not a problem, I guess, if you're doing mostly BW work.

 

As for recovering detail, well, you can't recover what ain't there, and if you fell off the ISO 2500-5000 limit for the M9 it's not going to happen. But you can certainly, in PS, work with the parts of the image you have with intelligent (not automated) dodging and burning techniques. You can even add a little "good" noise to mask the "bad" noise

 

Anyway, you should post a couple of RAW files so we can really see where the exposure is. Use yousendit.com, send it to yourself, then post it here.

 

FWIW, I've found the M9 totally amazing for shadow recovery (compared with the M8). It's not a D3 at higher ISOs, however, I've shot it enough by now to know that it's close enough, with careful processing, for me.

[ckchen72]

Thanks Jamie! I'm sending the files now. I get a discount with CS5 so that is coming. Is ACR in that version (you might not know) the black point off too? How do you adjust the black point in ACR? (I'm not sure I understand the terminology, is that where you just set the black lever? Even if this is off, can't you change it in photoshop, by adjusting the levels?

 

Thanks!!!!

 

Calvin

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jamie! I'm sending the files now. I get a discount with CS5 so that is coming. Is ACR in that version (you might not know) the black point off too? How do you adjust the black point in ACR? (I'm not sure I understand the terminology, is that where you just set the black lever? Even if this is off, can't you change it in photoshop, by adjusting the levels?

 

Thanks!!!!

 

Calvin

 

 

So IIRC ACR (and Lightroom) have this semi-funky way of setting the black point first from the RAW interpretation, and then let you set a black level from that starting point with the "blacks" setting. And of course you can't gain anything "back" in PS with levels, because you've clipped the blacks in RAW already.

 

But in C1, you actually can set the level first, after the RAW file has been interpreted. It's a subtle thing, but it makes a difference (to me) in colour and tonality.

 

Anyway, the main problem with your shot is ACR and your monitor.

 

I pushed the DNGs and the first ISO 160 shot almost 4 stops overall in C1 and there's lots of detail there. Noise? Yes.. but nothing objectionable, and the detail I can pull out of the shadows is pretty amazing. The jumping shot is equally great IMO. I'm seeing no problem here whatsoever.

[plasticman]

Is this a question about noise or is it posterization and/or lack of detail? I see posterization in the shadows - but that may simply be compression artefacts from the jpeg algorithm.

 

In any case, I'd say that posterization is often a greater problem for digital files than noise (imo).

[Jamie Roberts]

Is this a question about noise or is it posterization and/or lack of detail? I see posterization in the shadows - but that may simply be compression artefacts from the jpeg algorithm.

 

In any case, I'd say that posterization is often a greater problem for digital files than noise (imo).

 

You'd be right (posterization is a problem for digital), but in this particular case you're wrong

 

There is no posterization in the shots as posted, and certainly there is NONE in the DNGs (which I'm looking at right now).

 

If you're seeing it, you are seeing 1) the limits of your monitor or 2) your monitor is set up incorrectly for print (the luminance target is either too high or your monitor simply can't show gradients properly).

 

As for lack of detail, I honestly don't see it in the 100% shots, though there is some motion blur on the jump and they're both pretty stopped down, which means they might be passed the diffraction point of the lens).

 

I hate to be so direct on this, honestly, but there is nothing wrong with these shots. Lots of people, though, balk at spending a couple of grand on a proper LCD monitor when they've just dropped $10K on an M system (and no, that's not aimed at you Mani, but it's true nonetheless. The prettiest monitors are not always the best either).

 

Gosh I hate the web for this stuff Browsers only make matters worse.

[plasticman]

I hate to be so direct on this, honestly, but there is nothing wrong with these shots. Lots of people, though, balk at spending a couple of grand on a proper LCD monitor when they've just dropped $10K on an M system (and no, that's not aimed at you Mani, but it's true nonetheless. The prettiest monitors are not always the best either).

 

No problem - I'm sitting at the office on a MacBookPro right now, so not the best monitor.

It really was just a suggestion looking at the posted jpegs, which seemed to have some lack of nuanced detail in the shadow areas.

[Jamie Roberts]

No problem - I'm sitting at the office on a MacBookPro right now, so not the best monitor.

It really was just a suggestion looking at the posted jpegs, which seemed to have some lack of nuanced detail in the shadow areas.

 

Yeah, totally makes sense... the apparent lack of shadow detail is more likely the level of ACR employed here... the DNGs are great

[mn4367]

... Gosh I hate the web for this stuff Browsers only make matters worse....

 

Don't blame all browsers;)! Newer versions of Safari and Firefox can handle images properly with an embedded color profile. And if you use 16Bit PNG images (no JPEG-like compression artifacts) on your website the claim that the web isn't suitable for judging images is no longer true! But we're probably caught by forum software which reduces to 8Bit and takes away any embedded profiles during uploading. Don't know if L.Camera does this.

[ckchen72]

Thanks for all your help and advice... ahh it really may be time to save up for a nice monitor... I'll blame that on Jamie

 

Calvin

[chris_tribble]

Yeah, totally makes sense... the apparent lack of shadow detail is more likely the level of ACR employed here... the DNGs are great

I'm with Jamie on this... It's amazing how you can get a poor impression of images if your monitor is off....