So what did we do wrong?

Prezwoodz · February 3, 2009

Hello!

Recently John and I took photo's at a military ball. We rented a strobe kit from a local photography shop and got a free backdrop since we didn't have one of our own.

During the photo tests we noticed a lot of noise but couldn't figure out quite how to get rid of it! I am not sure, did we have bad settings? Was it the backdrop? The lighting?

We used a canon 40d and a EF-S17-85mm f4-5.6 IS Canon lens.

Exposure:1/250 sec at f / 9.0
Focal Length: 22mm
ISO: 160

We shot in Raw.

We had 3 lights firing with a main umbrella light, a secondary light and a back light. Were New to this. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

jbakerphoto · February 3, 2009

Prezwoodz wrote:

ISO: 160

I have been told in the past (Thanks Ziggy) that shotting in the in between ISO's will cause more noise. Actually here is the link
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=110721

Not sure if that is it or not but it is a start.....

Jon

bmoreshooter · February 3, 2009

noise
Can you be more specific about the noise. I'm not sure I see what you are seeing. The picture appears a bit flat and out of focus to me. Try sharpening and adjusting levels in photoshop to see if that helps.

codiac2600 · February 3, 2009

It looks really really soft... I'm not sure what happened here but are all the shots like this? What did you use to trigger the lights? Sync cord, Pocket Wizards, other?

What focus setup did you use? Center point, auto or choose your own?

This is puzzling IMO because with strobes you should get crisper results with much less shadow noise...

Swartzy · February 3, 2009

This looks very similar to a shot leaving the IS on when camera is mounted on a tripod...which is a no no. Yes, some Canon lenses allow that but am not certain of the 17-55. The 28-135 if mounted, leaving the IS on will produce this look. It appears there is camera shake as would make sense considering the gyro displacement.

dogwood · February 3, 2009

Swartzy wrote:

This looks very similar to a shot leaving the IS on when camera is mounted on a tripod...which is a no no. Yes, some Canon lenses allow that but am not certain of the 17-55.

The 17-55 is a kit lens with no IS, so that's not the issue. But the lens is a cheaper lens so it's not going to shoot as clearly as more expensive L-glass.

Looks to me like your key light is lighting up your background a bit too, which in this case probably isn't a good idea. Either move the light closer to your subjects or the subjects farther from the background.

Also, 22 mm for a portrait?

Yikes. As a rule of thumb, portraits should START at 85 mm (which on your camera will be around 53 mm). Yes, even full body shots. I regularly shoot full body shots at 200 mm when I have the space. But 85 really is the minimum so your subjects appear natural (wider and they tend to get a bit fisheyed).

Finally, are you moving your focus points manually or just relying on the camera? Select a focus point closest to a subjects eye and focus on the eye. That will help.

colourbox · February 3, 2009

What does the uncorrected histogram for this file look like? Was there a lot of empty space on the right side of the uncorrected histogram? Because another way you can get noise, at even the lowest ISO, is to underexpose the image and then boost the brightness in software. You can still get noise no matter how many lights you throw at it if the camera is still underexposing relative to the light level.

leaforte · February 3, 2009

I believe the OP mentioned the EF-S 17-85, which does have IS, not the 17-55 kit lens.

Candid Arts · February 3, 2009

leaforte wrote:

I believe the OP mentioned the EF-S 17-85, which does have IS, not the 17-55 kit lens.

I noticed this too and was hoping someone would mention it.

Would leaving the IS on when tripod mounted cause this affect this badly? I've heard that the "in-between" ISO's can not work as great too, but at 160, I wouldn't imagine that being an issue, at 640 maybe...

System · February 3, 2009

leaforte wrote:

I believe the OP mentioned the EF-S 17-85, which does have IS, not the 17-55 kit lens.

Canon doesn't make a 17-55 EF-S lens without IS. Also since it's one of Canon's EF-S lenses, 85mm is 85mm, not 53. They do bundle a 18-55 non-IS lens though.

Swartzy · February 3, 2009

I had a typo....I meant 17-85 IS and am convinced this is the issue. IS was left on and mounted. It is possible the focus point never picked it up anywhere on the entire photo but it is hard to believe that at least something in the frame would be in focus....apparently nothing is and why I believe it is due to the IS.

Sam · February 3, 2009

While the image is soft, I was able to sharpen it up some.

Sam

System · February 3, 2009

MagicKiwi wrote:

Canon doesn't make a 17-55 EF-S lens without IS. Also since it's one of Canon's EF-S lenses, 85mm is 85mm, not 53. They do bundle a 18-55 non-IS lens though.

Oh yeah, also the 17-55 EF-S/IS isn't a cheap lens. It costs in the same price range as L series lenses and the glass compares favorably to the L lenses.

Prezwoodz · February 3, 2009

Thank you for all the great responses! We really are newbies to this type of photography!

We did have Image Stabilizer on! Doh! Would it effect it this badly? Although I look at my camera now and it says the IS is off. So I don't know if we had it on the whole time or not!

Also we had center focus and it was focused on the person about waistish or so.

I'll make sure to remember not to have it at 22mm next time!

dogwood · February 3, 2009

MagicKiwi wrote:

Oh yeah, also the 17-55 EF-S/IS isn't a cheap lens. It costs in the same price range as L series lenses and the glass compares favorably to the L lenses.

Well my mistake on the lens and the IS. The IS is most likely the culprit here.

And $1000 is cheap for a f2.8 L glass lens. But the 17-55 isn't L glass and according to the OP, it's not a 2.8 lens either.

I'm also convinced that an EFS lens is simply "cheap" because it only works on certain, cropped sensor cameras. Why spend a grand for a lens that doesn't even work on many Canon bodies?

Drop another $300 and you can get something that is more useful should you ever decide a FF camera is the way to shoot. Guess I meant cheap as in cheap in terms of all around usefulness.

Also-- Magickiwi, the 40D has a 1.6 crop so that means the 35 mm equivalent lens at 85mm lens is actually happens at 53mm. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Candid Arts · February 3, 2009

MagicKiwi wrote:

Oh yeah, also the 17-55 EF-S/IS isn't a cheap lens. It costs in the same price range as L series lenses and the glass compares favorably to the L lenses.

Yes, but once again we are not talking about this lens. The lens in question is the 17-85 f/4-5.6.

MagicKiwi wrote:

Also since it's one of Canon's EF-S lenses, 85mm is 85mm, not 53.

This is not true. A 17-85mm EF-S lens has the effective focal length of a 27.2-136mm lens on a full frame body. The "-S" in the EF-S line up refers to the mount and has no affect on the focal length.

I am extremely surprised that leaving the IS on when tripod mounted created that much of a problem. I really need to be more conscious of this when shooting on my tripod. It makes complete sense, but it's still crazy that it has that much of an affect. I really wish there was a sensor that knew when it was attached on all lenses, because this is a situation that most people don't know about (referring to needing to turn IS off when on a tripod).

Scott_Quier · February 3, 2009

These comments were written before reading the entire thread so some of it may be duplicate of what has already been stated.

There's a little noise in his jacket, but not much. It might have been generated during post - depending on how much you had to boost the exposure.

This shot is hugely OOF - focus is on the backdrop. It looks like your attempt at sharpening solved some of this. Did you do any sharpening in your PP?

You shot this at 22mm - that would explain why his shoes and the backdrop behind them are in focus but the faces aren't.

For next time:

Make sure you can get enough room such that you can shoot this at something closer to 30mm - 40mm. That'll give you a better chance to limit distortion.
More room would be good also so you can better seperate your subjects from the background. That, or use a different (darker?) color background and don't throw so much light on it.
Your two front lights appear to be supplying the same amount of light onto your subject. It's better if you key is a 1 to 2 stops brighter than your fill. Key light would be at an angle to the camera-subject line.
Fill would/could be near your camera position. It's function is to soften, but not completely eliminate, the shadows created by the key light. This gives depth to the features of your subjects.
You had good aperture, but because you were so close to your subjects, your depth of field was quite shallow and was, thus, unable to over-come the fact that your focus was on the backdrop.
A slight change in her posture and foot position could be used to better flatter her. Easy to find suggestions - google is your friend.
I'm thinking your clients would be just as happy with a 3/4 shot and that would be a lot easier to accomplish in cramped quarters.

That should be enough of a beating

Scott_Quier · February 3, 2009

dogwood wrote:

Well my mistake on the lens and the IS. The IS is most likely the culprit here.

And $1000 is cheap for a f2.8 L glass lens. But the 17-55 isn't L glass and according to the OP, it's not a 2.8 lens either.

I'm also convinced that an EFS lens is simply "cheap" because it only works on certain, cropped sensor cameras. Why spend a grand for a lens that doesn't even work on many Canon bodies? Drop another $300 and you can get something that is more useful should you ever decide a FF camera is the way to shoot. Guess I meant cheap as in cheap in terms of all around usefulness.

Also-- Magickiwi, the 40D has a 1.6 crop so that means the 35 mm equivalent lens at 85mm lens is actually happens at 53mm. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The glass in the 17-55 is "L" quality - really it is. What is missing and what makes it not and "L" is the build quality and the "-S" designation. I have some of both ("L" and non-"L") lenses and, seriously, can not tell the difference between shots from my 17-55, 24-105 f/4L IS, or my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

As for working on only "certain, cropped sensor cameras" - yes, this is correct, but from numbers count that's not a huge problem.

When/if one moves to FF, selling a good condition 17-55 will be an easy task - they are in demand.

Candid Arts wrote:

I am extremely surprised that leaving the IS on when tripod mounted created that much of a problem. I really need to be more conscious of this when shooting on my tripod. It makes complete sense, but it's still crazy that it has that much of an affect. I really wish there was a sensor that knew when it was attached on all lenses, because this is a situation that most people don't know about (referring to needing to turn IS off when on a tripod).

They say the IS get's confused when it doesn't sense lens movement. There are some IS lenses that can sense that they are on tripod and dis-able themselves. I've seen the effect in a couple (or more) of my images when I forget.

Prezwoodz · February 3, 2009

Thanks for the wonderous beating! I think all the great comments in this thread will help us out for sure next time!

Scott_Quier wrote:

These comments were written before reading the entire thread so some of it may be duplicate of what has already been stated.

There's a little noise in his jacket, but not much. It might have been generated during post - depending on how much you had to boost the exposure.

This shot is hugely OOF - focus is on the backdrop. It looks like your attempt at sharpening solved some of this. Did you do any sharpening in your PP?

You shot this at 22mm - that would explain why his shoes and the backdrop behind them are in focus but the faces aren't.

For next time:
Make sure you can get enough room such that you can shoot this at something closer to 30mm - 40mm. That'll give you a better chance to limit distortion.

More room would be good also so you can better seperate your subjects from the background. That, or use a different (darker?) color background and don't throw so much light on it.

Your two front lights appear to be supplying the same amount of light onto your subject. It's better if you key is a 1 to 2 stops brighter than your fill. Key light would be at an angle to the camera-subject line.

Fill would/could be near your camera position. It's function is to soften, but not completely eliminate, the shadows created by the key light. This gives depth to the features of your subjects.

You had good aperture, but because you were so close to your subjects, your depth of field was quite shallow and was, thus, unable to over-come the fact that your focus was on the backdrop.

A slight change in her posture and foot position could be used to better flatter her. Easy to find suggestions - google is your friend.

I'm thinking your clients would be just as happy with a 3/4 shot and that would be a lot easier to accomplish in cramped quarters.

That should be enough of a beating

Prezwoodz · February 3, 2009

I am curious about camera positioning. What is the best height to use when taking these types of photographs? we had the camera about chest height to ourselves and it really didn't move. Should we adjust for the height of the person? Is there a general rule?

We had tons of room at the last one we just didn't really know how to set it up. It was quite the great learning experience.

DoctorIt · February 3, 2009

There's a lot of talk about the focus here, but not a lot of response on why an ISO as low as 160 is generating that much noise.

You can learn better technique, sure, but that kind of noise is either some sort of camera sensor issue or some really weird post-processing.

pathfinder · February 3, 2009

I agree, Eric. ISO 160 should be grainless, and I don't really believe 160 is much worse than 100. I rarely use intermediate ISOs, but when I do I can't really notice a difference, despite Ziggy's link.

The lens focused on the backdrop, that is certain. The couple was too close to the backdrop as well; if they had stood 5 feet farther from the backdrop there would be a greater lighting difference between subject and backdrop. IS may have contributed, but the basic defect is mis-focusing.

I am curious about the RAW processing, if the sensor is not damaged in some way.

Did I miss a link to the original file? I can't seem to find it in Kelsey's gallery.

WingsOfLovePhoto · February 3, 2009

Does anyone know if the Nikon VR is also the same for having it on a tripod with the VR on and getting a noise like phenomenon? That would explain what happened with a shoot I posted for help a while back. Ugh...Thanks for bring this up! Learning Learning Learning something new everyday!

Scott_Quier · February 4, 2009

pathfinder wrote:

I agree, Eric. ISO 160 should be grainless, and I don't really believe 160 is much worse than 100. I rarely use intermediate ISOs, but when I do I can't really notice a difference, despite Ziggy's link.

The lens focused on the backdrop, that is certain. The couple was too close to the backdrop as well; if they had stood 5 feet farther from the backdrop there would be a greater lighting difference between subject and backdrop. IS may have contributed, but the basic defect is mis-focusing.

I am curious about the RAW processing, if the sensor is not damaged in some way.

Did I miss a link to the original file? I can't seem to find it in Kelsey's gallery.

Here's a link to the original of the first image. I'm looking at it right now, blown up to 100% and 200% and I don't see any noise issue. There's a little bit in the darker colors of her gown and in his pants and jacket and a very small amount in the skin tones. I think there's a sense of noise due to the texture of the background.

bmoreshooter · February 4, 2009

Well, we've prettymuch beat this to death but the bottom line is that we can not judge a picture for noise if it's not in focus to begin with. If you view this shot in PS with just a little focusing filter it looks fine. As for noise, ISO noise shows up as graininess at high settings and also creates color shifting and contrast issues in deep shadow areas, not focus issues.
I do not use any IS lenses except on my video cameras so I can not really comment on that except to say, if your working with studio lighting and a tripod there is really no need for it. I veiw IS as an unnecessary crutch. If you follow proper basic camera handling techniques you should not need it. Try shooting for awhile with your camera set to manual focus, manual exposure and no IS. I think you'll love it. Manual focusing may resolved this whole issue to begin with. (set and forget it)

zoomer · February 4, 2009

Underexposed, not enough light from the flashes.
These look like blur from too low of a shutter speed.

Sorry if I missed something in previous posts, did not have time to read them all.

So what did we do wrong?

Comments