Reading mode: Light Dark

5D3 + DPP = lack of banding.

Go to last post
R

ron purdy

Senior Member
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
131
Location
NYC, US
I am trying to reproduce the banding which I am seeing on the web.

The ligher shots is exposure at +2 and shadows at +5 in DPP – which is already way more than I ever have to adjust my files.

I can not see any banding in the shadows/black areas – even at this extreme adjustment level.

(tried with several RAW files from imaging-resource.com.)

HOWEVER, I AM USING DIGITAL PHOTO PRO, which no one else seems to be using for their tests.

DPP has always been the best converter IMO for the 5D2 in terms of noise, color accuracy, sharpness, etc., so this is what I use.

I would like someone who is seeing banding to try DPP and get back to us.

Following is one example…



-ron

--

ron purdy dot com
 
It's been my suspicion for a while that the banding issues of the 5d2 and other complaints are caused by inefficient raw converters and all sorts of colour management and monitor issues that crop up time and again ( see the current thread on DPP colours versus Photoshop ). It will be interesting to see wether this thread can throw some light on this.
 
thats great, and you dont have to worry about banding for your use.

you are able to push shadows a lot more in LR. In addition, it appears there is a default denoising involved when you use dpp to push shadows with some loss of detail. third, this test is best done with dark shadows area with detail, not a proper exposure. all that said, if its not applicable to you, then thats great.

I have repeatedly gone back to dpp, hoping to get better images out of it than LR 4.1, with my 5d2 and 5d3, and have repeatedly failed. the sharpening is better, and the noise reduction is better, and control over exposure parameters is far better in LR. I can produce as good if not better results in LR than dpp with any image, and the LR interface is so much better and faster.

the single exception to that is the DLO feature, which would need application of sharpening in a circular gradiant masked fashion.
--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos
 
kevindar, if you have 5D3 files which have banding when jacking up the shadows, I encourage you to process them in DPP and post the results. That would make more sense than just talking about it IMO ;-)

Also, I would argue that the first shot is not a proper exposure. It's under exposed, the black is muddy and blocked up, no?

--

ron purdy dot com
 
Here is a second sample. Shot at ISO 800, 100% crops. (Again, RAW file from imaging-resource.com)

NR is OFF.

Using DPP: Exposure +2 stops, Shadows +5. Again, this is FAR MORE COMPENSATION THAT I HAVE EVER NEEDED in my shooting experience.
No banding that I can detect. What say?



--

ron purdy dot com
 
Again, I have always used Canon's Digital Photo Pro (which is free with the camera) because it is better at processing Canon files than any other app.

--

ron purdy dot com
 
"the sharpening is better, and the noise reduction is better, and control over exposure parameters is far better in LR. I can produce as good if not better results in LR than dpp with any image, and the LR interface is so much better and faster"

I'm sure you are right. You get no bells and whistles in Dpp. It can be akward and clunky but the banding seems much dimished (and it's free). What happens if you convert in Dpp and move on to do any further processing in PS? I just think Dpp knows more about how Canon cook their "raws" then any reengineered converter.
 
marshwader said:
"the sharpening is better, and the noise reduction is better, and control over exposure parameters is far better in LR. I can produce as good if not better results in LR than dpp with any image, and the LR interface is so much better and faster"
Click to expand...
It is not better if it produces banding though, right?
marshwader said:
Dpp and move on to do any further processing in PS? I just think > Dpp knows more about how Canon cook their "raws" then any > reengineered converter.
Click to expand...
This is true.

In my experience - we make a GREAT TIFF using DPP, and then go about editing in Photoshop.
--

ron purdy dot com
 
Can't open your raw. It's flagged up as damaged or corrupted. Try again! The crop is difficult to judge.
 
Horshack, what % zoom are we looking at here?

Turning off the "light optimizer" setting seems to have fixed it - even at +2.

--

ron purdy dot com
 
I think you have the exposure too high, so of course it looks bad. At +1.3 the photo looks great to me, no banding (with Auto Light Optimizer off.)
Try it.

--

ron purdy dot com
 
Same result here Damaged or corrupt. Explain the name of the raw?
 
ron purdy said:
I think you have the exposure too high, so of course it looks bad. At +1.3 the photo looks great to me, no banding (with Auto Light Optimizer off.)
Try it.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. Your OP indicated no banding in DPP even for an "extreme adjustment level". I presented this file as a counter-example, and I don't even consider +2EV anywhere close to extreme.
 
Horshack said:
ron purdy said:
I think you have the exposure too high, so of course it looks bad. At +1.3 the photo looks great to me, no banding (with Auto Light Optimizer off.)
Try it.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. Your OP indicated no banding in DPP even for an "extreme adjustment level". I presented this file as a counter-example, and I don't even consider +2EV anywhere close to > extreme.
Click to expand...
"Extreme" should end up with the file looking good, not blown out like your sample. What is the point in ending up with the image the way you presented it? This is not a contest in who can wreck a RAW file.

I use these cameras in the real world - and when your underexposed image is adjusted to look properly exposed (at +1.3) it looks fine to me . No banding.

Try the settings I suggested.

--

ron purdy dot com
 
marshwader said:
Same result here Damaged or corrupt. Explain the name of the raw?
Click to expand...
The file is named for the seq # in the set it was taken as well as the ISO. Not sure why the file wont download correctly for you - I tried the new link and it worked as well as the first link.
 
ron purdy said:
Horshack said:
ron purdy said:
I think you have the exposure too high, so of course it looks bad. At +1.3 the photo looks great to me, no banding (with Auto Light Optimizer off.)
Try it.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. Your OP indicated no banding in DPP even for an "extreme adjustment level". I presented this file as a counter-example, and I don't even consider +2EV anywhere close to > extreme.
Click to expand...
"Extreme" should end up with the file looking good, not blown out like your sample. What is the point in ending up with the image the way you presented it? This is not a contest in who can wreck a RAW file.

I use these cameras in the real world - and when your underexposed image is adjusted to look properly exposed (at +1.3) it looks fine to me . No banding.

Try the settings I suggested.
Click to expand...
I guess I misunderstood the point of your OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top