Second live gig with the A99ii

I really don't care what anyone says about this camera, it is simply amazing! I am practically speechless. Thank you Sony!

must be pretty liberating to have the option to shoot f5.6 in those lighting conditions!

I would use 2.0 aperture with 85/1.4 and tried to use ISO less than 1600. See similar event http://www.kiwiportal.pl/zdjecia-z-imprez/074-koncert-swiateczny-sgh-2016/

Most photos taken A99ii/Zeiss 85/1.4.

Not a Sony shooter. Just checked in here to see if the translucent mirror robs the A99ii of so much light as to negate the benefits of it being full frame. It clearly doesn't. It's capturing a lot of information at those ISOs but dang that jpeg engine noise reduction does a horrible job on skin. It makes everybody looks like they're wearing thick layers of foundation makeup that has started to crack. Very tempting camera and system (partly for the catalogue of Minolta lenses) but I'd definitely be avoiding jpeg at high isos.

whakapu said:

Not a Sony shooter. Just checked in here to see if the translucent mirror robs the A99ii of so much light as to negate the benefits of it being full frame. It clearly doesn't. It's capturing a lot of information at those ISOs but dang that jpeg engine noise reduction does a horrible job on skin. It makes everybody looks like they're wearing thick layers of foundation makeup that has started to crack. Very tempting camera and system (partly for the catalogue of Minolta lenses) but I'd definitely be avoiding jpeg at high isos.

Click to expand...

yeah

definitely would like to have some of those shots in raw for processing

eh.

One can adjust a lot in the Picture Profile and get a desirable result.

The camera was used in RAW, images converted in Capture One for Sony which I am trying to get used to. In any event, I am trying to learn about the processing side of things and have just started a short evening course on basic CS6 at the local college. Because I'd love to know what some 'experts' are looking at in an image to qualify some comments.

Im glad I posted the images because I have a relative staying with me at the moment who is studying art and design at University. I will let her see the comments posted to date, (she leaves today). We have chatted about images, trends and how to get images actually viewed, (because this is my hobby). She stated it is now becoming normal not to make adjustments to images and spend hours/days adjusting pixels, so the course may be a waste of time and money!

What she has said, as these images were being opened and looked at, was her amazement at their clarity at such a high ISO. Because of her qualification to speak on such matters, then I thought I'd post them. The eye lashes on the right eye of the saxophonist did it for us both.

I am a great believer in the comment that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love the new body and re using it at 1600 and f1.4 (as70), if you haven't done already, check the data on the last two.

I hope the images help people to decide whether or not to upgrade to the new body when and if they get the opportunity. I am so happy I did and with regards to anything else, how does it go......' face, bovvered?'

The photos are nice, but there are a lot of artifacts. How did you process them? I do not use Capture One myself, but perhaps you are being too aggressive with noise reduction or sharpening? Don't kill yourself over it though because you are getting feedback from other photographers who are very technical. Most people don't notice things like photos being out of focus, not sharp enough, too noisy, etc... I think people mostly care about brightness and contrast and possibly vividness, but overall more about what's happening rather than technical details.

I've just looked up the word 'artifact' when used in digital photography, because I didn't know what it meant.

I'll complete this latest evening course at college over the next few weeks and see what I can learn about CS6 and try to see and understand what is happening when adjustments are made in whatever software I use. I may even pay for and complete the next level on the same subject. One thing is for sure, I'll save the images that I like.

They're good pics Mick. Both you and the camera did a good job. It's just a minor technical observation aimed at getting the best out of that lovely camera. Sometimes when reviewers test high ISO they say things like "there is noise but the grain is natural and film like". That's the kind of noise pattern to be aiming for with skin because the human eye knows exactly what skin looks like.

Thank you, I'd love to know where there is a reference so anyone learning can view the pattern that 'experts' aim for. It's certainly what I will be asking the tutor when I get chance, along with how to obtain it, if I wanted to reproduce it. At my present skill level, if I did show an image and an 'expert' thought it met that standard of noise/grain, I would have created it by accident. I put the term 'expert' in this way because, as I have said many times, I believe beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder.

Regarding skin, I think it's not right to ask whether they have applied layers of make up etc, the subject presents themselves as they see fit. I don't like to see people with loads of 'filler' applied to their skin, it looks false to me.

Using the a99 at the gigs, I wouldn't go above 1600 ISO in those conditions with aperture of not more than 2.8. Since buying the a99ii the data shows what I am now happy to set it at after such a short time of use.

Quite a lot of experts add grain/noise in the post image software, I can honestly say I have never done that with any of my images. So why don't they just crank up the ISO?

To have a crack at the last question first. I've not done it but there would be a difference between adding grain as a filmic filter and just raising the ISO. The grain added by a software filter would be programmed to be as pleasing as possible, eg regular, fine, with mainly luminance and no chroma noise. Also by raising ISO you reduce dynamic range and colour depth and can introduce banding. By shooting at low ISO and adding a filter later you're capturing all the information then adding a layer of noise effect in a controlled manner.

I didn't think the performers had layers of cracking makeup, that was just my analogy to describe what the noise reduction artifacts I was seeing looked like.

My computer's graphics card is playing up and will no longer display this at 100% but from what I remember from when this review came out this image showed quite pleasing rendering of the noise. I don't want to start any kind of Canon/Sony fight - I'd buy the Sony out of these two cameras, but if I remember correctly the default jpeg noise reduction looked quite natural. I might have completely misremembered this but take a look at the singer's face and see if it looks more natural. Of course it should always be possible to improve on the jpeg in raw but manufacturers put a lot of thought into their jpeg engines, meaning it's also possible to process raws worse than the sooc jpeg.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/15 look at image 1 of 109, with the singer in the red dress, 8000 ISO. (but again I may be completely wrong about how that image looks, because I can't actually view it now)

I have viewed that image you refer to, the pixels on the female appear to be soft/blurred/out of focus, however you choose to describe them. Is that what is deemed to be achieved? The image does not appear to be blurred, but there again, neither does mine. When I look at the very small catchlight in the right eye of the trumpet player in my first image, those pixels seem to be sharper. Yes, I am using the loupe to view an area of each image we are referring to.

whakapu said:

Not a Sony shooter. Just checked in here to see if the translucent mirror robs the A99ii of so much light as to negate the benefits of it being full frame. It clearly doesn't. It's capturing a lot of information at those ISOs but dang that jpeg engine noise reduction does a horrible job on skin. It makes everybody looks like they're wearing thick layers of foundation makeup that has started to crack. Very tempting camera and system (partly for the catalogue of Minolta lenses) but I'd definitely be avoiding jpeg at high isos.

Click to expand...

Are you looking at 100%? Remember at 100% the photo is gigantic, reduce the size and you won't see it. That said other samples from other photographers at those iso's don't exhibit those artifacts so maybe it's the settings he's using. Too much NR maybe? I always use less than default NR with my jpegs.

After reading the above post from the OP it appears these are RAWs processed with a program he was not familiar with so probably these samples are not representative.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

I've just managed to look at it myself on another computer. The A99 captures a lot more detail. It's losing a third of a stop to the pellicle mirror but it still has a slight edge over the 5D, however I feel that skin of the singer in that Canon image looks more natural. The 5D sample is blurred by noise reduction but, to my eye, the skin of your trumpet player shows false detail. ("false detail" could be another name for artifacts). I think if you were to crop out a patch of face of the 5D singer and your trumpet player and show those to random people everybody would recognise the first one as human skin, whereas some might mistake your sample for some other textured surface. Particularly the section between the eye and the ear. That's the balancing act - to retain as much detail as possible without introducing false detail.

If you're seeing a tutor and have the raw files you might want to invite him/her to have a play. I predict that they'll come up with a processing that we'd both agree look better than either the 5D samples or your initial processing.

I'm not claiming to be an expert btw. I don't have any concert shots as good as yours. I'm just saying that you've got a top grade tool there so you may as well get the very best out of it.

whakapu said:

I've just managed to look at it myself on another computer. The A99 captures a lot more detail. It's losing a third of a stop to the pellicle mirror but it still has a slight edge over the 5D, however I feel that skin of the singer in that Canon image looks more natural. The 5D sample is blurred by noise reduction but, to my eye, the skin of your trumpet player shows false detail. ("false detail" could be another name for artifacts). I think if you were to crop out a patch of face of the 5D singer and your trumpet player and show those to random people everybody would recognise the first one as human skin, whereas some might mistake your sample for some other textured surface. Particularly the section between the eye and the ear. That's the balancing act - to retain as much detail as possible without introducing false detail.

If you're seeing a tutor and have the raw files you might want to invite him/her to have a play. I predict that they'll come up with a processing that we'd both agree look better than either the 5D samples or your initial processing.

I'm not claiming to be an expert btw. I don't have any concert shots as good as yours. I'm just saying that you've got a top grade tool there so you may as well get the very best out of it.

Click to expand...

The trick that Canon applies is to have very little if any tonal/shade separation in the particular color range. This makes every face look nice.

Note: I am no colorist, but that is what I have heard.

Are you saying Canon's algorithm is racist ! Human skin comes in a lot of different colour ranges.

Actually that would not be at all surprising. https://priceonomics.com/how-photography-was-optimized-for-white-skin/

whakapu said:

Are you saying Canon's algorithm is racist ! Human skin comes in a lot of different colour ranges.

Actually that would not be at all surprising. https://priceonomics.com/how-photography-was-optimized-for-white-skin/

Click to expand...

Amazing. What a read. This got me chuckling though.

in 1970s

"When they photographed black citizens for ID purposes, government agents used a model of Polaroid camera with a flash “boost” button. “Black skin absorbs 42% more light. The button boosts the flash exactly 42%," Adam Broomberg, a photographer, explained."

Fast Forward to 2013

"In contrast, cinematographer Daniel Patterson told the The Washington Postthat in shooting Spike Lee’s “Da Sweet Blood of Jesus,” in 2013, he was able to easily film actors with dramatically different skin tones in a nighttime interior scene. “I just changed the wattage of the bulb, used a dimmer, and I didn’t have to use any film lights,” He told the Post. “That kind of blew me away. The camera was able to hold both of them during the scene without any issues.”

Boosting light is a problem, but dimming is not?

LOL

whakapu said:

Are you saying Canon's algorithm is racist ! Human skin comes in a lot of different colour ranges.

Click to expand...

I don't know about Canon's algorithms, but I have definitely had to process photos differently when a performer's skin is darker, particularly if the lighting is poor and the background is better lit than they are. It's not a "problem" per se, just something I make a point of paying attention to, either dropping my shutter speed just a little, or timing my shots according to when they might move into the path of a stage light.









--
Want a roXplosion!?

Thank you for your comment, I hope to gain knowledge from this short evening college course about how adjustments affect images and just what is happening within the file so that I understand.

Returning to my image(s) and comparing them to the others. The venue where I normally go to see bands play is not 'The Ritz'. Your feet stick to the floor, the lighting is quite often almost zero and if it is on, then it is moving and I suspect different types of filament lamps are being used re white balance. Had I tried to create, certainly the first image, with the A99, then I know I would not have posted it. I doubt I would even have tried!

I love the genre of music I choose to go to and having paid for entry I can use my cameras with no hassle, respecting other people who have paid to go in. No photographers pit. I am SO happy with the results from the A99ii, I honestly believe my images can now be compared alongside those of the pro's who go their using their Canikons. I have tried to speak with them in the past but I've been snubbed, so I carry on and try to learn by contributing to forums like this and reading any constructive replies that may be posted.