Unusable images with Canon R5 and 100-500mm RF lens

Photo67 wrote:

This is the unedited version. I think the suggestion of noise reduction software may be the issue.

I don't do much processing at all and only have photoshop, lightroom and was trying DeNoise, but admit I've never used it before and put it on an auto setting. The noise is horrible, and sadly this trip was the first time I used the R5 on a regular basis. Typically, I'm guilty of underexposing, causing additional noise when I try to lighten shadows, so was trying to overexpose a bit w/o blowing out highlights. It was dark and raining, I knew I needed at least f9 to get the three bears as they changed positions, and faster shutter speed because the cubs had been playing. I honestly don't remember using the 100-400mm lens on this trip, but I may have for a few images while I let someone else try out my 100-500. I'll check more of the images too, but I'm thinking it was the noise reduction software. In this image, the cub's face (on the right) appears sharper but horrifically noisy. I hope I will be able to salvage them. Thanks to all who are taking the time to try and help.

OK, here's what we know:

ISO 6400 (manually set, apparently)

Exposure bias 0

1/1250 sec., f/9

Low lighting

It appears to be in crop mode, which means that the bears were even further away than we knew. So a combination of excessively fast shutter, fairly small aperture, and low lighting means low exposure, and that means high noise, which automatically limits detail. Plus, the subjects are rather small in the frame. Limited detail, plus high noise means it's not a good idea to crop heavily.

In addition, it is either overexposed for the chosen ISO setting, or excessively brightened during raw file development. Paradoxically, the exposure is low but it's still way overexposed or overbrightened.

The Maker Note is stripped out of the file (by Photoshop, presumably), so I can't tell how you metered. I'm guessing that you spot metered on a bear, since the bears show up as approximately middle gray, leaving grass and snow grossly overexposed. That was probably a mistake because everything else is badly overexposed.

It would almost certainly have been better in P mode with auto ISO and some kind of averaging or matrix metering (not spot metering). In any case you could have gotten better exposure with a slower shutter speed, and maybe more appropriate metering. That would have helped a lot. The bears would have looked fine with little or no cropping if the image were exposed and developed properly.

Your best chance is if the raw file does happen to show correct exposure but was overly brightened during processing. I suppose there's a chance that the raw file is all right but that you botched the processing.

Actually, it's not so bad as a small picture if you pull the brightness levels back (but don't change the white level--you'll just clip more of the whites).  The backlit edge of mama bear's fur may be beyond recovery, however.

There's a slim chance that miracle software could help somewhat. I don't know if this AI software just makes up details that aren't there, or if it just processes intelligently, but I have sometimes had good luck with resurrecting images using Topaz Sharpen AI.

My recommendation for the future is that you learn to use histograms, both in camera and in processing. This problem could have been prevented.