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

Photo67 wrote:

Hi! I made a trip to Alaska this summer and I'm sooo disappointed that many of my images are not usable. I'm a full time photographer specializing in nature and wildlife. I've got decades of experience, starting with slide film. However, my results from this past trip have me stumped. So many of my brown bear images have an odd result.

The cub on the left appears sharp (although wet, because of course it was raining). The cub on the right, especially the face, shows the issue I'm having. Some of the images lose their sharpness and look more painterly. I can't print this large and have it look good. It's not blur from movement, it's not exposure. I've never had results like this before, so I'm assuming its either the R5 or the lens. I did originally have the IS settings wrong when I first started shooting, and sadly many of my distant images are not usable. After a bit of research, I found I had the tab on the lens on the wrong IS setting. However, I still can't figure out this issue. Especially, when most parts of the image are sharp.

Has anyone run into this? Or does anyone have any thoughts? I'd be so incredibly grateful if I could find a fix, but I fear that's too much to ask.

PS I am new to zooms. My fav lens has always been my 500 f4.0. Also, these are hand held, but at higher ISO, in case that matters.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

From what we can see, the following is true:
.
* The lens stated is not reflected in the EXIF data.
* I don't feel that the IS was the problem here.
* The high resolution R5 sensor should be capable of resolving detail.
* The image 'appears' to have been tightly cropped.
* The image shows an aperture of f/9.
* The image appears to have been subjected to strong Noise Reduction.
* The image appears to be overexposed.
* The image was shot with an unusually high ISO 6400 (which would be fine if a Circular Polarizer was used).  Without a CPL, the high ISO and exposure setting will likely produce some less than ideal looking grass and highlights in this scene.
.
My only thought is that the exposure was cranked down or up, resulting in the photographer being forced to reduce the aperture and raise the ISO to keep the shutter speed up at a "safe" range.  Now I've used high ISO settings of 6400 but usually only in shadow or overcast weather when the light was less than ideal and I was using a filter to avoid overexposing highlights.  The foreground details show blown-out highlights and I simply feel that the image looks over brightened.  The high ISO is a clue but the narrower aperture suggests another influencing factor might be at play.
.
I'd have used a CPL or ND filter, shot at f/7 (if indeed shooting with the RF 100-500L) or less (depending on the light).  I'd have used Auto ISO (or at least a much lower ISO setting).  The grass and foliage often reflect a lot of light from certain angles at certain times of the day, so I'd be inclined to definitely be using a CPL filter to reduce that effect.  The bears do look like noise-reduction outside of the camera was used, during post processing.  The file type matters little because this camera produces beautiful JPEGs that can match a well edited RAW file.  So assuming the image hasn't been overcorrected in editing, there's not much more than can be suggested.
.
Here's what I think happened (regardless of the lens used):
Canon metering is pretty decent.  The lenses used (whether EF 100-400L II or RF 100-500) produce excellent results and a nearly identical image to one another.  The R5 and R6 (which I use) have the same available settings and produce the same results when viewing the images at the same size.  But an ergonomics issue with some DSLRs (which probably affects the R-system cameras in the same way) means that when shooting and turning the dials on the rear (or activating the M-Fn selector switch simultaneously), it is/was possible to accidentally dial the Manual Exposure Compensation and the Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) up or down without realizing it, resulting in an overbright or overdarkened scene.  I've done this myself on DSLRs.  This forces the user to select unfavorable ISO and Aperture settings which can then indeed produce the results shown whilst trying to compensate for what might seem to be whatever is needed to get the scene to look normal on the LCD.  You tend to only notice this has happened when reviewing images later on the viewfinder display or when glancing down at the screen.  When this happens, the same issue should appear with all the photographs taken up until the users resets the settings or notices the problem.

Thanks for posting the full image, however I think the real culprit here is Topaz denoise used in auto mode.   It can introduce unsightly artefacts in isolated parts of an image, and is best used carefully, or with masking, or as a layer in Photoshop, with careful scrutiny of the results.  I do not agree with an earlier post suggesting “the R5 is a noisy beast” - my experience has been the opposite.  Also doing RAW conversion in Adobe ACR or LR without careful masking can also make things worse. If the noise in the original raw file is a problem, my personal suggestion is to try DXO Photolab with Deep Prime noise reduction, which is available as a free trial.  You may get a much better result.  The R5 with an EF 100-400 L ii should give great results capable of cropping to about 18MP without sacrificing much image quality even at high ISOs.  Mine certainly did (in poor UK light), though i have since traded it for the 100-500.

if you’re happy to share an unedited RAW file, try a Dropbox link.

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.

Photo67 wrote:

thank you.

You're very welcome.

You can't crop an ISO 6400, 45mp photo down to 3mp and expect to see greatness.

I would have shot that closer to f/5.6 and 1/800 which would probably result in ISO 1600 (assuming the original was metered correctly). I would still not expect to be able to whittle the picture down to your crop, fill my 27" 4k monitor, and count the bears' eyelashes.

Photo67 wrote:

ok folks. Thanks for all the thoughts so far. 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.

My advice, don't spend too much time trying to save a photo like this. While the moment had opportunities, it looks to have been missed in camera. I generally give a questionable shot a run through noise reduction and then the required crop and make a judgement call on whether its worth spending any more time on.

As far as what you could have done better in the field, I would have shot it wide open at 5.6 allowing a lower ISO. Additionally, I would have further lowered the overall exposure by a third or two, getting me down to around 1600 ISO. F/5.6 would have been plenty of DOF at around 30-60 feet worth at what I estimate to be a 200-300 foot distance. That would have essentially cured the noise issue, but it still leaves a massive crop.

Massive crops are the death of many good shots. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this is a classic example of trying to put make-up on a pig. I've done it too, and will likely do it again. But you just have to accept, 9 times out of 10 it isn't going to work out.

BTW, I'm jealous. Would have loved to make that trip. Better luck next time.