problems with studio shooting at F18

[elffinarts]

click on the images for full sized versions:
[url=http://www.gallery.elffinarts.com/albums/userpics/10001/Imogen_armed_and_dangerous_by_elffinarts.jpg]
[/url]

[url=http://www.gallery.elffinarts.com/albums/userpics/10001/More_of_Imogen_and_Marie_by_elffinarts.jpg]
[/url]

I cant figure it... a lot of my shots from Saturday night ended up seeming noisy through the black/darker greys despite being shooting RAW at ISO200, more than enough light, and shooting at f18-f20. I dont usually have this happen with the raw conversion. White balance and exposure settings were nearly untouched as they were nearly spot on.

Lighting was two 160w/sec strobes plus modelling lamps both outputting at full power with umbrella reflectors just 3metres from the models.

Asides from that, I had a really fun shoot with these two girls. Imogen (top pic) was having her first ever shoot, and Marie (RHS on the lower pic) has modelled for me a couple of times before and is a veteran in comparison. They're close friends and we all had a really silly crazy time.

[vort]

They look fine to me! But f18-20?! You don't need that for landscapes, let alone portraits in a studio!

Nonethless, they are some fantastic shots. I love the reds. Perhaps try adjusting the contrast slightly to give them a bit more oomph.

Excellent work and gorgeous models

[Nnnnsic]

I'm not seeing much noise at all.

That said, I haven't calibrated my monitor in quite a while so it might be my screen.

Nice pictures and hot girls, though. ( )

[elffinarts]

re: the grain I perceive, perhaps I should get some flat dark colour in photoshop and see if it's just this new lcd screen.

as for the high fstops. with such a small studio (I easily can touch the ceiling) I am getting better results with the strobes up full and using these settings than I was when going for short depth of field and less light. I often have one model behind the other and yet wanted to keep them both in focus. At this distance, more light and high f-stops is my only option.

these shots had a bit more contrast but - I really needed to notch down the contrast a bit to keep highlights through the hair visible and while not wanting to sound esorteric here, with the lower shot I felt the lower contrast seemed to hold more appealing feminine energy and a more inviting feel.

Getting exposure right when shooting such deep blacks and such pale skin is my constant studio challenge. Most of my clients are after this look and it's one of the hardest things I try to do. It's a good thing I enjoy the challenge.

[Oneputt]

Mark the noise (if there) is not noticeable on my screen either, however when viewed in a larger size the edges of the girls arms are very ragged

[PiroStitch]

no noise there Mark. Love the lighting and tones in the pic tho.

Oneputt - Put your mouse over the larger version and you may see a resize button pop up. If it does, click on the button

[wendellt]

can't see much noise
could it be the fact that your shooting around f20?
doesn't that cause some sort of defraction effect?

excellent shoot by the way i like the red, the lighting design and the engaging poses

[Mitchell]

could it be the fact that your shooting around f20?
doesn't that cause some sort of defraction effect?

It is possible that the softness is diffraction (I think that's what you meant Wendell) if you are shooting with such a small aperture...

For those interested - here is a page that gives some explanation and also shows how many pixels the airey disc covers for different cameras

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

[gstark]

Mark,

I'm also not seeing any noise here. Were there any to be seen - and as you've noted - I'd be looking in the darker areas, such as (in the first image) either the background, or perhaps in the lower section of the model's side/back, which is where, in this image, this would be evident.

Typically, noise is evident where there's under-exposure in the image, and I don't think this is the case in these two images. What do the histograms look like in the images you're concerned about?

By way of contrast, and rather than noise, your depth of field even allows focus on the hair's on the model's forearm where she's holding the gun, so this is actually a good thing.

In the second image though, I think the colour balance is off, and there's a bit too much cyan in the mix here. I appreciate that you're probably trying to acheive a certain look here, and while you've achieved that in the first image, the second one doesn't have that same feel, at least in terms of the colour. The best way for you to assess this would probably be to take the larger vesions of the two images, side by side, and compare the colours of the face of the model who's in both images. It's subtle, but it's quite different.

And yes, an underexposed image can sometimes cause shifts on the colour balance.

[Michael]

Hey I see imogen!

I'd like to see the skin a little brighter though other then that the concept is very cool.

[elffinarts]

Mark,

I'm also not seeing any noise here. Were there any to be seen - and as you've noted - I'd be looking in the darker areas, such as (in the first image) either the background, or perhaps in the lower section of the model's side/back, which is where, in this image, this would be evident.

Typically, noise is evident where there's under-exposure in the image, and I don't think this is the case in these two images. What do the histograms look like in the images you're concerned about?

By way of contrast, and rather than noise, your depth of field even allows focus on the hair's on the model's forearm where she's holding the gun, so this is actually a good thing.

In the second image though, I think the colour balance is off, and there's a bit too much cyan in the mix here. I appreciate that you're probably trying to acheive a certain look here, and while you've achieved that in the first image, the second one doesn't have that same feel, at least in terms of the colour. The best way for you to assess this would probably be to take the larger vesions of the two images, side by side, and compare the colours of the face of the model who's in both images. It's subtle, but it's quite different.

And yes, an underexposed image can sometimes cause shifts on the colour balance.

You're right on the whitebalance being off. Stand alone I love how the whitebalance messed with it, but next to the other shot of Imogen, it's really obvious. I hadn't noticed while posting... but now.. tempted to adjust it.

The histograms were both nice and wide without clipping so I was happy with them

I've figured out the noise is this new monitor. It seems to be oversharpening the viewed image at 1680x1024 resolution. (BenQ 20" unit)

[DionM]

As you have guessed, it is your LCD screen. I have noticed it exaggerates that fact sometimes. Having said that, I see none at present on my Benq 19".

[Steffen]

I can't see any objectionable noise either.

One thing, my RAW converter (bibble) defaults to applying "auto levels", kind of AE after the fact, trying to nicely place the histogram. Most of the time it doesn't change much (as you'd expect). However, in cases were the camera (or I) underexposed the image for any reason, and "auto levels" thinks it needs to be lightened a bit, it can bring out noise in darker areas.

I've changed the default to "auto levels" off...

Cheers
Steffen.

[elffinarts]

As you have guessed, it is your LCD screen. I have noticed it exaggerates that fact sometimes. Having said that, I see none at present on my Benq 19".

I'll give the monitor a few tests of lower resolutions to see if it's the running it at 1680x1024 that is messing with it.
Am I the only one seeing noise in the border of the logo?

[elffinarts]

I can't see any objectionable noise either.

One thing, my RAW converter (bibble) defaults to applying "auto levels", kind of AE after the fact, trying to nicely place the histogram. Most of the time it doesn't change much (as you'd expect). However, in cases were the camera (or I) underexposed the image for any reason, and "auto levels" thinks it needs to be lightened a bit, it can bring out noise in darker areas.

I've changed the default to "auto levels" off...

Cheers
Steffen.

I'm using RAW Shooter Pro or CS2 and I do not use auto levels on anything. (having noticed the same issues previously)

[gstark]

I'll give the monitor a few tests of lower resolutions to see if it's the running it at 1680x1024 that is messing with it.

Mark,

Is you monitor a widescreen one? That's a widescreen resolution. FWIW, I'm running my laptop (a wirdescreen) at 1680 x 1050 with no issues.

IME, if you're running at an odd resolution for the monitor to hadle, then everything gets distorted as the image gets scaled for that resolution - the Winders bootup screen on this machine is distorted, for instance.

Perhaps that's the answer?

[DionM]

IME, if you're running at an odd resolution for the monitor to hadle, then everything gets distorted as the image gets scaled for that resolution - the Winders bootup screen on this machine is distorted, for instance.

Perhaps that's the answer?

That'd be my suggestion.

LCDs work best at their native resolution. Anything else looks bad.

[Grev]

Am I the only one seeing noise in the border of the logo?

Nope, I see the noise as well, it's quite obvious actually...

[elffinarts]

I just double checked my settings and the res I mentioned wasn't correct as this is running at 1680 x 1050. That is it's native resolution.

I'll give the monitor a few tests of lower resolutions to see if it's the running it at 1680x1024 that is messing with it.

Mark,

Is you monitor a widescreen one? That's a widescreen resolution. FWIW, I'm running my laptop (a wirdescreen) at 1680 x 1050 with no issues.

IME, if you're running at an odd resolution for the monitor to hadle, then everything gets distorted as the image gets scaled for that resolution - the Winders bootup screen on this machine is distorted, for instance.

Perhaps that's the answer?