[Kate McCullough]

Hi. So I'm having some trouble with noise and I'm thinking it's probably because I underexposed the images in the first place, but not sure how to avoid it next time. I've never had a problem before and always shoot in manual. I photographed a pre-prom dinner on a 9th floor roof and the only option for decent light was side/back lit, so i put the camera on spot metering and tried to keep my settings where they should be, but ultimately bombed and had to fix a LOT in post. I recently switched gear, from a Nikon d7000 and a 50mm 1.4 to a Canon 5d mk 1 and a 50mm 1.8. (I wanted to give full frame a try and a mark 2 and 3 are out of my price range right now) and I'd love to blame the gear, but I think it's probably me. :/
Any suggestions? In camera or even salvage techniques in post? Most of the other shots came out ok but I don't know if this one can be saved. I had to resize so it looks even shittier, but the noise should be evident, especially in the darks.
Also, this may be venting so feel free to ignore but I'd be interested to hear what other photographers think about this. I decided to walk out of this gig because one of the moms brought her own entry level dslr, complete with kit lens, shooting on full auto and decided she would wait outside the door drunk and snag the kids before they got to where I was waiting to take their pictures. She was posing them, squinting in blaring sunlight while here I am, all set up and waiting around the corner for the rest of the couples and nobody's coming. Then I find out that she had them sign in on MY sheet before getting their pictures done by her and then sent them off without telling them I was the actual photographer. These were not her kids, she did this to every group coming through. And the kids just thought she was the hired photographer! She continued to do this even after I came over and tried to corral the kids myself and explained the situation. And when I finally got things straightened out and the kids were coming to me, she came and stood in FRONT of my camera to take more pictures! So I packed up and left and now I have a sheet of names and contacts that is basically useless, and I agreed to work on commission, selling my packages. The host was mad at her too but apparently she was somebody important and he didn't want to upset her by saying something or letting me say something. (He owned the restaurant the party was held in and was kissing an obscene amount of ass) He didn't want to compensate me for the change in plans although it was agreed beforehand that he would have parents taking care of the sign in and getting them outside to me in the right groups. That never happened obviously, everybody stood around drinking. What a mess. Anything like that ever happen to you guys?

[EdMak]

Hi Kate, well!. Firstly, why Manual, and why Spot metering. Did you consider Fill in Flash. Your camera settings don't look noise producing, to me. Would really need to see the original, Raw, or jpg, to comment further.

Your problem/s. A verbal contract is not worth the paper it is printed on, so if nothing in writing? You were a bit unlucky, but I would have stayed on, the way to "Beat" them, is to produce visibly better pictures, yet competitive prices. In hindsight, would a discrete sign have helped. You should have had another person with you, even for nuisance value, and general help, on a project this size, more so if you had little previous experience.

Onward and upward. Cheers. Ed.

[MrB]

In addition to Ed's comments about the photo, there are several other things that are also puzzling. Firstly, in setting the camera, ISO 100 would have been suitable for that level of brightness. Secondly, in composition, a small change of camera position to the right would have put the tall chimneys in the background out of sight, behind the couple; rotating the camera to portrait format and moving closer would have been even better. The final one is a technical puzzle - the camera looks to be around 5 metres from the couple; for a FF camera at that sort of distance, a lens set at 50mm, f/5.6 and focused on the couple, should have a depth-of-field of only a few metres, giving a nice out-of-focus background. Yet the background, though not sharp, is quite obvious - was the camera's focus point not on the couple but on the wall behind them, so that they are just within the front of the depth-of-field?

Apart from the background, yours is a nice photo of the couple, and any noise doesn't seem apparent at this size. Does noise show up in a print, e.g. at 12x8 inches?

Cheers.
Philip

[EnglishBob]

Having to increase the exposure 1 stop in post with such a contrasty setting is going to push the dynamic range of even a 5D, There are a many different noise reduction softwares out there but I find most of them to just make the picture look soft. Noise Ninja is about the best and I still don't like the results.

Haven't had that exact situation, nut have had problems with parents blasting cell phone flash into my pictures, resulting in many retakes and elevated blood pressure.

[Kate McCullough]

Thanks guys. Well, manual because I don't have much success with the priority modes. In this situation I definitely could have used AP but I guess it didn't really occur to me until now. lol Spot metering because I've liked the results from previous backlit shoots and assumed it exposes for faces in that situation better but I may be wrong. Honestly I metering modes stump me. I need to study those a LOT more. Fill flash-don't have one yet. I thought my iso was 100, might be wrong though. My husband and I were also back and forth taking candids in the dining area in between couples portraits and it was pretty low light, I may have left forgotten to change it, it was a pretty crazy night and it was all I could do not to push that WOMAN from the roof. lol And believe me, I will definitely have a contract ready and waiting next time. Jesus.

I totally agree about the composition, there was a protruding room right next to the couple on the right side that was throwing a major shadow and I was worried about that plus it obstructed the view, so I just focused on keeping the kids as back lit as I could to keep those hot spots off their faces and kicked myself later for those damn chimneys and other garbage I didn't look for. I should have rotated the camera, you're right. Also this particular shot wasn't the 50mm, I should have said that before. It was my hubby's 27-135 because I was worried about being cramped for space and thought I'd use the wider end and just...kept it on there. I wanted a blurred background and could have done it anyway but the owner was adamant about "the view" being the charm of the photo. I tried to explain that we kind of needed to choose a subject and it should be people in this case, but nobody cares what the photographer thinks. Lots of mistakes, but I guess that's learning. I'm not sure about prints yet, I'm showing them digitally and taking orders this week. Hopefully I can sort it out by then, since the names won't correspond with the shot numbers/shoot order now. Maybe a sheet of numbered thumbnails handed out and they can list the number when ordering? I don't know. The owner wants to plan a slideshow/dinner thing where people who had them taken return to see the photos and buy cds, but he doesn't seem to be understanding that some of the kids who had their photos done by that mom will come and expect pictures that I don't have. Oh well. lol

[EdMak]

Hopefully you learned something on this one. Surprised at lack of success on the Auto settings, I seldom use Manual. It's normal. in early days, for all you decided to do , goes out the window when the event happens, been there, most have. Unless the owner was paying you, then I don't see how he could tell you what background to use?

Can be changed, don't know how old the couple were, do know the house is just over 500 years old. When is the wedding? Regards. Ed.

[EdMak]

Take two. Ed.