December 21, 2014, 01:32:24 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 57
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:24:55 AM »
Just out of curiosity, how did you determine the density of negatives? How accurate were the measurements?

Densitometers. Depended on the model and calibration.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:10:24 AM »
I had one back in the good old days of the B+W darkroom.... I kind of wish I had one now because this has gotten me very curious as to how my various cameras compare... I might have to order one :) (any recommendations?) - T4110.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought of "stops" as an analog/perception scale and that it did not necessarily match up with a digital scale... perhaps part of the confusion here is that people are talking about two different things yet using the same terminology.

Close. Stops apply in digital photography, but there's no direct translation from sensel SNR (or any of the related engineering formulas) to photographic dynamic range in stops. You have to test the system. There are multiple reasons why but...this thread is already painfully long.

Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:59:08 PM »
Instead, I'd like to know what techniques people use to reduce noise, banding, etc. etc. What post processing tricks do you employ in Raw, Lightroom or Photoshop to fix noise issues?

One thing I do is try to minimize noise in ACR before the file is converted for PS. 3rd party plugins have some of their own advantages, but if you can clean it up in RAW it seems to be better in my experience.

So I will tailor the luminance and color NR related sliders to the image while viewing at 100%. If you need to, you can use the adjustment brush to tailor NR in specific areas. Or produce two files from the RAW and blend.

Luminance NR can obviously destroy detail, so you have to be careful, but color NR seems pretty effective and relatively non-destructive.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:26:07 PM »
Hmm...really? I guess my time out in the field...literally...yesterday, gathering bracketed shots and doing HDR processing was just all a waste then:

So you can produce an HDR image, you just can't recognize when HDR was used on an image. Check.

Now try your same test with a D800. When you realize the results aren't much better then a 5D3 with NR we can be done with this nonsense.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:20:13 PM »
0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity?  ???

Do you need an education in basic mathematics?

What happens when you divide any number by zero?

Division has nothing to do with it. 0 is the first tonal step. 1 is the next. 2 is get the point. Your formula is not a formula for photographic dynamic range.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:17:39 PM »
You might want to take a peek at the end of the "Beautiful sunsets" thread...

I'm literally shocked. If someone else had posted that from a D800 he would have insisted it was a single frame.

So we're not actually dealing with complete ignorance about HDR, just an unshakable belief that Exmor sensors can some how do the impossible and deliver similar results from a single exposure. Interesting.

Well, let him blow $3g's on a D810 and find out.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:07:17 PM »
No denying that Exmor sensor will do better in this situation, but don't expect miracle from them. If you lift 5 stops of shadow you end up with plenty of noise, color aberration and loss of detail. It will be something similar to your 3 stop recovery and denoise. The other thing that happens is that shadow lifted areas will be distastefully bland with lack of contrast and muted color. So, you will need more processing (selective contrast enhancement, color boosting, color correction etc) in addition to NR in the shadow lifted areas to make it presentable.

1,000x this. You will not get the same fine detail, tonality, or color when pushing shadows hard as you will with HDR/blending/GND. ETTR is not actually about noise, but tonality. So what happens when you ETTL and push 5 stops? Blocked up, dull tonality.

Exmor certainly does not solve this. It makes life easier when you're going to push a couple stops. And it makes substandard images when someone blindly thinks they can push 5 stops all the time.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:54:49 PM »
Fine with me, though. I'll pick up a D810 and a 14-24 at some point for my landscapes (it's really tough, buying for both terrestrial and astro really pick and choose what to buy and God only knows when I'll actually buy the darn thing.)

Please. When you still don't get the shots those guys are getting, Google "HDR Tutorial"  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:50:56 PM »
The definition is incomplete and inconsistent.

MIT doesn't think so.

jrista, it's obvious you've never shot a step wedge, and it's also now plainly obvious you have no experience with HDR photography (all techniques since you recognize none of them: HDR software, manual blending, and GND filters).

You need to stop arguing and start learning. I am not going to continue to debate something that I have fully defended and referenced, something which is consistent with observable evidence including evidence you yourself posted. This is becoming worse then debating a moon landing conspiracy theorist  :(

Shoot a step wedge and learn.

Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY.

0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity?  ???

Do you need an education in basic mathematics?

So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which  you can then define a range from that to the white point.

I pointed you to a book from MIT that defines it, explains how to test it, and explains how to interpret the results. This is no longer open for debate until you actually make an effort to learn and understand.

You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image,

Hours? It takes you hours to move sliders in ACR? Or in a worst case scenario mask shadows and run a 3rd party NR plugin? Hours?  ??? are arguing just to argue. You need to actually learn about dynamic range and high dynamic range photography. That won't happen while you're being stubborn and argumentative on a forum.

Google "HDR tutorial" and learn how to achieve the shots you want.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:36:54 PM »
Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors,

I've said repeatedly that Exmor sensors have more. Just not 2, 3, 4, or 9,001 more stops like certain people claim. How much more depends on the cameras being compared, but with currently shipping models it's generally 1 stop or less.

however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity?...Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot.

Nope.  ;D  ;D  ;D

jrista, have you ever produced an HDR image and checked the EXIF in PS? No?

Both Photoshop CS6 and Photomatix Pro include EXIF data from one of the frames in the final merged HDR file. Lately those are the only two I've been using, but when I last tried the various demos out there I don't recall seeing even one that didn't include the EXIF from one of the frames. (I'm sure some don't. There are a lot of HDR tools out there today.)

GND filtered files will obviously have EXIF, as would just about all manual exposure blends (generally you start with one of your frames when manually blending, you don't create an entirely new canvas).

It is painfully obvious that you have no experience shooting and producing these types of photos which is why you think these are single exposures. And why you're jealous of "Exmor DR." This is what the entire Exmor debate boils down to: lack of knowledge and proper testing. (Wandering around photo sites looking at Nikon HDR landscapes is also a classic case of confirmation bias.)

Looking through your links there are two which could possibly be a single exposure pushed because of haze masking the sun. In those cases Canon would have produced very similar results.

The rest are either HDR, manual blends, or use GND filters. Three are blatantly obvious.
HDR that slaps you in the side of the head. Did you really believe this was a single frame? Really?  ???
So HDR it's not even funny.
Obvious manual blend given the unevenness on the right side. (Also way over the top processing in general.)

Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...

Manual blends and GNDs do not have this. Good HDR software will generally correct for it though if you shoot fast it's rarely an issue any way.

Again, it is painfully obvious you have zero experience producing these kinds of shots. You don't need an Exmor sensor. You need to:

* Stop arguing in this thread
* Do a Google search.
* Read and watch some of the many excellent tutorials out there.
* Download some HDR demo software.
* Go out and photograph some HDR scenes.

Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s

Simply not an issue with manual blends and GND. HDR software generally has a much more difficult time correcting water movement, but there are tricks around it.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P


Remember, EXIF proves it's a single frame, and clouds or water absolutely confirm it!  ;D

And there are even some 7D frames in that list! I've clearly proven that even the old Canon 7D has the same dynamic range as the latest Sony Exmor!  ;D  ;D  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:39:14 AM »
Go take a long, hard look at jrista's processing of the infamous 5D3 vs. D800 online test.

Ker-ching! The correct answer. And it's possible to do a much better job than he did of the Canon files.

DxO claims that there is a 2.5 stop DR difference between these two cameras. If that were the case then that door and those tiles in the far back should be BLACK. No detail or image at all in those regions, just blocked up shadow.

Precisely. DR is about where the shadows block up into no detail - not about how much noise there is in the shadows.

Just wanted to say thanks for your posts.

I am simply confused as to how jrista can ignore his own evidence  :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:35:08 AM »
Close enough for me...Where the H#11 is the 100-400 at in all this

Now THOSE are fighting words! Canon doesn't upgrade that lens I am gone...GONE!  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:33:17 AM »
The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

The objective definition has been given, repeated, and backed up with multiple references including the textbook that is, or at least was at one time, used for teaching photography at MIT. I have more then supported my case, and my position is consistent with observational evidence that you yourself have provided.

Until you've tested the sensors in question against a step wedge I think this is done.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:22:37 AM »
Well from someone who actually knows QED the physics theory, I'm with jrista on this one.

Your theory does not apply to this situation in the way you think it does. Which you might understand if you would OBSERVE.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:21:30 AM »
But of course were you to push the D800 another 2-3 stops it would, of course, be impossible to apply the same sort of NR techniques.

There are not another 2-3 stops of detail in either RAW file. That's the point. Both the Canon and the Nikon faded to black (so to speak) at about the same point. The D800 just did so with less noise and therefore finer resolution, though the resolution difference was very small. The noise difference is large, right up until the point where you move an ACR slider. After that you get shadow detail that most people cannot tell apart in 36" prints.


Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 57