December 18, 2014, 05:00:23 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 320
1021
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:51:30 PM »
But to return to the original post, I'd say the 645z looks like 'king of low light' at present, based on what I've gleaned online. I'd still rather have a 1Dx (or wait for the next Canon full frame body) for the system benefit, as Neuro says. But in terms of low noise at high ISO I reckon the new Pentax wins - as you'd expect, with a bigger sensor area.

I agree, with one additional qualifier: Assuming identical framing. Framed the same, absolutely! Bigger sensor always wins, as far as noise is concerned, regardless of pixel size or count.

1022
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:39:19 PM »
To suggest that if paper only can reproduce x range of latitude so there is no point in working the data in 16 bit as opposed to an 8 bit JPEG is, quite honestly astonishing

To be fair, he's saying that this is what he reckons Jrista is suggesting.

He can't separate information precision from dynamic range. It's all the same thing to him, so he is missing the point.

1023
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:14:17 PM »
An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)

Well, that's expected. The sensor is over twice as large (2.1x larger, to be exact, at 37x49mm), and both sensors have the same kind of read noise problems. Aside from a few minor improvements, like gapless microlenses, Canon's fundamental sensor tech is ALSO a decade old. Now, I don't think the IQ difference between the H3D and a D810 would be quite the same. There is still a difference, and the win probably still goes to the H3D (simply because total sensor area is always going to trump unless you have SERIOUS technology problems), but the gap is considerably smaller, since the read noise of the Kodak sensor is still five times higher than on a Sony Exmor sensor.

On the flip side, cameras with Sony's 50mp medium format Exmor are still going to walk all over even the great D810. Canon can't enter the medium format digital market with an entry that competes with the H3D. They have to start out competing with something like the H5D-50c or the Phase One IQ250. If Canon ignores their sensor performance with the 7D II, they are on the brink. I think the long-term ignorance of their sensor IQ, regardless of whether it really matters a ton or not in the end, is ultimately going to cost them customers, as it's a matter of perception. Why would any established MFD customers buy a Canon medium format that used a medium format sensor based on their own decade-old technology? MFD is all about the low ISO IQ...it always has been. They are the ultimate landscape and studio cameras. Canon wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell if they released a medium format camera with their current sensor tech into the midst of the new MFD market now dominated by large format Sony Exmor sensors.

If Canon was ever to enter the MFD market, they would need to first establish that they are still a leader in sensor technology and overall image quality. I personally think Canon's IQ is great, however I pretty much live at ISO 400 and higher, so the whole dynamic range thing isn't an issue for me. I lift shadows all the time, but at those ISO settings, there is little to no banding most of the time, and what banding there is (at least in the 5D III) is a breeze to clean up with Topaz Denoise. But there is still the perception that Canon is not just losing...but that they have lost the IQ wars. If I was going to spend a couple tens of thousands of dollars buying into a medium format digital system for say my landscape photography...why would I pick Canon if they hadn't proven their IQ, which is what such a camera would be all about, was better than Pentax's, Phase One's, or Hasselblads? I mean, it's a S___-ton of money regardless...and I'd have to buy everything new anyway, since none of my existing Canon gear would be compatible anyway...so why limit myself?

Canon is currently in a lose-lose position for entering the medium format market.
I think we're talking past each other here. I was just pointing out the practical uses of a cheaper MF systems especially if Nikon did release a system sub 10k with LS lenses. I really don't care if it says pentax,canon,nikon,etc... as long as that new cmos tech is used with a set of LS lenses. However if they can get electronic shutters working on 35mm cams, that gap would close significantly.

Are you thinking about Schneider Kreuznach 1/1600th sync LS lenses? You do realize that those puppies cost a minimum of $6000 for a really tiny prime, and the cost goes up from there.

A lot of other leaf shutter lenses still only sync at 1/500th. It is possible to have 1/500th X-sync with a focal plane shutter (although, why the 1D X does not use one is beyond me.)

I do agree, that if we could get nice global electronic shutters in FF DSLRs, that could sync at any speed, that would be pretty nice. I think that would be the key to making medium format affordable, since the lenses wouldn't need the complexity of a leaf shutter, which definitely pushes up cost.

1024
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:54:44 PM »
This guy really doesn't get it... it's hopeless!

Hey, don't blame me - I'm not the one asserting that extra stops of DR and information in the image files is wasted, it is others. The only problem is that it would seem that all of those bits that they say you don't need are actually used by them anyway.

If people would stop trying to belittle and put down Sony's sensors because they deliver and offer more DR then it would be a whole lot easier. This is where the problems stem from: trying to assert that what comes off the Sony sensors is no better than the Canon's.

I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could use Google and find threads on here where various people have waxed lyrical (and received support for) about Canon producing sensors with fewer larger pixels with more DR and better IQ - especially in low light. Well guess what, Sony has done that.

But instead of accepting that and congratulating Sony on doing it, people are arguing about how all of that extra DR and IQ is not necessary. What a load of horse sh*t.

wow....

Yeah...he seems to think EVERYONE shoots at ISO 100.

I just had three 40x30" prints made of some of my photography. Bird and wildlife photos. All of them were at ISO 1600 and above, one was at ISO 12800. All of them had to be cropped a bit and rotated a little to get the right framing. Every single one of them was upsampled, and required heavy and carefully masked noise reduction in the smooth OOF  background areas to smooth them out, and careful masking and detail enhancement in the foreground detail areas. Even with a D800, we'd be talking about a 2x scale factor, from high ISO shots. There would be ABSOLUTELY ZERO benefit in IQ or DR if I'd used a D800 instead of a 5D III to take these shots, considering how they were printed.

1025
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:14:40 PM »
...
Now jrista is going to patiently and conscientiously, like a seasoned old school master teaching a delinquent child, explain to you why we work in 16 bit.
...

I know why *I* work in 16bit but I wanted to see why *he* works in 16bit.

To me it seems like he's confused. His printer outputs 8 stops of DR yet he wants to work with 11 stops of DR from 14bit images (in a world where we equate 1bit with 1 stop of DR [people complained about Sony claiming > 15bits DR just because the files were only 14bit without seeing output] it seems that there are 3 bits being waste here.) If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

It's really NOT about dynamic range. My average ISO is over 1000 in the majority of my 7D photos, and in the case of the 5D III, I am often shooting as high as ISO 12800! There is a difference between bit depth and dynamic range. The only real link between the two is that bit depth LIMITS dynamic range, however at higher ISO, dynamic range is limited by physics, and is usually much less than the limit imposed by bit depth. Your argument is that I have 14 stops of dynamic range just because I have a 14-bit file. No. I have a LIMIT of 14 stops of dynamic range in a 14-bit file...I usually get less than 8-10 stops because I am always at high, often very high, ISO. That would be the case with a D800, D810, or even a 50mp Medium Format Sony Exmor sensor.

Bit depth does more than limit your maximum potential dynamic range, though. It is also the factor that determines the precision of each and every value that represents a pixel. More precision, more numeric "space" within which to work when executing algorithms...such as exposure, white balance, filters like noise reduction and sharpening, etc.

PHYSICS LIMITS MY DR!! Bit depth maximizes my editing potential! Get it?!?  :o

1026
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:08:03 PM »
...
As for why work in 16-bit or 14-bit rather than 8-bit? The math used for all the various algorithms that are applied when processing is prone to introducing error. That error often ends up affecting the lower order bits most, where information is most sparse (i.e. lower midtones and shadows), although it can and will affect the entire signal. When you have only 8 bits, those errors show up more readily as artifacts. When you have more bits, you run a much lower risk of introducing processing artifacts into your images. This is one of the benefits of working in high bit depth RAW. Even the small move from 12-bit to 14-bit was actually fairly significant from the standpoint of improving the working space for all the mathematical algorithms to do their thing with RAW images without introducing artifacts.
...

So you're all in favour of more bits and more DR and you've even argued that when it gets to printing, it's no longer about DR but tonality, etc, and that the high bit depth doesn't get wasted. i.e. if your camera gave you 14bits of DR like Sony's do, you wouldn't throw any of it away but at the same time you seem happy to argue that there's no benefit from the extra DR that Sony provide.

You obviously use and take advantage of there being many more than 8 bits of DR in your Canon images (and use imaging equipment that can and does generate images with more than 8 bits of DR) yet you've also tried to argue that those printing don't need more than 8 because it will be lost when printing.

What then was the value of saying that high DR isn't required because printers can only do 8 stops of DR?

You are really clueless, man. The only thing you care about is finding some way to make every discussion about dynamic range. You are UTTERLY CLUELESS, and it's clear everyone here but you sees that. Your just a waste of time, man. If you don't get it, you don't get it. It's clear your never going to get it, so I'm done trying to explain it. You can keep on believing you have everything figured out, but you really don't have the first bloody clue what your talking about.

1027
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:45:43 AM »
...
7. Save a print copy 16-bit TIFF.
8. Print from Photoshop. Sometimes I'll do a test print on a small 4x6" sheet (I usually have some boxes of that for the various types of paper I like to print on...I'm a big fan of natural fiber papers, particularly from Moab and Hahnemuhle, and the satin and metal luster papers from RedRiver.) If the 4x6" test comes out looking good from a gamut standpoint, I'll print on the full size paper, which is usually either 13x19" or 11x14".

And you do all this on windows or osx?

All on Windows 8.1. As far as Photoshop and printing is concerned, there is no reason to "need" OSX for printing anymore. That old paradigm went out over a decade ago. Windows have been top notch graphic workstations for a long time.

So you have harped on about how there is no need to have cameras with high DR because this isn't capable of it or that isn't capable of it but yet your entire workflow is in 16bit.

In various other threads you've commented that Sony are claiming too many stops of DR for the number of bits and since you're working with a 16bit workflow obviously you think you need more than 7 or 8 bits of IQ and since 1 bit equals 1 stop of DR, 7 to 8 stops of DR is not enough for you.

Elsewhere in earlier comments in this thread you've stated that print only requires 7 or 8 stops of DR.

Something doesn't add up here. You're saying that printing only delivers 7 or 8 stops of DR yet your workflow supports 16. Why not just work in an 8 bit workspace since that is all that your printing can deliver?

The workflow is actually with an original RAW file opened up in Photoshop. It's in whatever bit depth the RAW file has, which in my case is 14-bit. The saving to 16-bit TIFF occurs at the end. You also don't really seem to understand the significant differences between print and digital images. Print is an entirely different beast. In the print world, you never hear anyone talk about "dynamic range"...it's all DMax and L* and tonalities and the subtleties of color in areas of fine microcontrast. Bit depth is ultimately about tonal space, the ability to preserve fine gradients and the subtleties of detail when your pushing the white and black point around or trying to shift out of gamut colors into the gamut of the printer+ink+paper. It doesn't matter if print only has five or six stops of "dynamic range"...that simply doesn't matter. Print is different, it uses an entirely different color model and you have to be concerned about entirely different things like ink density and ink evenness and reflectivity and metamerism and viewing light and all that.

Now, even assuming I saved the file as a 16-bit TIFF up front, there are a couple things that limit the editing latitude. For one, saving a 14-bit file as a 16-bit file is no different than saving an 8-bit file as a 16-bit file. You don't suddenly gain more information out of thin air. You started with 14 bits of information. That 14 bits of information is distributed throughout the 16-bit file...it's the same amount of information, just stored in a file capable of referencing larger numbers. You don't gain anything. Your camera's dynamic range is limited by it's HARDWARE. I could save the image as a 32-bit floating point HDR TIFF if I wanted to...that still isn't going to somehow magically create more information out of nothing. The only way to take full advantage of a 32-bit HDR TIFF is to actually take multiple frames at different exposures, and do an HDR merge that combines the extended information of all of them into a single data set that is actually capable of utilizing the high dynamic range that a 32-bit floating point TIFF image can offer.

There is no magic to converting a 14-bit RAW to a 16-bit TIFF. You don't gain anything for nothing. The only reason I do it is because the only other options are either 8-bit TIFF or 32-bit integer or floating point TIFF. I don't want to lose any information, which is guaranteed if I save as 8-bit TIFF. I don't want to waste space, which is also guaranteed if I use a 32-bit TIFF without actually having enough information precision to take advantage of it. So, I save as 16-bit TIFF.

As for why work in 16-bit or 14-bit rather than 8-bit? The math used for all the various algorithms that are applied when processing is prone to introducing error. That error often ends up affecting the lower order bits most, where information is most sparse (i.e. lower midtones and shadows), although it can and will affect the entire signal. When you have only 8 bits, those errors show up more readily as artifacts. When you have more bits, you run a much lower risk of introducing processing artifacts into your images. This is one of the benefits of working in high bit depth RAW. Even the small move from 12-bit to 14-bit was actually fairly significant from the standpoint of improving the working space for all the mathematical algorithms to do their thing with RAW images without introducing artifacts. There are also other losses when moving from a true RAW format to an RGB format. Once you bind the three color channels together at each pixel, you lose a significant amount of editing latitude unless you move to a significantly higher bit depth, and even then, you can only push and pull the exposure or other information around with the basic kinds of tools in programs like Photoshop or Lightroom so much before artifacts exhibit with a vengeance. I do massive signal stretching for my astrophotography, but in order to do so, I usually work with 64-bit IEEE floating point FITS images, so I have enough precision to minimize the impact of errors introduced by algorithms. Even then, there are still limits to how far I can push those algorithms...push them too far, and your still guaranteed to get artifacts.

1028
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:25:08 AM »
An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)

Well, that's expected. The sensor is over twice as large (2.1x larger, to be exact, at 37x49mm), and both sensors have the same kind of read noise problems. Aside from a few minor improvements, like gapless microlenses, Canon's fundamental sensor tech is ALSO a decade old. Now, I don't think the IQ difference between the H3D and a D810 would be quite the same. There is still a difference, and the win probably still goes to the H3D (simply because total sensor area is always going to trump unless you have SERIOUS technology problems), but the gap is considerably smaller, since the read noise of the Kodak sensor is still five times higher than on a Sony Exmor sensor.

On the flip side, cameras with Sony's 50mp medium format Exmor are still going to walk all over even the great D810. Canon can't enter the medium format digital market with an entry that competes with the H3D. They have to start out competing with something like the H5D-50c or the Phase One IQ250. If Canon ignores their sensor performance with the 7D II, they are on the brink. I think the long-term ignorance of their sensor IQ, regardless of whether it really matters a ton or not in the end, is ultimately going to cost them customers, as it's a matter of perception. Why would any established MFD customers buy a Canon medium format that used a medium format sensor based on their own decade-old technology? MFD is all about the low ISO IQ...it always has been. They are the ultimate landscape and studio cameras. Canon wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell if they released a medium format camera with their current sensor tech into the midst of the new MFD market now dominated by large format Sony Exmor sensors.

If Canon was ever to enter the MFD market, they would need to first establish that they are still a leader in sensor technology and overall image quality. I personally think Canon's IQ is great, however I pretty much live at ISO 400 and higher, so the whole dynamic range thing isn't an issue for me. I lift shadows all the time, but at those ISO settings, there is little to no banding most of the time, and what banding there is (at least in the 5D III) is a breeze to clean up with Topaz Denoise. But there is still the perception that Canon is not just losing...but that they have lost the IQ wars. If I was going to spend a couple tens of thousands of dollars buying into a medium format digital system for say my landscape photography...why would I pick Canon if they hadn't proven their IQ, which is what such a camera would be all about, was better than Pentax's, Phase One's, or Hasselblads? I mean, it's a S___-ton of money regardless...and I'd have to buy everything new anyway, since none of my existing Canon gear would be compatible anyway...so why limit myself?

Canon is currently in a lose-lose position for entering the medium format market.

1029
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:25:43 AM »
In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?

Hmm...I don't think I'd call an electronic shutter better. At least, they won't be better until they are all global shutters that instantly shift all pixels into a background per-pixel memory. Most current electronic shutters on DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras scan, so exposure isn't guaranteed to be the same from bottom to top. A global shutter would need to be high end as well...there is still row activation with a global shutter, and still that scanning. They can shift the pixel value into the pixel memory faster than a full readout, but there is still that lag. For longer exposures, that doesn't matter as much...for action photography, the lag matters. A nice high end global shutter design, the kind used in digital cinema cameras that can operate at thousands to tens of thousands of frames per second, is the kind of design I'd really want in a DSLR electronic shutter...at least then, I'd know I could use it for high speed photography and not have to worry about a slight exposure gradient across my images.

As for leaf shutters...they have their cons as well. I think the key benefit everyone wants from a leaf shutter is the ability to, at least theoretically, sync at any flash speed. At times I've read about how leaf shutters can operate at several ten thousandths of a second, and still sync. A lot of that is simply not true, at least, not in the context of DSLRs. Most DSLR-sized leaf shutter lenses sync at 1/500s, a very few have synced at 1/1000s. The only leaf shutters I know of that have synced at 1/20,000s or faster are really tiny ones in small compact cameras.

There is also the issue of inconsistent exposure. Because a leaf shutter opens in the center, flowers outward, then flowers back inward, you get less exposure at the periphery and more in the center. That effectively guarantees vignetting in every single image...additional vignetting, on top of any that might naturally occur due to lens design.

Leaf shutters, good high end ones, are also complex and costly to build, and they would have to be in each and every lens. Personally, I would rather NOT incur the additional cost of having a leaf shutter built into each and every lens I buy...I think its more cost effective to have the shutter, whatever design, elsewhere, and allow lenses to be cheaper.

As for MFD, I guess time will tell. Sensor area is the ultimate key to better image quality, but the older sensor designs used in say the Hasselblad H3D and H3D II were similar in design to Canon's current sensors. They had as many problems with shadow noise as Canon cameras...lots of it, banding, etc. The current H5D-50c still sells for $28,000 just for the camera, and it's at least a few thousand for a lens. Canon would need to compete with the H5D-50c, not the old H3D, if they wanted to break into the market. I honestly don't see Canon doing it for all that much cheaper than Hasselblad, and if they did, they would likely be taking a loss on the products just to be competitive (especially if they aren't using a 300mm wafer fab...I think there was a rumor a while back that Canon might be either migrating to a fab that does 300mm fabrication, maybe taking over some of the capacity from P&S fabs that aren't producing as many compact cameras...or maybe building a new fab, but to manufacture MFD size sensors, they would have to take capacity away from something either way).

The benefit of medium format film was the cameras were all still designed roughly the same way. A medium format SLR might have had some additional features, but there was nothing in particular that made them particularly more costly than smaller cameras...not as far as the bodies went. They didn't have the extra cost of manufacturing extremely low yield sensors that cost a fortune to make. The customer took care of paying the cost of the film. That's nothing to say of the IQ we can get from a "lowly" 35mm DSLR these days, let alone a digital medium format. It's a little unfair to compare a modern DSLR with the "cheap" 35mm film and cameras of yesteryear. Full frame DSLR image quality is now far superior, and digital medium format is again superior to FF DSLR.

1030
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:03:45 AM »
Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR

How do you add noise on a per pixel basis?

I just add noise using Photoshop's "Add Noise" filter. That adds noise with a pixel-level frequency...or, in other words, per-pixel noise. It's a VERY minimal amount, you have to squint to see it, as it really isn't supposed to be obvious, and as such, is effectively meaningless in the midtones through highlights/whites.

The general point of this is to smooth out the harsh transitions that usually occur in the shadows due to low bit depth and quantization error during ADC. If you examine lifted shadows, from any camera (including, and maybe even particularly, a D800 or other camera with a Sony Exmor), you will very often notice a bit of posterization. Adding a very light amount of noise breaks that up, which helps improve gradient transitions and such in the shadows. It can also help artificially enhance detail that may otherwise look like smooth blobs due to noise reduction algorithms (this can especially be a problem if you did any noise reduction with masking, so you could apply NR more heavily in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights).

Gotcha, I just wondered if you had something more sophisticated. I suppose it's not really noise insofar as it isn't random, but close enough I guess? Interesting idea.

It's just as random as you get in the image out of the camera. Whether it's a time-seeded algorithm or photon shot noise, both still follow either a gaussian or poisson distribution. That's all that really matters. Keep in mind, too, that this noise is added after scaling (which, especially when cropping, very often means your upsampling). I don't usually add noise when downsampling, however I pretty much always do when upsampling. When you upsample, the frequency of noise in the image that came out of the camera drops...it's no longer per-pixel. Adding noise helps simulate more detail than you really have.

I don't often print quite large enough for that to be a huge issue at home. I've been planning to get either a Canon or Epson wide format printer that can handle 24" wide prints, so I can do 24x36" roll printing at home (and have the ability to use larger ink tanks...the real killer of home printing is ink cost...in most professional home inkjet printers, ink tanks only have 13-14ml of ink each. In the commercial grade printers, you have anywhere from 35ml to as much as a few hundred ml, and with the midrange printers, usually between 70-80ml of ink per tank. That can greatly reduce the ink cost of printing at home, although the up-front cost is higher.) In the mean time, though, I still use labs for large prints. When I scale my images for 30x40", I'm generally upsampling by a factor of 2x at least, maybe more with heavier crops. Adding a faint bit of noise is key to ensuring gradients are smooth and detail is crisp, without making it look oversharpened (which is very easy to do when upsampling...literal information density drops considerably, even though perceptual information density, i.e. what you see when looking at the print from a distance, remains roughly the same.)

1031
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:34:39 PM »
Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR

How do you add noise on a per pixel basis?

I just add noise using Photoshop's "Add Noise" filter. That adds noise with a pixel-level frequency...or, in other words, per-pixel noise. It's a VERY minimal amount, you have to squint to see it, as it really isn't supposed to be obvious, and as such, is effectively meaningless in the midtones through highlights/whites.

The general point of this is to smooth out the harsh transitions that usually occur in the shadows due to low bit depth and quantization error during ADC. If you examine lifted shadows, from any camera (including, and maybe even particularly, a D800 or other camera with a Sony Exmor), you will very often notice a bit of posterization. Adding a very light amount of noise breaks that up, which helps improve gradient transitions and such in the shadows. It can also help artificially enhance detail that may otherwise look like smooth blobs due to noise reduction algorithms (this can especially be a problem if you did any noise reduction with masking, so you could apply NR more heavily in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights).

1032
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:30:45 PM »
...
7. Save a print copy 16-bit TIFF.
8. Print from Photoshop. Sometimes I'll do a test print on a small 4x6" sheet (I usually have some boxes of that for the various types of paper I like to print on...I'm a big fan of natural fiber papers, particularly from Moab and Hahnemuhle, and the satin and metal luster papers from RedRiver.) If the 4x6" test comes out looking good from a gamut standpoint, I'll print on the full size paper, which is usually either 13x19" or 11x14".

And you do all this on windows or osx?

All on Windows 8.1. As far as Photoshop and printing is concerned, there is no reason to "need" OSX for printing anymore. That old paradigm went out over a decade ago. Windows have been top notch graphic workstations for a long time.

1033
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:54:28 PM »
...
When it comes to REAL print...the original files don't matter a wit, really. They usually end up so heavily processed, either manually by the printer, or automatically by an ICC print profile and the ICM engine to shift color around so it fits within the gamut of the paper and inks, that the original capabilities of the cameras are so far removed as to be moot. And that's for high density, high resolution photographic ink jet printers. Commercial magazine publications rarely come close to the kind of color reproduction capabilities or ink droplet densities of high end ink jet printers (they simply operate in a different way, and usually use just your basic CMYK instead of the 10 or 12 different colors used in ink jets).

What application do you use for printing?

Photoshop. It has had soft proofing features for years, as it's an industry standard product for printing, with a very wide variety of printer types, including the big commercial printing systems for magazines that require proper calibration and dithering of each CMYK color channel independently.

Ok, good choice. What is your workflow for something that you want to print?

1. Do initial import, library management, development processing in Lightroom.
2. Open in Photoshop (as ProPhotoRGB, which I will usually downconvert to AdobeRGB...I don't usually use sRGB any more, as the gamuts of both Canon Lucia EX and Epson UltraChrome printers are actually a bit better than sRGB, and I don't want to lose that extra gamut range).
3. Perform any additional pre-scaling NR with Topaz Denoise 5 and/or Nik Dfine 2 (primarily, debanding & DR recovery, in case I need to do a LOT of shadow lifting...which is not usually the case. Denoise 5 excels at this.)
4. Crop and scale to exact PPI and dimensions for desired print target (factoring in any desired border).
5. Perform any additional noise reduction and detail recovery. Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR (primarily to improve shadow DR, which tends to be "sparse" in the first place, even with the D800, since you have a lot more quantization noise in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights.)
6. Start softproofing (pick paper type and rendering intent), and check for out of gamut errors.
6b. If there are any significant OOG errors, or if the shadows get blocked or highlights wash out, start adjusting the black and white point and maybe narrow ranges of saturation to fit within the papers limitations. If the OOG errors are smaller, or look like fine noise in some parts of the image, then the ICM rendering intent, Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual, will take care of the OOG colors nicely, and this step can be skipped.
7. Save a print copy 16-bit TIFF.
8. Print from Photoshop. Sometimes I'll do a test print on a small 4x6" sheet (I usually have some boxes of that for the various types of paper I like to print on...I'm a big fan of natural fiber papers, particularly from Moab and Hahnemuhle, and the satin and metal luster papers from RedRiver.) If the 4x6" test comes out looking good from a gamut standpoint, I'll print on the full size paper, which is usually either 13x19" or 11x14".

1034
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:21:31 PM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

Please define "sell like hotcakes."

I'd love for someone who thinks this is a viable market to provide some evidence or, at a minimum, reasonably good arguments to support that contention.

In 2013 there was a Forbes interview with Leica's medium format guy. He said, "There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands." (Emphasis added by me)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/

That's not very many hotcakes.

Aye, this is similar to what I've heard. Which just emphasises the point...it's a very small pie that Canon and/or Nikon would be trying to take slices of. They would need some very competitive offerings to break into the niche.

1035
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:29:17 AM »
...
When it comes to REAL print...the original files don't matter a wit, really. They usually end up so heavily processed, either manually by the printer, or automatically by an ICC print profile and the ICM engine to shift color around so it fits within the gamut of the paper and inks, that the original capabilities of the cameras are so far removed as to be moot. And that's for high density, high resolution photographic ink jet printers. Commercial magazine publications rarely come close to the kind of color reproduction capabilities or ink droplet densities of high end ink jet printers (they simply operate in a different way, and usually use just your basic CMYK instead of the 10 or 12 different colors used in ink jets).

What application do you use for printing?

Photoshop. It has had soft proofing features for years, as it's an industry standard product for printing, with a very wide variety of printer types, including the big commercial printing systems for magazines that require proper calibration and dithering of each CMYK color channel independently.

I've used custom rasterizers in the past, and some of those actually integrate into Photoshop, and the use of a custom rasterizer really boils down to getting a better dithering for each color channel when doing ink jet prints. Photoshop with just the Canon and Epson drivers does a very good job these days, though, and since my upgrade to Windows 8.x not all the custom rasterizers have been working properly.

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 [69] 70 71 ... 320