October 21, 2014, 07:06:29 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 321
.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey).  I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 05:07:12 PM »
If anti-aliasing is so hard to do, then how do computer games have 16x AA filters running at video game frame rates?

:-p, indeed, probably we should replace the (analog, optical) real life we shoot with (digital) cgi - then we can just upsample, downsample and postprocess do our heart's desire.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2 :)

You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop.  And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys :-p

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 04:54:01 PM »
If this is more of an artistic choice, then why doesn't someone make the filter removable, or something you could layer onto a lens?

Of course a "magic bullet" of removing the filter appeals to us: more sharpness for free!

Personally, my pixel peeping ventures are over by now and I was cured after reading about d800 vs d800e like here, there are lots of reviews showing the drawbacks of no aa filter: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800/vs-d800e.htm

A better solution in my opinion would be to drop the optical filter, and handle it in post. Any re-shuffling of light that the filter does should be as easily handled by reshuffling bits in a computer program.

Afaik it doesn't work this way, just as you cannot add real optical bokeh in postprocessing - moiré is very painful to remove in post, sometimes it's even near impossible w/o too much iq loss.

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

Did give it a try, but feel like is too REAL

Interesting - tonemapped hdr seems to work better on "unreal anyway" sfi-fi interiors than on a natural environment, I'll try to remember that.

I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.
how much time each of us have to devote to fixing problems in photoshop varies
I have little and much prefer simple global adjustments on files that can stand up to such adjustments.

+1, generally the notion "I'll fix it in post" gives me the creeps as I'm already sitting in front of the pc much more than I'd like to. If you want to postprocess the one great keeper you have with full-blown PS adjustments, fine, but for anything else I'd like to stay in Lightroom - which excludes inter-shot blending.

Do you mean a +3ev shadow push in post?

No, +3ev beyond Canon's acceptable (ymmv) range - but I can't really tell about exmore as I'm using the 16bit raw files from ML that have more shadow resolution.

Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?

Of course you can manual blend a lot, but that doesn't count as "easily circumvented" as speculated above. How bad small movement is of course depends on the export/view size, but in my experience when doing a 2x bracket with there's simply double the chance that something moved or happened in the scene. I'm not much of a landscape photog, but I know this can happen in nature macro.

How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?

A 3ev difference is in my experience often just the range you need to prevent clipped sky while retaining good shadow resolution. And the nature moves a lot, esp. if you look at 100% crop. If you doubt it, get out more :-> ... then you'll see it doesn't take heavy storms to make leaves and grass move noticeably. Are you watching closely ("The Prestige")?

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.

... that is like in *unidirectional* motion esp. from camera shake, or otherwise I'm not up to date and the latest hdr assembly softwares have managed to de-blur moving clouds, grass or leaves in the wind :-\

but the result is pretty horrible. WFIW I don't do HDR anymore.

This is a good example why hdr "flat" tonemapping doesn't replace artificial lighting - at some compression level, it simply doesn't look real anymore even if there would be more contrast in it.

Keep 'em coming people, show that you're brave enough to stand by your early creations :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:20:48 AM »
if you want to shoot sports and wildlife and can't afford the 1DX, this is the camera that you should consider
To reach that conclusion, it probably doesn't require a review by a renowned photog :-p
Right... and Canon is just going to let no-name people evaluate their preproduction units...

Ok, let me clarify: To reach that conclusion it doesn't require a review at all, it's really rather advertising.

I didn't think the house itself was bad, but the sky (setting sun) looked odd to me.

In my experience, with these auto-tonemapped hdr shots it's quite easy to get the sky colors looking really strange - as proven by you :-)

how about this beauty?

Thanks, excellent entry :-> ... for a tonemapped shot, the darks are still rather dark (= it could have gotten even uglier), but the post-nuclear war sun is really something!

EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 07:11:22 AM »
if you want to shoot sports and wildlife and can't afford the 1DX, this is the camera that you should consider

To reach that conclusion, it probably doesn't require a review by a renowned photog :-p

I'm with you on this, RLPhoto.  Any perceived/imagined DR "problem" is all too easy to work around.

Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around" :-p

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 321