April 16, 2014, 08:24:04 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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 55
376
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:21:26 PM »
Folks,
Greetings,
As we all know the dynamic range of 5D MK III is not better than its counterpart Nikon D800. I was wondering if this deficiency could be addressed by using single shot HDR for batch processing. Has anyone tried HDR batch process to improve dynamic range, what would be good software for this purpose or any other comments. Thanks in advance.
Raj
:)
"HDR" can mean two things: multi-shot exposure bracketing (to overcome limitations in camera sensors) and tonemapping (to overcome limitations in display/print technology). When you are doing "single-shot HDR", you are only doing tonemapping.

-h

That about sums it up.
You can only tone map a single shot, you can't get more DR from it altho you can compress it to look that way.  You'll still have the original limitations of whatever camera you shot it with.

So I think the answer to your actual question is, No, even if there is a batch process to do this you would not be able to gain any DR from it.

Expanding DR beyond any camera's limitations will require multiple exposures bracketed appropriately to provide the extra range required.  More files, more data, more processing and more limitations in the form of things possibly moving within the image from one shot to the next.
No real batch process for that either as each image will usually require some tweaking to make it look right.

Sorry, no shortcuts.  Best compromise is to use the highest DR camera you can use and tone-map as desired if you want to do single shot only.

Meanwhile, you may not realize you just created another DR argument minefield that people are now jumping around in, somewhat off-topic.  ;)

377
It doesn't look unpleasant to me .... I really don't get this 'bokeh' stuff. I agree in the picture of the berry  the out of focus bits detract ... but it's ok

I think it's another internet photography meme ... bokeh, sharpness, megapixels ...

Still, you've got to be happy with your own photos. But I'd suggest no one would care too much about your fuzzy bits ;-)

Well, the photo of those berries (crabapples, actually) is only a test shot of sorts, altho I've got similar shots which have much greater visual appeal.  What it does is show that if you are counting on this lens to provide a smoothly burred out of focus area it may not always be able to provide it.

Sometimes we want or need to have the busy, finely structured portion of a composition deliberately blurred by the lens in such a way that it becomes part of the overall composition, and as such, you may want more control over how it will look.  This is just one of the reasons for using fast, large aperture lenses.

I wish I had my old 200mm prime with me at the same time for the same shot.
I can describe how it would have rendered the same scene.  Using the same shallow focus zone, the prime would have been slightly softer.  Foreground and background elements, as you move farther away from the focal plane, would progressively and smoothly get more blurred until they disappeared into each other and the backlight, adding only a hint of tone or shading.
That would have left the cluster of apples almost floating in space in appearance.  Which was the effect I was hoping the EF 70-200 2.8 L IS 2 would have provided.  The lens renders the focus area with tremendous accuity, but I am not satisfied with the out of focus part of the image.
Unfortunately, i need to be satisfied with the whole image to find it useful.  This is actually something that older lenses are often better at; what they lack in sharpness is offset by often smoother bokeh.
Actually, some cheaper lenses will also do this in a more balanced way too.  There are a lot of variables.

378
Gear grinding of a different sort...  ;D

That's kind of funny... and possibly offensive to some people.

379
my .02$ for this "multi-outline-bokeh": try shooting these images WITHOUT image stabilisation, and you have solved the problem.
Before further explanation, try to understand how IS works...

These 70-200 zooms have produced plenty of similar effects while mounted on a tripod so IS is not the cause, even if it can contribute a similar effect when it's quite active.

There are also plenty of non-IS lenses also capable of similarly busy, outlined bokeh. In fact it's become a bit of a fad to create as much using certain old Helios lenses.  The 44M in a 50-some mm focal length come to mind.

380
Here's more unpleasant bokeh from spankin' new Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR
I'd hoped it would have less nasty multiple-outline bokeh than the faster Canon I posted at the start of this thread.
Alas, no.  It seems, in fact, to be as bad or worse at times.  No point going this direction instead of the Canon lens unless you're aiming to save size, weight, and money.

scaled from whole FF shot, looks even worse in full rez

200mm @ f/6.3

381
1. not my "art" images but i do think that all these images were ruined (scott kelby has his free critiq session, send them to him and ask to see if my thought is right.  i do trust scott eyes):  http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm  (wonder that why it is call a-b not a-z LOL)
2. "a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II... 20mm at f/4.0":  show me how you go back and shoot with that focal lengh?  if you should that with 20mm at f/4, i should not see that shallow dof, if i do not want to say that it should be all of them in focus (assume that you were not climbing on the tree to shoot that image  8)).
3. an experience photographer would not choose f4 in shooting the posted image (assume that you were shooting at focal of 200mm)


Hey, if you want to buy a copy of that, I'll sell you one. ;)
But the example as art is not being debated.  In that sense I'll put my best up against your best or anyone elses.

This is one of many shots I took at close to the minimum focus of the lens to see how it would perform.
Now I know, and I'm trying to share that info in case someone else thinks this highly praised and pricey piece of gear is nearly perfect because of all the fan-boy ravings about it.

Did you know or suspect that this lens would render the image this poorly in this circumstance?
I have another example to post from a competitor's 70-200mm that's as bad or worse.  Just in case someone was thinking that might be one solution.

EDIT:  hasty typo fixed, supposed to be 200mm, not 20mm.

382
i DID notice one more little flaw of sorts that affected my 5d2 and the 6d I looked at.
Altho it appears similar to FPN, it likely is not a noise issue but a small variation in pixel performance occurring .

I'll have to post the shots when I have time to monkey with them some more but the effect is this;

A "ribbon" shaped area was affected such that when shooting SMOOTH MIDTONES there was some fine vertical banding-like structure evident.  This is actually the first flaw i noticed on my 5d2 when i bought it but thought it was a noise issue at the time.  If it were a normal FPN issue,the banding would have been evident over the whole range of the smooth tone area.  instead, it was confined to a ribbon-like shape that meandered a bit over part of the sensor.

I managed to replicate and identify it by shooting a flat surface and enhancing the heck out of the contrast.
But it was in a real image of a foggy mountain lake at sunrise where i first found it.

So far I've only found this on the 5d2 and 6D.
I've sold my 5d2 recently, now waiting for price drop before getting a 6d, if I get one at all.

383
Is it better to shoot with the 5d2 at ISO 400 than ISO 100 to avoid the pattern noise? Thanks.
that is a viable workaround for the problem which I should have used more often myself.
dynamic range is almost the same from iso 100 to 800 or more but the effective read noise drops as you move up the iso scale and the signal to noise ratio also gets worse.  BUT, the SNR is still pretty good overall so some minor NR in post will clean up a 400 or 800 ISO raw file to be nearly as good as a 100 iso should be.  IF you have enough shutter speed and other exposure latitude to do this (careful when using flash fill)
after all that, yes, if you can move to iso 400 or more without affecting your composition elements from flash fill then use it to avoid the strong banding because the increased random noise/pattern noise is a benefit in this case.
Of course,all this only applies if you're lifting shadows or raising the overall exposure in post.  If you're not doing that, there's no need to.  the 5d2's shadow banding is usually barely noticeable in shadows that are not lifted at all.  It sort of depends on what you do with the image.

384
I quite like this idea ...

I recently took my 5DIII Ashdown Forest to take some photos. About 10 years ago I spent a lot of time in the forest with a medium format film camera ...  I didn't like the look of the 5D photos - they seemed to have a very 'synthetic look' - and I guess this is the main reason I don't feel the 5D is a good landscape camera for me. My work-around is not to use it for such things ;-)

Sometimes I wish I'd never seen film, or indeed done a degree in Photographic Science that did nothing but reinforce my love of silver halide crystals suspended in cow gelatin :)

But, there's so  much to enjoy about digital and I've also got my name on the list for a Leica M ... I'm really hoping that it provides a nice simple, clean image that is less about the process and more about the subject.

funny thing about the demise of film... more people are giving it a try.  some are liking it.
I still have a few rolls in the freezer and enough old gear to make use of it if I choose.

one of the other aspects of image "feel" is the glass in front of whatever's recording the image.
I'm having some fun with vintage lenses on my highly capable Nikon and Pentax bodies and even my older Canons.  Hoping to get a handle on all their quirks over time and apply them where they can accentuate the subject matter.
They provide a look you can't get in software, then you can add the software emulated film response on top of that for a very interesting alternative to the otherwise sometimes sterile-feeling digital image.
i'd like to try that B&W dedicated Leica myself...

385
Let's see how well this thread holds up!

We've got lots of threads here with various sides arguing the merits of read noise and banding in files, fixed pattern noise (FPN), dynamic range (DR), some on annoying lens aberrations and plenty more.

INSTEAD OF RE-HASHING THE TIRED OR UNFINISHED ARGUMENTS, POST YOUR IMAGES HERE THAT SHOW THE FLAW THAT RUINED THE SHOT FOR YOU.
If it's subtle, tell us what it is (and where) versus what you hoped for or expected.
Avoid posting images that started with poor technique or other major problems that are user errors rather than equipment flaws. If you were close but couldn't fix it in post...  Show before, after, and describe what you wanted to achieve.

We have a lot of good people with good advice on good equipment here.  A BIG HOLE IN THE INFORMATION, in my opinion, IS WHAT ARE THE WEAKNESSES OF A PARTICULAR CAMERA OR LENS or other bit of equipment that can make it impossible, difficult, or frustrating to get the shot you wanted.

LET'S SEE THE BAD STUFF SO WE CAN LEARN TO AVOID IT OR WORK AROUND IT and not miss any more shots because of it.  I, for one, had been a little too remiss in the past and I accepted of a lot of positive reviews on equipment only to find out shortly after buying and using it that it had some significant flaws that hindered its usefulness to me.

POST YOUR REMEDIES OR WORK-AROUNDS.  If discussing the issue, please EDIT YOUR QUOTING TO MINIMIZE THE QUOTE TO ONLY WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED instead of quoting everything including all the graphics.

Let the bashing, and learning, begin!
Have fun, keep it civil, make it EDUCATIONAL.

Addendum - to give you an example, here's a scaled shot taken with a 5D Mark II and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II
The image is basically ruined by garish, multi-outlined bokeh.  This is not a crop, this is the full frame.
200mm at f/4.0

hasty typo fixed, supposed to be 200mm, not 20mm.

386
What you forget is the superior CFA in 1dsmk3 compare to later Canon cameras to gain light
YUP!
I prefer the look of images from many of the older Canon cameras and it's hard to describe so might be an effect of the narrower band CFAs back then.  Even when bringing up contrast and saturation a bit in post from newer bodies there's just something not quite the same.

387
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...
« on: February 07, 2013, 12:39:56 AM »
1. if the sky to bright, what do you need to show... there is nothing to show there according to what i know (i.e. sunny day at noon.  SOUND LIKE NEURO SAID IT RIGHT.  YOU WANT TO "CAPTURE THE DETAIL OF THE SUN SHINING DOWN...")
2. if sky is your subject, why do you care about other?
3. if you want to include everything in your photo?  hdr is your choice (well, sorry i have to say this.  only suck photographer wants to include everything in his/her image.  that is what we are calling snapshot.)
4. everything in this world has its own limitation, find a way to work around with it

note:  i am not sure if they are your picture that i have seen online, but if it is yours, they are just normal, nothing highlight nor telling a story...  next time, if you are going out to take photos again, suggest to take a look latest video from brian peterson posted on adorama (DO NOT INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN YOUR PHOTO)

psychologically, i do not think that you can re-learn this part since you already develop these shooting habit for number of years.

Seriously?!?  This is how you think?
Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity.
Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera.  Artists vs snapshot documentarians.

DING!
And there's the bell!

Another round begins with Fact moving to the middle of the ring while BS tries to circle around and gag Fact with the odor of BS.

Fact dodges, moves to get some fresh air but it's pointless, BS is EVERYwhere! Boy can BS ever move!

Fact relies on his standard trick, facts.  But no matter how many facts he throws, none of them land a solid hit on BS.  Even when Fact comes out with new facts, BS is still unfazed.  What a fighter!

Can BS defeat Fact!?  We've gone countless rounds and there's still no clear winner.  Every time Fact appears to win on a technical, BS rises to the challenge!  How long can this fight continue!?  Can Fact ever keep BS down!?  Will they declare it a draw!?  I don't think so!  Neither Fact nor BS will tolerate the other coming out on top.  This promises to be a lot longer fight people!

DING! DING!

And there's the bell again!  Fact and BS are off to their respective corners for a little rest and words with their coaches.  Another round will start in a few moments, folks.  Don't leave your seats!
This is a battle you don't want to miss!

And now a word from our sponsor...
Kodachrome!

388
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...
« on: February 07, 2013, 12:10:48 AM »
No that is not my test pictures , but you can se  similarity, any  problems with that?

Yes I have a huge problem with that. You are the one that held those two images up as an example, post the untouched RAW files with intact unedited EXIF or don't, your choice, if you don't then you are obviously not telling the truth.

PBD, your incessant yammering on this aspect only shows how narrow-minded you are being. Data is data.  Whether it's from Michael's cameras or Fred Mirandas or mine, the results are the same!

389
Third Party Manufacturers / TAMRON'S thinking about making FAST PRIMES
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:43:56 PM »
short video clip to watch, from the guys over at Pentaxforums.
Interview with Tamron marketing guy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRrELlKv0mw Small | Large


with the decent performance of their moderate range zooms, I'll be very interested in seeing them return to making some good primes to compete with OEM and Sigma in the "affordable" market.

Too bad the old Adapt-all theme is not returning any time soon.  Would be great for us multi-platform types.

If you're interested and have a chance, let them know you'd like them to produce some.  I'll likely be talking to my local rep in the next couple months about it.

390
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7000 replacement in April...
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:25:27 PM »
yes, You can believe that if its suits you.
this is my 5dmk2 and my d800, exposed in the same way  to get the high lights in the sky intact
then the darker parts are lifted and adjusted the same. The results from the Canon is visible more pattern noise , banding, lower signal , less color information.

You should run the 5D II RAW image through Topaz DeNoise 5, and use the debanding feature. You might be surprised how much DR is recovered. The blacks may not be as rich, as Canon uses a bias offset which eats a chunk of shadow DR, but the noise would very likely disappear. DeNoise has shadow tone recovery features as well, which could restore or deepen some of those shadow tones. Once you eliminate the banding noise, Canon sensors fare a hell of a lot better against there competitors.

Skuze me for bein' cheeky but..

You otta try a camera from Nikon, Pentax, Fuji or Olympus then you won't have to try smearing the banding away with software plugins. ;)

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 55