July 29, 2014, 08:19:28 PM

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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61
466
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 07:02:37 PM »

you can take a look at his images right here http://a2bart.com/... thinking of one day i am going to take some of his images and send to "scott kelby blind critique" and then post back result of the video in this forum to see how good his skill is  ;D i guess that we probably have great laugh in this forum since scott is pretty straight...

note:  my 7 years old daughter can create much much nicer a website layout than the one listed above (unbelievable entire website is still used html in these days, no wonder why his image and the other irrelevant-er  have no improvement...)


YAWN!  ::) I've seen what you've posted on this site, ishdakuteb, you've got a long road ahead of you before you can think about stepping into my shoes.
And frankly, I don't care what you think artistically - you probably like the Ken Rockwell style of over-saturated, over-contrasty clich├ęs.
And if your kid's so much better at building a site, good for her, there's some talent somewhere in your family.  ;)
Meanwhile, keep shooting.  You'll benefit from the practice.

467
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 06:49:33 PM »
PBD: I called Mikael an irrelevance, which by my understanding of the word is not an insult, because his comments in these threads are so often irrelevant.

IMO, you are directly disrespecting the man with that statement.
You seem to have an adequate grasp of english to be able to understand that you did not refer to his IDEAS with that comment, which you've repeated more than once.

If you were to do so, you'd have said, "Hey, your opinion or comment is irrelevant."
FWIW, irrelevance is not even a real word, but you're putting it into a context that comes across as disrespectful.
I also find your badgering of people for their raw files a put-off as well.
What do you hope to accomplish from someone else's raw files?
If you want samples of D800 or 5d2 files, you can find them, shot under very controlled conditions, on various sites.  Imaging-resourse is a good example.
Download them and play with them.  See how they compare for yourself.
I see little need to duplicate their efforts to appease such requests.

PBD: Like his eye comment..
you did not need to respond to that, he didn't contradict what you said, he merely added to it

PBD: Can you show us some images where the DR of the Canon just can't work but the slightly higher DR of the Nikon saved the day and made a worthwhile image? It appears not.

yes.
I can show you where, if I had shot Nikon, it would have provided an image that _I_ would have liked much better.  My client didn't care.  I'm a much fussier customer than my clients.

PBD: However, what we are constantly asking for is examples of where the Canon equipment lets you down in real world shooting,

Right, and when I actually started a thread on this exact topic a couple days ago I got 2 pages of crap from various fan-boys on this site who weren't patient enough for some examples to be posted by me or anyone else.  Very few others even braved the flames to actually try to participate.  I feel bad for them because they were interested in the topic but were likely turned off by the resulting brawl.  I certainly was.
Why should I, and some others, waste our time trying to share our experience and knowledge when the response is ridicule or disrespect?  Many of the people on this forum have something worthwhile to contribute, even if they're newbies.  However, I've often seen too many responses in a condescending attitude from certain participants; that does not create a healthy atmosphere for participation.
And it must the crankiness that comes with old age but I'm gonna call it when i see it.

PBD: where maximising the lower capabilities of the Canon are not enough, where worthwhile real world images could only be shot with a Nikon. In truth I have never been shown one, not one single real world image, only lots of artificially set up and badly exposed "tests".

What I've generally stated is that the superior sensor performance of the other mfr's cameras allow a lot more creative freedom in post and simplified shooting in the field because we don't have to try wring the best from a mediocre product.
I and others have also stated that it's certainly a benefit to be able to recover from an underexposed shot, or to be able to compress the contrast in a shot with lots of dynamic range, so that the shadows aren't wrecked by pattern noise.  There are enough real-world situations where this is an issue.
I've made prints from my 5d2 and 7d that people think are great!  Sure.  I wonder what they'd have thought about the same images if I could have lifted the dark levels a little like I wanted to, so a hint of the detail hiding there could be seen - preferably without the stripes.

I don't know who said it but taking your dark print outside to view in sunlight to see the shadow details is not often an appropriate option!
This is when shadow range compression (lifting) is beneficial and when patterned noise cameras, like most contemporary Canons, are not up to the task in the more extreme cases.

Artificially contrived tests are what you use when you do research.  It's called a controlled environment to minimize variables.  It's daft to suggest such tests do not have merit, people need to understand how they work and how the results will apply to real world shooting.  If someone can't understand that, it's gonna be pretty hard to teach them much of anything.

PBD: I shoot a lot of very high dynamic range images, a Nikon would not serve me better.
That's true, but it is irrelevant! ;)
HDR can even be done with an 8-bit compact camera.

468
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 01:23:53 PM »
To me, the primary benefit of the technology is that if you have a bad exposure for whatever reason, you can lift the shadows a bit and fix it.  You clearly have more leeway in this regard with the later Nikon gear than the Canon stuff and that is mainly due to the pattern noise, not the random noise based DR difference (that DxO measures).  This is a huge benefit for the Nikon gear; however, in fairness to Canon, I have never really had a problem with their equipment for any real world work I have done.

OK, you  DO get it. :)

469
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 01:21:43 PM »
.. For some reason it is deemed highly important to some Nikon users, while some Canon users find it utterly unimportant. I expect that situation to flip if ever Canon release a 15-stop DR DSLR.

+1
but I aint waitin' for Canon to produce such.  Even 11 or 12 stops of CLEAN DR provides a workable imaging tool.

The aspect that's constantly under-rated by most who crow about the adequacy of Canon in comparison to the sensor superiority of other mfrs is the damn pattern noise.
I'd have kept my 5d2 and 7d with the DR they had if only the base iso noise didn't look like a plaid overlay or picket fence, respectively.

..We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value ..

Use your imagination.
I'ts nice to know you have gear that CAN do whatever you want in a challenging situation or to allow recovery from an under exposure error than to have gear which has technical limitations that would require more labor and effort to overcome.
If you're gonna pound that DR nail you could beat on it with that model 5d3 wrench or you could smack it down in one clean blow with a d800 hammer.

470
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.  ;)

471
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.

472
Gear grinding of a different sort...  ;D

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

473
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.

474
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

475
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.

476
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.

477
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.

478
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...

479
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.

480
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.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61