December 22, 2014, 08:49:54 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 191
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 08, 2014, 09:44:09 AM »

you guys make me laugh.

Thankfully the feeling is reciprocated. I don't get bugged by your childish trolls.

You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy.  Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image.  In other words, their range is image-adaptive.  +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.

Do you have a link to a paper or demonstration of that, it would be interesting.


I didn't intentionally add NR, it was just at a modest default and in no way excessive. In print nobody would notice either the noise or the 'painterly' appearance.


My apologies, I misinterpreted your comment as a negative, there is often a lot of negativity in these threads and I often get flak for the examples I post. Like I said, I often have the LR default set which is only 25 luminance. I hope people realise this is a 100% crop of a 21MP image.

Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.

Telling people what?

that the right image looks like the NR is high giving the painterly effect?;topic=24028.0;attach=127749;image

I like to do this purposefully on portraits, it's a nice look for smoothing skin :) doesn't look good at 100% though

Telling people that it is too noisy if you can't remove the noise in the version with zero noise reduction.

Is 25 luminance really too high when viewed at 100%? But if it is then I gave you a NR free version too.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 08, 2014, 08:52:12 AM »
So what? Nikon sell a lot of cameras, not as many as Canon, but a lot, so there are a lot of people out there buying them.

We don't know her reasons for stating 'the best IQ' or what she considers 'best IQ', we don't know her shooting preferences, and we also don't know the bias of whoever advised her.

I have recommended Nikon to people, in fact I advised my best friend to stick with Nikon when he was talking about switching three or so years ago, in my mind for him it made more sense to reinvest in Nikon gear.

It means nothing other than yet another post on a Canon forum with the intention to troll.

Two people have presented files with just as much shadow push as he had and the results are fine. You are very clearly wrong.

Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.

Save the hassle of magic lantern, the Sony sensor produce files which can have their shadows pushed more cleanly than Canon.

I have both 5dM3 and RX1r - I see this all the time.

Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.

private/dtaylor, appreciate the feedback to my question, Thank You.

Also the info regards ML, unfortunately it isn't as yet workable on the 1Dx, to my knowledge, I like this for no other reason than the auto ETTR, can't quite come to grips why Canon don't implement something along these lines as standard on all their gear, as well as the other Camera Manufacturers.

eml, you are welcome.

Too often people throw stuff out there that quite simply is not remarkable, it just sounds it! But like Daniel says and you have experienced, there are times a Sony can get the shot and a Canon can't, however Daniel and I agree that those times where the difference between the two is the only difference needed are very few in number.

ML won't port to the 1 series, Canon made it very clear that messing with the 1DC firmware was an absolute no no and there has been little/no inclination to attempt any of the 1's. Interestingly the 1DC cannot be user firmware upgraded, it has to go to a service center Canon are that protective of the C line. So you are limited to ML on your 5D MkIII's.

And the third image. I had to 'Save for Web' as it was over 5mb

For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.

I have an example too.

Here is an image I just worked that has Mr Marom's exact development settings bar the unknown amount of saturation and reduction.

First image is the original full image, second image is the same file with the same settings in ACR/LR and then PS, and the third is both side by side at 100% on my monitor. Click on the image to see them as is.

Photography Technique / Re: DOF, Infinity focus and Hyperfocal distance
« on: December 06, 2014, 08:59:58 PM »
Infinity focus is the theory that if you want the optimal image sharpness throughout your frame, like a landscape, then ignore hyperfocal focusing which is the 'commonly adopted' way to do that and just focus at infinity. This idea has a very important proponent, Harold Merklinger, who has done some very good work on the maths behing focusing, dof, tilting and shifting.

Hyperfocal focusing relies on the fact that nothing is infinitely sharp, everything either side of the infinitely narrow plane of focus is just a bit less sharp than the bit closer, this sounds bad until you realise that DOF figures are all based on human acuity, the sharpness levels within the DOF are supposed to be so small that the human eye can't tell that they are not sharp. Therefore if your dof at 20ft is from 10 ft to infinity then you get optimal image sharpness throughout the image if you focus at 20ft.

Hyperfocal breaks down a bit on several levels, the figures given in dof meters are not necessarily accurate enough, the output size and viewing distance impact the dof and that is rarely known at the time of capture, and many people have better than average eyesight.

I believe infinity focus gives better sharpness throughout the image, or focusing two stops narrower than a hyperfocal distance would dictate, ie, if you are shooting at f11 use the focus distance for f5.6, this holds the infinity nice and sharp and gets the foreground as good as it will get. Unless you have foreground interest and you want to hold a sharp infinity, then you have to choose, or blend multiple images, or use a lens that tilts.

For sure. Don't even need to improve that much from 1DX and I'll drop $10k easily. 2 stops on ISO performance, 2 stops on DR, 2 stops on MP. Sold.

You think adding 2 stops here and there is worth a $3500 bump in price?

Even the first two, totally. And for MP, 1 stop would be good enough, 2 stop add on MP would be already to much in my mind.

You guys make me laugh, a one stop improvement means twice as good, two stops means four times as good, we are well into product maturity and small incremental increases in performance. What do you think could be done to give you 400% more performance in key areas with a mere 45% price increase?

And what is a stop of MP?

Post Processing / Re: Best practice for post brightness/gamma!?
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:19:18 PM »
Hey there Marsu,

I run in to this all the time, sending people images that not only don't have decent or calibrated monitors, they have the brightness turned right up too. I will often turn my laptop brightness up to the max just to see an image as many who view it will see it.

Many people now put their images on a web page with a ramp on it to make sure the brightness level is within a reasonable range, DPReview use them on their test pages.

Your images look fine to me, and as I am sure you know, D65 is a WB setting and doesn't have anything to do with brightness. The histogram bump belongs anywhere in the range that accurately reflects the scene, if it is a shady scene the bump should be below the midpoint, if it is in the light then above makes more sense, but again, your images look fine on my monitors too.

Don't confuse his monitor brightness with your processing.

As for the capital letters or not, they are the title so should be capitals.

Hope this helps.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tony wanted to switch to Nikon but Couldn't
« on: December 05, 2014, 06:21:21 PM »
+1 to jrista's comment about running multiple systems... 

I was a Nikon guy when I started shooting SLRs in film, my first body was an FM2n.  Developed a lens and body collection and then discovered the wonder of Canon white glass and AF with an EOS 3...  In the world of digital, Canon had a pretty healthy advantage across the board for a while but the 14-24 Nikon tempted me into a D700 and I still use that wide angle combo a lot, although the absence of easy filters is a bit disappointing sometimes. 

There's definitely an argument to be made for one system for familiarity reasons, but I figure I control enough other technology in my life without being confused, I should be able to handle two camera menu / button systems!  LOL  And on the Nikon, I'm only shooting WA so sub-second config changes aren't in the cards very often.  :)

I am absolutely not interested in anything outside of a single system, it becomes difficult to maintain backup capabilities efficiently and basic things like batteries and chargers, cable releases, flashes etc etc get doubled up when there is no need. It just isn't an efficient, or necessary, way of working for many working pros.

As for the 14-24 filters, look at the WonderPana system, I have one for the 17TS-E and it is a very good, and reasonably priced solution.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:32:20 PM »
Could you please share link(s) to market data regarding EF vs EF-S lens sales? I haven't found anything useful yet and I'm keen to learn more.

No, I don't have the time or inclination, but sales figures have been discussed here recently.

I forget the outcome but seem to remember, though forgive me if I am wrong, only 3% of EOS owners buy a lens outside of the kit they buy new, they have sold over 90,000,000 EF/EF-s/EF-m, TS-E, and MP-E lenses, or is it 100,000,000 now? Something like 7% of interchangeable lens camera sales are FF (as mentioned by Thom Hogan). By simple maths it is obvious that there are close to 93,000,000 Canon APS cameras out there and there are close to 7,000,000 Canon FF cameras out there. Though these figures don't take into account the much lower earlier EOS film camera figures any adjustment would be small to allow for the discrepancy due to the much lower sales volumes at that time.

93,000,000/7,000,000 = 13.3.

If you take an average price of $2,500 for a FF camera and an $800 average for a crop camera they'd need to sell 3 times as many crop cameras as ff cameras to make the same income, now even if my figures and guestimates are well off it is clear Canon sells vastly more crop cameras to ff cameras than that, probably close to 10 times as many. EF-s is the cash cow, it is losing weight, but it is still where all the money comes from.

Technical Support / Re: LG 27MB85Z-B
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:04:07 PM »
Looks like a fairly decent monitor.

Big thing for me is it is wide Gamut, meaning you get 1.07 Billion colors.  You will likely need to upgrade your video card to do this, but in short, you will most closely be able to see the actual colors you are shooting.

Many people like the 5K monitors, but most all of these are 24.7 Million colors.

BLECH!  To each their own, I would prefer to have 50x the colors in a sharp crisp display than 2% the colors in a super large display.

Well that is debatable at this point. Besides, we, as humans, can't actually differentiate anywhere close to a billion colours.

It seems accurate and high bit depth LUT's and high quality profiling are far more important that wide gamut or 10 bit screens at this point. And again, the problems become downstream, it becomes slightly less than ideal when you are working in one space to an accuracy level well above everybody else and any output device out there. I need to know what others will see looking at my images in the way they will, either via the web, as downloaded images, or prints, more than I need to see more than I do.

But without making a conscious effort to shoot for accuracy the entire issue of 'accurate colours' becomes moot if you are not shooting and making custom camera profiles on each shoot even if you are using an OS and video card that can handle the best 10 bit wide gamut monitors with 16 bit 3D LUT's along with the connectors, programs and software that matches it all. I have a 16bit output option to print on my 11 ink printer (it is a clear pipeline from a RAW 14 bit file worked in 16 space to a 16 bit output device), I have yet to see a single image where it makes any difference what so ever.

Wide gamut monitors are nice for subtle tonal changes on your own system, but if that subtlety doesn't translate to your output and the end viewer experience, or worse if you see something completely different to everybody else, it doesn't seem to have much real world value to me.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 191