for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.
The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).
I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.
Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].
I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.
And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.
Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.
For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.
People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.
There are posts that just stick to the facts, then there are posts where you implicitly or explicitly insult, or you make assumptions about what a person will do then tell the community that's what they are going to do in the future, such as when you said I'm just a complainer and Canon hater, and once Canon finally came out with a high DR camera, I'd move onto Nikon forums and find something else to complain about. I take issue with that. I have a specific complaint. I'm skeptical Canon is going to address it any time soon, and Canon's lack of action frustrates me, but that doesn't make me some kind of rabid Canon hater who is just going to hate on Canon because I want to hate on Canon...that's a misrepresentation of me, and yeah, I take that personally.
That kind of personal crap has been flying around these forums for weeks, and a lot of it is based on nothing but pure assumption. There is also the way "DRone" has become highly derogative, and that term is used with a number of members on these forums. There is the insulting and regular implication that "DRones" don't know how to use a camera or process their images. (These things aren't just directed at me, but at everyone you guys have decided to call a DRone.) You can't tell me that there isn't an intentionally personal and insulting aspect to most of the posts you guys write in response to anyone bringing up DR these days. IT IS PERSONAL. You guys have made it personal...maybe you don't realize you have...but you have. I've never seen so many insults flung on a forum outside of 4chan and reddit.
PBD, you haven't taken it as far as some, although you have made many of your posts personal recently. Neuro and Keith (and a couple others) seem to use the term DRone as a nasty derogative most frequently, alongside other thinly veiled insults. Kieth doesn't seem to be able to stop inferring that DRones are just bumbling idiots who don't know how to use a camera, don't know the first thing about post-processing, and regularly derides the photography of DRones when I'm quite sure he hasn't even seen the photography of most or any of them. There are a number of other members who have gotten quite personal and been deriding people's photography or artistic choices here as well...and that's just flat out rude. NONE of this has EVER been been done in a constructive manner...the reaction to "DRones" has always been a negative one, but lately it's down right rabid. Like a pack of wolves, you guys just pounce and never let up. If it was just about correcting someones incorrect facts, it could be done far, far more constructively...the way you guys go about it, it's (seemingly intentionally) destructive. (And again, I'm not just speaking for myself...there were pages upon pages of you guys and many others circling and attacking Dilbert on the D750 thread, over and over and over. I don't think much of Dilbert's opinions myself, I don't think he understands a lot of what he talks about...but wow, guys...)
It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though. There is a difference between pointing that and incorrect statement, and attacking and insulting those who make a mistake. You guys have added a personal undercurrent to this whole thing. Just the use of the term DRone, the way it's used, is quite insulting...let alone the defamation of character or defamation of people's work or anything like that.
But, as always, you take that out of context, my comment was in reply to a specific assertion, and assumption, of yours where you said I lump you in with "normal complainers", I was replying to a personal question from you, see how keeping the context of a comment changes the way people might perceive it?
Besides, you never stick to the facts, your posts play out exactly as Neuro so eloquently laid out, I have tried to engage you in non confrontational discussions on the "facts". Even in your completely "unbiased DR thread" you decided that the Exmor file was usable, I said for my purposes it isn't, you then get super defensive, I post a crop of your "holding detail outside the window" that illustrates there isn't any detail outside the window, you then wax lyrical about it was just an off the hip test and if you had been presented with that kind of need for shadow lift the Exmor would have been "better", Duh, we have all agreed that from day one, but you were not in that situation, your images didn't prove anything and your opinions are just that, your opinions.
As for your making mistakes, well we all do, but you are not " willing to admit when I'm wrong"
your normal initial response is to attack, you then, when people can be bothered to correct you, get overwhelmed by straight forward evidence that you are wrong, then you get defensive and then paranoid and now, as in your latest 11mm pincushion nonsense, delete your replies. That is not admitting you are wrong, that is being pig headed in the face of being shown to be wrong and then getting in a bad mood about it.
If you can't see that the way you are, and the way you say it, is what elicits the responses it does, not your message, then you are beyond help.