Messages

46

Reviews / Re: Canon 60D vs Nikon D7100 - 2 Problems I Noticed with the Nikon D7100

« on: April 22, 2013, 05:48:49 PM »

show me example of the Nikons inferior AWB
the AWB is easy to correct/change  in-house if the results not are as you like.

See that little red “1” at the bottom of the page? Click on it.

Or google "Nikon green cast."

Cheers,

b&

47

Reviews / Re: Canon 60D vs Nikon D7100 - 2 Problems I Noticed with the Nikon D7100

« on: April 22, 2013, 05:40:07 PM »

please explain what do you mean with this:

But it's not reasonable to expect those algorithms to differ by more than a minor amount, and Nikon cameras are notorious for royally screwing up white balance in exactly the way the original poster has discovered. I'd go so far as to suggest that the cameras are unacceptable as shipped, though the problems should vanish in an ICC managed workflow.

It's a pretty straightforward statement. Even though they use different algorithms, they should come up with relatively close results. In this case, the camera may be defective, but using the process he suggested at but didn't explain in detail, it wouldn't matter.

Egg sack lily.

The cameras should produce onboard JPEGs close enough that you're not going to tell the one from the other just by the white balance, even if they're not exactly the same (and you wouldn't expect them to be exactly the same). But if you're doing color critical work and using an ICC-managed workflow, all that matters is the actual raw data and the camera's wild-assed guesses about proper white balance don't even enter into the equation.

Still, there's no excuse for a white balance system as screwed up as Nikon's. Few people even know that it's something that can be worked around, let alone have the patience to work around it. And you shouldn't have to work around it. It's hardly rocket surgery; it should just work.

Cheers,

b&

48

Technical Support / Re: Grey card and spot metering

« on: April 22, 2013, 05:35:11 PM »

How do you install a ICC profile in your camera to get a correct exposure?

Sadly, of course, you don't....

ICC profiles are more about getting colors correct.

But exposure is the most fundamental part of getting colors correct! And, in a fully-ICC-managed workflow, the profile is going to correct any exposure errors at the same time it gets the colors in line. A hybrid workflow will at least correct exposure and white balance, which is all you can realistically do outside the studio, leaving it up to your supply of carefully-constructed generic profiles (one in daylight, one in shade, one in tungsten, etc.) to get you "close enough."

Obviously, you need to shoot a target in the same conditions at the same settings as the "real" shot. If you're shooting tethered in the studio, you can quickly build a profile on the fly and analyze it to tell you the exact exposure adjustments and white balance settings you need, and you can then decide if you want to make your exposure adjustments with the camera / lights or (if there're reflective or illuminated highlights that'll get clipped) in post-production. When I'm doing art reproduction, I do so and adjust the lighting to within 1/100 of a stop of perfect exposure in camera.

The same process also (of course) tells you how to adjust exposure and white balance in post-processing, at which point all you're left with is applying the ICC profile.

I use a similar workflow in the field when I'm doing landscape work, except that I generally don't shoot tethered and thus I'll bracket (usually with the auto-HDR because it's so convenient) and pick the best / least-worst exposure as the starting point, and then use the profile of the image of the chart to determine post-processing adjustment of exposure and white balance. Works awesome. Even if you significantly miss the exposure, you've got so much latitude with modern cameras that, so long as you didn't clip the highlights, you can perfectly salvage all but the worst mistrakes...so long as you got that shot of the target (I use a ColorChecker Passport in the field) in the light with the same settings.

Cheers,

b&

49

Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm

« on: April 22, 2013, 04:45:41 PM »

For example:

This is the textbook example of what the TS-E 17 is designed for: close-up photos of tall buildings.

Of course, that's not all it can do, and it's not all it can do really, really, well. But it's basically its primary purpose.

If you're thinking of doing this sort of thing -- or of similar sorts of close-up shots of very big things (including mountains and trees) where you don't want any geometric distortion -- then this is the lens for you. If you have other types of photography in mind, this probably isn't the lens for you.

Cheers,

b&

50

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 04:27:55 PM »

now you are talking a lot of BS, why remark on CA and colorfinging,  when the question is signal/noise

Yes, we are indeed discussing the ratio of signal to noise. And you have virtually no signal, making the ratio a negligibly small number.

Cheers,

b&

canon has got more signal= longer exposure time, study the subject

So pull out your calculator and tell us what twice the value of a negligibly small number is. Or just do a Google search for GIGO.

Cheers,

b&

51

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 04:22:37 PM »

now you are talking a lot of BS, why remark on CA and colorfinging,  when the question is signal/noise

Yes, we are indeed discussing the ratio of signal to noise. And you have virtually no signal, making the ratio a negligibly small number.

Cheers,

b&

52

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 03:46:55 PM »

The shots are similar enough to be valid for the comparisons being made.
maybe a more rigorous approach and f/5.6-8 would have been better for overall IQ, but it would make little difference to the actual point of comparing shadow noise and hilite recovery.

What shadows and highlights? His slipshod technique utterly destroyed them before the sensor even had a theoretical chance of recording them -- along with the midtones as well. Of course there's no shadow nor highlight detail to recover because there's no detail to recover in the first place.

If ever there was a perfect example of GIGO, this is it.

Cheers,

b&

53

Lenses / Re: TS-E 17mm or 24mm

« on: April 22, 2013, 03:42:27 PM »

I was in a similar position, and I've rented both the 17 mm and 24 mm  TS-E lenses.

If you're not sure which to get, then this is the right answer: rent both.

I love the 24. Whenever I can think of an excuse to use it instead of some other lens, I do. And it takes the 1.4x TC just brilliantly, giving you an awesome 35(ish) lens as well.

I'm personally not drawn to the 17mm perspective anywhere near as much as I am to the 24mm perspective. And when I do want something as staggeringly wide as the 17 would give, I'm generally not going to be satisfied with a mere 17mm lens and I'm instead reaching for the 8-15. But that's just me.

Oh, it, of course, depends a great deal which format you're shooting with. I shoot 135 ("full frame") exclusively. If I shot APS-C ("crop"), I'd be all over the 17 instead of the 24.

Also worth considering is the third-party alternatives. I don't really remember who's selling what, but I do know that somebody's got something new for a fair bit less that still has the independent movements of the Version II lenses. I also understand that the image quality from said lens is supposed to be quite respectable, even if it's not quite as good as the Canon. In other words, it's probably a much better price:performance ratio still with very good performance.

Cheers,

b&

54

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 22, 2013, 03:29:32 PM »

Right, the FF lens "gathers" twice as much light, and then spreads the "gathered" light over a much larger sensor. The crop lens "gathers" less light, but then focuses the light onto a small sensor, creating a brighter exposure than the full frame lens despite having "gathered" less actual light.

...but only when shot at an f/number sufficiently smaller such that the actual physical aperture is the same.

In other words, the APS-C camera shot with a 50mm lens at f/1.8 gathers the same amount of light as a 135 camera with an 80mm lens at f/2.8, and framing and depth of field and the rest are also comparable.

50 / 1.8 = 27.8
80 / 2.8 = 28.6

Cheers,

b&

55

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:41:03 PM »

THE POINT IS, these shots are done to prove his point using base ISO and an appropriate exposure to compare the noise limits in shadows and recovery potential of hilites.

And how, exactly, pray tell, is one supposed to have even a hint of a clue what sort of detail there is in either highlights or shadows to be recovered if they've been so completely obliterated by the most appalling incompetent application of technique I've seen in ages?

It's like hearing somebody complaining about a lens can't resolve fine details worth S___...only to learn that it's from a hand-held shot at ISO 25,600 @ f/32 @ f/10.

The only thing Mikael is continuing to demonstrate is his incompetence. And, no, I don't care that he only cared about one inconsequential aspect of performance. His sloppiness not only ruined any prospects he might have had at actually demonstrating anything, it's indicative of his repeatedly-demonstrated inability to use the gear to its full potential.

And then you both expect us to be surprised when he can't get anywhere close to the results that everybody else can with the same gear?

Puh-leeeze.

Hell, I bet he didn't even bother with a tripod for that cathedral shot.

b&

56

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 01:10:50 PM »

the color fringing shows the difference between the lenses, sigma 35 and canon 35/1,4
the rest maybe is to hard for you to understand, absolute white point , clipping high lights  and  no chanse to rescue and DR straith down from high lights in to the shadows.

this is not any artistic composition... it is pure physics= signal / noise  and shown from  the same motive.

So, you excruciatingly sloppily did everything even an introductory class on photography would tell you never to do...and then you expect to somehow prove some sort of a point about how lousy your equipment is with this one aspect that you insist you got right as opposed to all that other stuff you completely messed up?

Um...okay...whatever....

b&

57

Technical Support / Re: Grey card and spot metering

« on: April 22, 2013, 01:07:46 PM »

As noted, be sure to cover the entire frame with your gray card.  If you are using one of the tiny ones, they are generally best for color correction.
Be sure to check things out before actually using it, as Thom notes, camera manufacturers do not use 18% reflectance to calibrate your camera, so your exposure might be off.
http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

Thom's points are all correct and useful...but also somewhat dated. These days, if you're looking for perfect
exposure, there are much better methods than a gray card or even a handheld light meter. Specifically, you'll be wanting to get your hands quite dirty with ICC profiles....

But, of course, Thom's suggestions are an excellent starting point, as they're plenty "good enough" for the overwhelming majority of photographers. Unless you have problems doing as he says, there's no point in worrying even about the exact reflectance of your gray card.

Cheers,

b&

58

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dynamic range, high lights information D800 vs 5dmk2

« on: April 22, 2013, 12:28:54 PM »

ankorwatt

Dude, you have convinced me of one thing ... If I am a persistently bad shooter who messes up the exposure more often than not, I'd be served rather well with Nikon than Canon. Everything else can go to hell

Keep up the good work!

Not just exposure...he shot that at eff freakin' one point four. And not a damned thing is even close to being in focus -- it's just one giant smudge. And the CA he got from shooting full open is as ugly as it is predictable.

I mean, really. Under what circumstances does it even occur to any even semi-clueful photographer to shoot architecture at f/1.4?

If it weren't for all the amazing photos I've seen made with Nikon cameras, I, too, would be convinced by now from Mikael's insistence that Nikon is only the choice of the incompetent.

Cheers,

b&

59

Technical Support / Re: Grey card and spot metering

« on: April 22, 2013, 12:23:24 PM »

The histogram is built from the entire image. Unless the gray card fills 100% of the screen, you should expect to see all sorts of other stuff represented there.

Indeed, if it's only a linear 50% of the frame that you're filling the gray card with, the area that covers is much less than 50%....

But, if you're using a gray card as you describe, the histogram is pretty irrelevant unless you're watching against clipping of especially bright highlights...in which case, the meter reading off the gray card becomes irrelevant.

You might also consider a handheld light meter instead of a gray card. Logically, they function the same way, but the gray card has disadvantages -- not the least of which is that even the low levels of gloss on a gray card can wreak havoc with your camera's meter readings. Try it -- step outside on a sunny day, stand in a single spot with the Sun at your back, hold the card at arm's length, and rotate the card. See how much its brightness changes, even to your eye, depending on whether or not it's pointing near or away from the Sun! Now, which of those angles is the "right" one for setting exposure?

A meter doesn't have those problems, due to its design. Stand in the place of your subject (or as close as you can get), aim the dome at the camera, press the button, and you've got your exposure.

Cheers,

b&

60

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?

« on: April 22, 2013, 11:25:26 AM »

Oh, and those defending their Rebel-grade 6D's as being superior to the 7D ... 

Oh. I see.

You think that the 7D has superior image quality to the 6D.

Well, enjoy that fantasy world you've built for yourself. But do be careful at zebra crossings....

Cheers,

b&