December 22, 2014, 04:23:21 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 135
1591
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 09:52:28 PM »
Great advice as usual neuro.  Noise will always be minimized by getting the brightest image you can get without blowing any highlights.  One line of your response is what actually answers the OP...

But, if you've got the aperture and shutter speed you want for the shot, you're better off bumping up the ISO in the camera rather than in post.

But why is that the case?  In other words, why does the camera do a better job of increasing the exposure (by ISO setting that is applied after the exposure) than adjusting the exposure in post (DPP, DxO, LR, etc.)?

I'm not going to pretend i'm an expert at sensors, neuro may provide a better explanation, but I would have to say it's because the camera/sensor is the first to see and process the file and can do what it needs to do with those beautiful digic processors and sensor to provide the best image possible... where as when you do it in post, the computer is pretty much blind in the essence that all it "see's" is code and information of the digital file that your camera CREATED... Then when you do heavy post to it, it's amplifying the information of the digital file but basically it's creating information where information wasn't there to begin with, so your left with the noise as a result...  It didn't/doesn't know exactly what was there so it does it's best to guess for you.  It was kinda the same in film... you could underexpose and push the film in development or overexpose and pull the film, but it never was quite the same as nailing your exposure the first time... and even at that, like digital, you didn't want to push/pull your film more than 1 stop max unless you wanted some funky effects.

Ok, yes the RAW file as written to the card may have been already manipulated/processed and that could be an explanation why an ISO increase is superior to a post exposure increase, essentially that's what I'm asking... I don't know much about what is written in a RAW file vs. what the actual photosite measured values are, is there some data that is lost/changed/hidden/discarded by the time the RAW file is written.  But I'll disagree that the camera's processor (DIGIC for Canon) can do anything an Intel CPU can do.  DIGIC is in part optimized for certain Digital Signal Processing directly in hardware whereas your computer CPU is truly general purpose and relies on software so it is possibly slower but not worse.

I'm not saying that the digic can do miracles the intel CPU cant, but what i am saying is the digic, at the time of capture, can have access to information that the CPU just cant, such as information about how much light is hitting the sensor, any extra tidbits of information the sensor can pump out in certain areas, etc... The computer in dark areas just recognizes dark areas with little to no information in the dark areas, hence when you try to then increase the lightness, the camera is essentially guessing at what should be there whereas the digic doesn't have to guess, it just reads the information from the sensor and processes it directly in real time... no guessing really needed. 

1592
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 06:52:49 PM »
Great advice as usual neuro.  Noise will always be minimized by getting the brightest image you can get without blowing any highlights.  One line of your response is what actually answers the OP...

But, if you've got the aperture and shutter speed you want for the shot, you're better off bumping up the ISO in the camera rather than in post.

But why is that the case?  In other words, why does the camera do a better job of increasing the exposure (by ISO setting that is applied after the exposure) than adjusting the exposure in post (DPP, DxO, LR, etc.)?

I'm not going to pretend i'm an expert at sensors, neuro may provide a better explanation, but I would have to say it's because the camera/sensor is the first to see and process the file and can do what it needs to do with those beautiful digic processors and sensor to provide the best image possible... where as when you do it in post, the computer is pretty much blind in the essence that all it "see's" is code and information of the digital file that your camera CREATED... Then when you do heavy post to it, it's amplifying the information of the digital file but basically it's creating information where information wasn't there to begin with, so your left with the noise as a result...  It didn't/doesn't know exactly what was there so it does it's best to guess for you.  It was kinda the same in film... you could underexpose and push the film in development or overexpose and pull the film, but it never was quite the same as nailing your exposure the first time... and even at that, like digital, you didn't want to push/pull your film more than 1 stop max unless you wanted some funky effects. 

1593
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:56:20 PM »
It's also worth noting that the lower ISO image in my test came out warmer than the ISO 2500 image which came out cooler... both shot with AWB and my lights are constant output lights so nothing color wise changed... For what it's worth (the cooler color was more accurate to the actual sceen) albeit the warmer color was more pleasant to look at. 

1594
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:51:25 PM »
For the sake of arguement I popped out my 5d2 and snapped 2 photos of my small studio product photography setup which has blownout highlights all the way down to crushed shadows and all the light falloff creating all the midtones you could desire... ... an extreme situation mind you, but one taken at ISO 2500 and one at iso 400... shutter and aperture being the same... in photoshop I pushed the levels on the underexposed image and while the raw photos were a lot closer in tonality than my jpeg offerings of the same image, the ISO changed in camera (ISO 2500) came out the clear winner...  The raw 2500 has luminous (black and white noise) when zoomed in a hair more than 100% but the pushed image came out with more chroma noise (colored noise).  the luminous noise is easier to get rid of with noise filters than chroma... I've heard somewhere that with digital files it's pretty safe to underexpose 1 stop and compensate in photoshop, but anything more than that, as in my test, you're asking for trouble

1595
@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

@Brian - If I could do the 2.8 II trust me, I would.  Trying to make do on a budget, but good point on the extenders too.  Had forgotten that option to give me more reach. 

The 2.8 is a fine lens, but if I may, with no IS, 2.8 especially in closer ranges becomes even more thinner DOF and so if you lose shots with no IS, the 2.8 will be even harder to lock and maintain focus, especially on moving subjects... It's great if you have it on a tripod and can rule out camera shake, but other than that.... I've shot with both the 70-200 F4 IS and the 70-300 L IS... assuming your talking about the L version of the 70-300, sharpness is not an issue when determining a lens... they are about the same.... if you're talking about the non L version, then yes, the 70-200 wins out.  For most outdoor situations, I was able to shoot the 70-300L at the Reno National Championship Air Races with jets going near the speed of sound as well as other WW2 era aircraft flying around 400MPH... I didn't have problems with the lens not catching up or being able to use fast shutter speeds on a sunny day with that lens... Albeit I was at a farther distance than cyclists or even motor sports, but for what it's worth...  If you have it in your budget, i'd recommend the L version 70-300 but if you're tighter on cash, the 7D and the 70-200 F4 IS is also a fine combo. 

1596
United States / Re: Broken tripod collar
« on: November 23, 2011, 05:43:56 PM »
why dont you try a drop of epoxy in the hole of the broken knob (gosh that sounds wrong)... and give it some time to dry with then affixed?  Dont put enough to spread/leak onto the casing (in which your knob would be nothing more than a permanently attached paper weight)... just a drop with a qtip?  Other than that send it into canon and have them fix/replace the part?

1597
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How bad is the AF on 5DmkII really?
« on: November 23, 2011, 05:00:20 PM »
I shoot with both now so I have a bit of a perspective... albeit maybe not as much as some... If you are shooting sports, the 7D wins hands down... This is not to say you cant get a few keepers every so often with the 5d2... it's just not as responsive... I may be a tad more sensitive with my keeper rate in focus, but i would say, for me and my taste, about 75% of 7D's photos in burst shots are acceptable focus and maybe even fewer crisp (but this is based off of crisp focus where I can count eye lashes or bolts on jets, etc)  With the 5D it's got to be closer to 50% acceptable in burst modes and fewer crisp... Image quality, 5d wins but not as much as you would think with almost a $1000 difference in msrp, (closer to $500 or so street difference), which is what I think neuro was eluding to with his first statement in his response... Bottom line, 5d for studio, portrait, still life, and other image quality critical work, and 7D for sports, action, everyday stuff. 

1598
Software & Accessories / Re: CMYK Improvements
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:39:49 PM »
My photography gets printed at commercial printers monthly for companies I shoot with... Sadly there is not much you can do... Neons, vibrant blues, some greens all will get clipped pretty bad... Red's and yellows aren't as noticeable... You can ask commercial printers (for a fee) to add spot colors or an additional ink to the print press if you have a specific color you want to nail, however if you are printing a photobook in short runs, odd's are most likely no.  I'm waiting patiently for commercial printers to catch CMYK up with other color gamuts. 

1599
I'm worked at a camera shop back in the day and applied at others... What I know is 1), camera stores make profit, sort of, on used gear... Many of times I've tried to trade my used gear in stores and reps told me in whisper "sell it on ebay/craigslist"... The camera store I worked at over a decade ago had a blue book type book to rate prices on used gear... they offered lowball prices and went off the suggested retail based on the book.  2) one store i applied at once told me as an employee, they are eligible for 20% off all gear... that tells me there MUST be some padding in the price to be able to absorb that rate... and lastly 3), another store I applied at said I would make 30% commission on all warranties and accessories I could sell... When you buy from stores and they push warranties/filters/etc... that's why... there's commission.  That one store in particular said the base pay was near minimum wage but with commissions, it was possible to make double/tripple that in commission (i turned that job down).  Frankly my local stores near where I live cannot compete with the likes of Adorama/BH Photovideo so I would garner their prices are probably a hair over cost because they move so many units, all the profits as little as they may be rake up...

1600
Lenses / Re: Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS
« on: November 22, 2011, 03:16:08 PM »
One word: monopod

1601
EOS Bodies / Re: How often do you go through a body? Why do you upgrade?
« on: November 17, 2011, 05:41:54 PM »
I had access to the original canon D30 and D60 way back when and purchased the 10D when it came out... Proceeded to leapfrog from the 10D to 30D to 50D but ditched the 50D as quickly as I could when the 7D came out... Now got the 7D and 5d2.  Basically I dont upgrade JUST to upgrade... you get a feeling when you've outgrown your camera and if there is a new camera that does stuff my current camera doesn't and can make my photography better/more consistent/faster/etc then I will bite the bullet.  (30D-bigger/faster/responsive, 50D-supposedly better/microadjust/better interface, 7D-superior IQ compared to 50D/flash triggering/AF, 5d2-better IQ and low light performance) 

1602
Canon General / Re: What is ISO in digital terms?
« on: November 16, 2011, 05:23:02 PM »
ISO changes the signal amplification and sensitivity of the pixels on the sensor changing exposure speeds... Same as film...

1603
Canon General / Re: What is ISO in digital terms?
« on: November 16, 2011, 05:10:30 PM »
ISO is from the International Standards Organization (or also known as International Organization of Standards).  In photography terms, it's an industry wide standardized measurement of sensitivity.  Short answer, it relates with film... long answer it's a little more dicey... In the film days, film was pretty spot on regarding speed however it was a good idea to buy a "brick" of film or a lot of film from the same batch and company.  You would test the first roll and then use those tests to relate to the rest of the brick.  Also you tested the lenses with leaf shutters because sometimes the springs would weaken and 1/50 maybe 1/30...

Leap ahead a decade or two and you're in the digital age with electronic shutters and sensors amplifying the signal match the ISO requirements... I read a while ago and cant find it on google, but there was an article with a title like "when ISO 100 isn't ISO 100" or something like that... Dx0 takes the cameras and reads the measurements of each camera's ISO's and points out EXACTLY where that ISO really is... sometimes the ISO's are right on (especially on the lower ISO) but towards the high end they may be a full stop off, which will affect your exposures... If you find it or anyone else knows what article I'm talking about please post it because it was rather interesting... 

So yeah... for the most part, ISO's SHOULD relate to film, however there are minor nuances you may want to look into for your specific camera.  In regards to exposure, ISO should be the same. 

1604
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 03:32:14 PM »
I do not see why you chose to attack my post and call me ignorant for something that I did not even say.

If you feel I wrongly targeted you regarding your posts, then I do appologise, however within this forum I've had several heated discussions with those whom have the opinion that anything less than a 1d camera is not worthy, and they couldn't get good images with anything else BUT a 1d body... This was a similar impression I gathered from your dismissal of the 7d that it was inferior, case closed...

I've always had/have the POV that if someone cannot get a certain image because you do not have a 1D series camera, then there's more to it than just the camera... That being said, Just me, personally, because I live and die by my cameras and equipment, I dont even spend time looking at the 1d cameras because it does me no good... I prefer to hone my skills more and make sure I can get the shots I need with what I have then obsessing about cameras I dont need to get my job done. 

1605
Lenses / Re: ? on why Canon ignored...
« on: November 16, 2011, 02:51:34 PM »
The 7D is NOT a small 1D. It is a clearly inferior camera aimed at a very different market.

Clearly, the 7d is an inferior camera... ummmm yep... sounds right to me... <Sarcasm>  The 5d2 was always seen as a baby 1ds and the 7d has had a reputation of a baby 1d. 

Is the Camry a 'baby Lexus LS'?  I'm with EYEONE on this - the 7D is an inferior camera, and it's aimed at a different market.  The 1D series has substantially better build quality, durability, AF, IQ, etc.  That's not to say that the 7D is not a great camera, nor that's it's not a better choice in many situations.

While I'm not too surprised to hear you take that stance, from a professional photographers POV, they are just tools... There are times when a 1d body is beneficial but there are professionals who have made great works of art or utilize Point and Shoots because of the fact that it's small and light and doesn't draw attention.  To be honest I've never lost a shot because I didn't have a 1d body, nor have I failed to get a job done because I didn't have a 1d body... Yes there may be times when having 1 comes in handy, and that's why I have CPS, but to be honest, haven't come to that point.  Heck, even national geographic staff photogs use 5d's... I would class them more professional than most...

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 135