October 21, 2014, 10:20:43 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 224
61
This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2 :)

You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop.  And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys :-p
This was the straight out of the camera RAW image with no processing applied. In processing I slightly bumped up the shadows and slightly pulled down the highlights...

And I thought the native ISO's on the 60D were 160, 320, 640, etc etc it seems to have the best noise performance on those ISOs..... Should I really be using 100, 200, 400, 800 etc etc ?

62
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....

Not true.

That's the histogram for the default conversion, which does not come close to extracting all available DR in the raw data (It's a CR2 file).

You could have large spikes on the left edge and right edge of the default conversion and a lot of clipping showing on both sides and still have plenty of DR left.
Interesting.... I did not know that!

So what conversion works better?

63
EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.
agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2 :)

64
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.

Quote
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.
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.

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.
I take a lot of shots outside and end up with the problem of bright skies and dark trees... and bird shots where you can expose for the bird, you can expose for the sky, but not both. That said, although when you edit the pictures you can tell that you have run out of DR, almost all of the time (at least for me) it really doesn't make a noticeable difference in the final picture.

I am going to throw the following image out as an example.... In the original shot I ran out of DR to catch the highlights and the lowlights. Technically, I would have needed at least three stops on each end to capture the detail.... and in the end I ended up darkening the picture (artistic reasons to try and capture a mood) and had a picture with far less DR than the camera could capture. Yes, I know that if I lifted the shadows 5 stops to get detail in the trees that there would be noise...... but I wanted them dark anyway..... I ended up DROPPING the shadows, so for the final product none of that mattered :)


Conclusion: Although more DR is a good thing, quite often our current cameras have more than enough, and often the benefits of more DR are not noticeable on the final product.

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

65
What part of the world do you live in? Because by the sounds of it, wherever you do live, the wind don't blow there and the earth doesn't rotate either.

You can't HDR an interior because of the wind or the rotation of the Earth?  ???

As for landscapes...neither GND nor manual blends have any issue with movement as long as there's not a large moving section that crosses the line or mask. You're not going to HDR a sprinter, but wind is seldom an issue in a landscape. I can hand hold a 3 frame bracket for crying out loud. Just how hard is this wind blowing that things radically change in <0.5s?

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.

In general I would agree, but I have had lots of problems where there are significant waves.... but then again, that is the large moving section that you mentioned as an exception, so that means that I really agree.

+1

66
I saw this.... and for some strange reason it made me think of this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc

Ah, Don ! If only DRones were knocked down so easily. I wonder how long it was before the drone was back up and flying. If it was a CR DRone it'be about one minute  :(

This one probably needed more DR (Damage Repair).

67
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.

Quote
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.
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.

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.

68
I saw this.... and for some strange reason it made me think of this thread...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc


69

Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.

The thing is, we don't know yet what fabrication line the 70D and 7D2 sensors are made on... but we do know that going to the 20.2Mpixel design from the 18Mpixel design, the ISO performance increased slightly... The more complex lithography required for DPAF should have meant a reduction in high ISO performance, so they must have done something to counter it, and using their existing 180nM line (P/S sensors) seems like the most likely scenario... Also, it costs a lot more money to keep 2 fabrication lines open than one, so my bet is that the death of the 500nM fabrication run is already happening.

70
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 08:39:24 PM »
...the kind of wicked pincushion you'll get at 11mm.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means. 


INCONCEIVABLE!

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:04:39 PM »
You all seem to be making the same mistake.... You are confusing an in-depth review with advertising...... This is advertising.... Of course it is fluff and no critical information.....

Some very critical info I gathered from the review:
-Great buffer
-AF almost as fast as the 1DX
-AF points very near the edge of the sensor
-Amazing ISO performance for a crop sensor
-Scott Kelby doesn't care as much about DR as everyone else on this fourm!
My comment was aimed at the people bashing Scott Kelby :)

I watched the "interview" with the attitude that it was an infomercial and thought that it was well done as a selling tool for the 7D2.... It certainly highlighted the reasons to buy it instead of a 70D.... The AF system, the almost endless buffer, and the ISO performance. The infomercial will help sell cameras, and isn't that the reason it was made :) I already have my preorder in, but if I was sitting on the fence this would have helped convince me.

It was certainly NOT the place to delve into tech details like full well capacity and read noise  :) :)  :)

72
EOS Bodies / Re: Scott Kelby Does a Field Report on the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:28:23 AM »
You all seem to be making the same mistake.... You are confusing an in-depth review with advertising...... This is advertising.... Of course it is fluff and no critical information.....

73
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:43:14 PM »
Just no bird boudoir shots.

Sounds like a challenge!

74
Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:03:09 PM »
maple leaves at sunset

75
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 09, 2014, 07:59:01 PM »
And this weekend is Canadian Thanksgiving.... So we ask the traditional turkey question.... light or dark?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 224