November 25, 2014, 05:37:31 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 268
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3 for landscapes
« on: July 28, 2012, 09:11:17 PM »

if you are going to display images electronically it needs to be sRGB

It doesn't have to be. Anyone using Firefox or Safari and with a wide gamut monitor might appreciate larger than sRGB images when needed. Sure google chrome or old versions of IE will make things look weird but anythng else these days handles it fine. When you need to make sure every last person will at least see it somewhat OK use sRGB but posting some wide gamut galleries isn't beyond bounds these days.

if you are going to print at a commercial printer most likely sRGB since print has a smaller colour gammut anyway
specialist printers may have their own custom colour profile which you can load to export to
or if you do it all yourself then you colourmanage and calibrate all your stuff in house

it depends many print houses expect sRGB but some don't and will take advantage of larger gamut files

but as far as in camera settings goes sRGB is the most appropriate because if you shoot straight to jpg you do it for a reason usually so you dont have to process it, if you want the most available gammut for processing then you shoot RAW and process the raw file
not adobe RGB jpg

OTOH AdobeRGB might make the histogram give you a bit better sense of what is going on for RAW though so you might want to set AdobeRGB (and some might want wider gamut jpgs for display too, although it's a waste at 8bit when shooting stuff that doesn't need more than sRGB)

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D3 for landscapes
« on: July 28, 2012, 09:06:42 PM »
Flickr seems to dull the image from my original.  I've even had another (non amateur) photographer point that out with respect to his material and he uses Aviary ( as do I sometimes) to pack a bit more punch.  Viewing on Black seems to always look better than viewing on white hence why that was recommended.  Was reading about sRGB and Adobe RGB a few nights ago.  From what I recall Adobe has a larger color space but it's rather complex for those unfamiliar with the process and the benefit is slim so I averted back to sRGB.  I am running an ICC profile on my monitor so it is possible as you say with monitor calibration.  Plus looking at RAW on this end vs.  compressed, reduced file size JPG may also have an impact and that the DPI on the pic is better locally vs. web at 72 dpi.
I always shoot in Adobe RGB, because you can't regain what you lost, you can always convert to sRGB as part of your workflow very easily. The other reason I shoot in Adobe RGB and don't convert, is because for stock photography, Adobe RGB is required and I don't want to have multiple versions.
you do know that only applies to jpg files cooked in camera RAW is RAW the SRGB or ADOBE RGB setting have no influence on RAW file
Old habits die hard sometimes, I started doing it that way and carried on. Either way though, I need it in Adobe RGB, so have to export in that way to a TIFF and don't want multiple files for different uses. If it's something that I'm not doing commerically and I'm not going to do much processing, then I am more likely to export it as a JPEG and if I remember, I might export it in sRGB.

Perhaps a bit off topic but I came across this article some time ago -

does anyone have experience with prophoto rgb? Any comments/tips?


I set ACR and PS to use ProphotoRGB 16bit (LR automaticall gives you Melissa which is ProphotoRGB 16bit with a different internal TRC). No sense in clipping anything you don't have too. Even AdobeRGB will clip stuff, especially flowers and sometimes sunsets/fall foliage/etc.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lovin' my 5d Mark III
« on: July 27, 2012, 01:29:54 AM »
I have had my mark III for about two weeks now and have been shooting a lot of hummingbird and macro shots.  My previous camera was a 40d which I thought took excellent pictures.... that is until now!  While I still think it takes great pictures, the 5d is just amazing.  I was really worried about losing the crop factor for some pics, especially the birds.  However, the Mark III more than makes up for this with it's low light capability and the substantial bump in resolution.  I have been amazed at how much I can crop some of my full frame pics and they remain excellent. I am getting shots now that I never dreamed of with the 40d, and the 61 point autofocus, don't even get me started on how much I already love that!  Anyone with a crop body that has concerns about upgrading and losing the crop factor, don't worry about it if you upgrade to the Mark III.  I can't pick up my 40d anymore, it just can't compare. I was going to keep it so I would have two bodies, but I'm starting to think that it may go and I may buy another full frame, possibly a Mark II.  :) :) :) :) :) :)

Yeah hah I bet you are loving the AF, soooo much better than the 40D AF! And MFA and video and so on.

And yeah you don't really lose all that much reach since the 5D3 is like 8.7MP APS-C and the 40D is 10MP APS-C so it's not a super huge difference.

You would notice the difference compared to a 7D though:
(7D top, then 5D2, then 5D3 then 7D again)
(click image to see it 100% view)

The 7D does have a real reach advantage.

If you do a lot of sports fixed mostly at f/2.8 say then you might well be better off going to the faster than 55ms setting. You just want to make sure you get used to whatever it is doing and not be changing so much that you never settle in to how it reacts.

LTRLI - I recall when you were examining early raw files from the 5D3, you had some sort of software that allowed you to view individual pixel data levels numerically?..

Any way some stats could be run on that kind of data if one were to make test shots of a white sheet or gray card at various exposures and the variance/mean could be analyzed for different tonal values and yet another way of determining total dynamic range with shadow values set to some level of SNR ?

Yeah but it's awfully tricky if you want exact measurements out of that since you need a super stable light and power source and high-end equipment to measure output or some high end device to regulate the light and a detailed table of how much it outputs per various fed currents I think. I don't think many people have the setup to be able to do that very well.

Maybe if you had stable power in your area (I sure don't, at least not in summer) or used batteries to run the light you could use a monitor calibration probe to measure the light. I don't know.

I think it's tricky and time consuming and I'd rather go out and take pics.  :D

EDIT: Actually I guess you could just use a high quality step wedge on a light table, that would be a lot easier and solve many of the problems anyway I don't own one. They probably don't cost too too much but who knows it maybe they do charge like $100-200 for a quality stpe wedge. Anyway I don't feel like wasting time with it.

It might be interesting to do a rougher visual test at some dark but not black level and see at what point banding starts making the engineering DR look unusable. That might be the real deal. But in the end I don't feel like bothering with the time that would take and just simply note that with some bodies banding affects usable measure DR more (5D2,5D3,7D,1D4) than with others (40D, 1Ds3, D800, etc.) whether by 1/4 or 3/4 stop or 1/3 or 1 n each case I don't know. And that some cams like 5D3/1DX have banding affecting usable DR less than  the 7D less than 5D2/50D/5D/etc. when talking high ISO.

The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels.

I agree, this gives us the best, and IMO, proper way to test low level sensor performance.  It is the closest to the original data
What happens after normalizing to some standard size print is a different result, not necessarily meaningless or irrelevant, but certainly of no use when comparing just sensor performance, an electronics and processing issue.

They are not literally making prints and comparing, they just decided to call it print results instead of normalized results since by print results they mean image shown at same scale.

The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too.

I somewhat agree, highlite retention ability is part of the equation.
However, total DR is a ratio of the highest recordable EV (hilite) to the lowest recordable EV (deep shadow).  Since the lowest recordable EV depends on the Signal to Noise Ratio being set at some arbitrary, but useful limit, below which noise obscures image data, this is the more important end of the DR range.  SNR at hilites is very high so not a factor unless you're evaluating IQ of very small pixel sensors, which we're not.

There really is no such thing as highlight recovery with a standard digital sensor. It's a hard cut-off and they have linear capture. You simply find the saturation point and then you measure the black point noise.

You can change what part along the linear sequence you declare to be middle gray and apply various tone curves but none of that comes into play measure the max engineering DR the sensor can deliver.

These deep shadows are where Canon's sensors have trouble with read noise intruding on their signal. It's an electronics design issue.  They chose a particular compromise which works very well except it loses at the shadow end.

It is. The Canon sensors themselves have a LOT more dynamic range captured than the result that gets collected after all the reading and converting of the sensor. I forget the details but I think the 5D2 sensor itself grabs well over 13 stops at the screen level, closer to 14 while the RAW file, after all the electronics damage the signal, has like only 11 stops left at the screen level.

I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter.

I see the same deep shadow pattern noise in my Canon raw files no matter what raw converter I use, and I normally use DPP for basic processing.

This means this camera produces FAR cleaner shadows than a Canon. So I'm not surprised it's DR is rated a few stops better using the existing testing methodology.  There's no way in Hades I could process an image like this if I shot it with my 5D2! 
Ergo, I have to agree with DxO that the D800 provides considerably more real world usable dynamic range than a 5D Mark II.



That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.

It's called normalization. Would you compare the times of two cars one to go 0-60 miles per hour and one to go 0-60 kilometers per hour directly without conversion factor?

You can't directly compare 22.3MP against 6MP as if the noise was all at the same power scale.
Or maybe you thought the D700 had much better SNR than the 5D2?

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

this is the most accurate summary IMO and why i give DXO a bit fat care factor of 0

Keep in mind he switched it to screen mode from print mode for some reason and that many users have independently measured ISO100 DR and gotten the same results. And that if you compare photos even using DPP and other maker's own custom software the DR differences in the numbers seem to be pretty apparent.

Also keep in mind that when Canon had universally the better sensors almost every Nikon owner I talked to readily admitted it (even if pointing to their often better body specs at the same time). Why do like 50% of Canon users, seemingly, have to make stuff up? Canon has 6fps vs 4fps in FF (vs 5fps in 1.2x and 6fps in 1.6x), 1-2 stops better SNR in video, video without moire, top AF, but it doesn't have better or even close to as good DR at lower ISOs and maybe if half of Canon users didn't pretend it did Canon might have paid attention and maybe the 5D3 wouldn't have been so far behind.

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

this is the most accurate summary IMO and why i give DXO a bit fat care factor of 0

Keep in mind he switched it to screen mode from print mode for some reason and that many users have independently measured ISO100 DR and gotten the same results. And that if you compare photos even using DPP and other maker's own custom software the DR differences in the numbers seem to be pretty apparent.

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better.  :-\

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

What is silly is comparing them at screen level when one camera has 22.3MP and the other has 6MP. Look at the print comparison and it puts it 1 stop better than the 300D. (It also puts it only 1/2 stop better than 40D, which also has a lot less banding, so they are perhaps about the same usably, which seems to match what I see)

(granted it's IS also silly and a bit shokcing that Canon made the 5D3 barely better per photosite for maximum DR than even some of their older DSLRs and a tiny worse than any recent one, but it's true)

Canon had world beating SNR and low ISO and high ISO DR once upon a time and then they sat doing nothing, bragging about how they were infinitely far ahead and could just sit around. Now they are still up there for SNR and high ISO DR but have fallen miles behind for maximum DR and yeah they are basically where they were over half a decade ago (and even more if you go by per photosite).

5D3 is pretty awesome in most ways, no doubt, generally a great cam but the DR has disappointed me and I have to say I was quite shocked it wasn't a big step up from the 5D2 in that regard and even more shocked that it was actually worse, even if to a meaningless degree (and it would've be super awesome it if it had 28-30MP and still had 6fps and if it had video focus peaking (Canon simply NEEDS to add the latter in firmware)). If it had that I bet the price would be easily maintaining $3500 (at worst). I just hope they are able and care to fix up DR for the 5D4.

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 24, 2012, 03:38:46 PM »
The 70-300L is a great lens. But having had both lenses, there are a couple of notable compromises you make with the above trade. First, of course, is the variable aperture (but I made that a non-issue given what I use the lens for, and other lenses in my collection)- by 200mm you're at f/5 so it's 2/3 of a stop slower at the long end...also, I find it a weaker performer than the 70-200 at 70mm f/4.

But the benefits- extra 100mm on long end, and great at 300mm f/5.6!

It seems there is some copy variation. With my copy and most that I read about the 70-300L is actually sharper than people's 70-200 f/4 IS's at 70mm f/4 and 200mm f/5 but less sharp at 135mm. Look on too.

That said every once in a while I hear someone report what you do and it's happened just enough know that there must be something to it so either some 70-300L or some 70-200 f/4 IS are weaker than most at 70mm, not sure which side the blame falls on. Interestingly some who report as you do say the 70-300L is sharper at 135mm which is the opposite of most findings. I guess for most copies 70-200 f/4 is relatively better in the middle of the range and the 70-300L at the extreme but with some pairings it's reversed.

But my 70-300L at 70mm f/4 is easier sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS had been (although with noticeably more CA (although less at 200mm)). Even my tamron 70-200 70-300 vc was a little bit sharper at 70mm f/4 (the one and only place it beat my 70-200 f/4 IS, everywhere else it lost for sure). I guess this hints at the variation perhaps being in the 70-200 f/4s?

The AF stinks (doesn't work at all) on the 70-300L with extension tubes for macros though, at least on non-f/8 AF bodies. Total mess on my 7D/5D2/5D3 while the 70-200 f/4 IS does fine with extension tubes and AF. Maybe on a 1 series prior to 1DX it would do OK with that. (Oddly AF on 5D3 at max mag and full extension tubes and macro lens maintains AF though, I'd have thought that would let in even less light or the same as 70-300L+a single extension).

Otherwise AF is very similar between them.

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 24, 2012, 03:28:58 PM »
I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.

Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?


What about selling both and grabbing a 70-300L and perhaps even a bit of cash back in the pocket? If you can afford to keep the 70-200 f/4 IS L vs the 70-300 IS then it sounds like a $250-300 difference in your pocket in  the end wouldn't matter?

I use the point.   If you say F-4 you might get some Phantom readings

And if you say stuff like "A Ten" for f/10 well then you're just kinda hoggish.

How do you pronunce the aperture of a lens? E.g. if you were telling a friend that you're shooting with an f/1.4 lens, would you say: "F one point four", "F one four", or something else?

Mostly "F one point four" "F two point 8" "F four" "F eight" although when referring to a lens and not an f-stop alone then I do hear a lot of "grab me the 70-200 two eight" and such since it's faster and there are no regular normal lenses that are f/14, f/28 etc.

If you say "F one four" when talking about an aperture what does that mean? f/1.4? or f/14? and no, f/14 is not some crazy never used aperture, it's not that rare in macro and crops up in landscape photography at times.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 03:06:56 PM »
Does the EOS M camera have MFA?  That would be a big factor for me for using it as a backup.

Doesn't this thing finish up all AF with contrast detection?
There is no need or even way to give it MFA.

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 268