DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[StudentOfLight]

Hint:
There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.

 

[Jack Douglas]

You guys are merciless! :'(

Jack

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hint:
There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.

What, you think a model is just going to sit there and hold a pose while you take a few bracketed shots?

 

[StudentOfLight]

Hint:
There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.

What, you think a model is just going to sit there and hold a pose while you take a few bracketed shots?

Isn't that what the model is paid for?
Anyway 3 shots only takes 3 seconds (assuming a 1 second recycle time)
If your model has a hissy fit after only 2 seconds of work then you should consider using another model.

 

[Don Haines]

I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.

From your training in science you should accept that original data must always be available for review, regardless of what reaction it provokes. To do otherwise invites legitimate concerns over intellectual honesty.

Way back in University Physics we learned that if you do not have the raw data to back up your results, and that if the experiment is not reproducible, then it never happened. 32 years working in R+D backs up that statement.

Sorry Rishi, no file, no credibility...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hint:
There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.

What, you think a model is just going to sit there and hold a pose while you take a few bracketed shots?

Isn't that what the model is paid for?
Anyway 3 shots only takes 3 seconds (assuming a 1 second recycle time)
If your model has a hissy fit after only 2 seconds of work then you should consider using another model.

Gotta try something bigger, because that was my point. Lost on Rishi, apparently.

 

[Alex_M]

That is what incindent light meter is there for in the studio: to take the guess work out of equation and set your exposure right on the money and to the 1/10 of the stop so...

1. In studio environment, single exposure _if set correctly_ is enough in 99% of all cases as there is not enough DR in the scene to exceed your camera DR.

2. Bracketed exposures are not always practical. I.e. Dynamic studio shots, your model moving around, jumps, leans, out of balance poses...

Hint:

There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.

What, you think a model is just going to sit there and hold a pose while you take a few bracketed shots?

Isn't that what the model is paid for?
Anyway 3 shots only takes 3 seconds (assuming a 1 second recycle time)
If your model has a hissy fit after only 2 seconds of work then you should consider using another model.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's pretty much just a couple of CR people (privatebydesign & Sporgon) who are trying to make an issue out of nothing. Please don't artificially inflate the importance of one or two people, or conflate their opinion with 'rational' thought.

What is irrational about, 'Look at these, what you got is not what I get, can you prove your results by showing the raw file?' ?

So proving you are not being dishonest is "nothing", which would mean you consider being dishonest is nothing, interesting.......

I think your inability to put this to a swift end has made more than simply Sporgon and I have a keen interest, we might have been the most vocal here about that one image but we are by no means the only people interested in your work hatchet job. Stupid thing is you could have ended the debate instantly, and gained a lot of respect across this site and an apology from me if you had posted the raw, assuming it showed what you say it does.

Which can only lead to one of two conclusions, you are doing a Trump and playing it for all it is worth, any hit is a good hit and what does it matter if people think you are a lying toady. Or, the raw file doesn't show what you said, in which case everybody will know you are a lying toady.

Given the many examples Sporgon and I have posted to refute your "word", most rational people would opt for the latter.

As Don says, from a scientific results point of view if it isn't repeatable it didn't happen. Sporgon and I have both repeated it with results different to yours and the same as each other. Something doesn't add up............

 

[3kramd5]

So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. Every. Time. No matter how complex the shoot.

I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.

Rational? I don't think you are qualified to make that judgement. Someone with an opinion which is way higher than his abilities would suggest, is hardly in any place to consider anyone as rational or irrational. You say that you don't like to be name called (troll and coward) and yet you make statements that claim only the rational would agree with your line of thinking. Yet, many here who are rational don't agree with your line of thinking. To suggest otherwise is a self inflating, circular and egocentric argument.

Actually, to suggest that the very few who actually had an issue with my 5DS example are 'rationally' approaching this is what is self-inflating, circular, and egocentric. It's pretty much just a couple of CR people (privatebydesign & Sporgon) who are trying to make an issue out of nothing. Please don't artificially inflate the importance of one or two people, or conflate their opinion with 'rational' thought.

Well, CanonFanBoy managed to do that just fine...how hard can it be? Meter for the background...meter for the subject...dial in the exposure difference...adjust an re-shoot if necessary. Assuming...one is a Canon "get it right in camera" kind of guy and not a Nikon "bodge it and hope the shadows are pull able later" kind of guy.
Here's a link to CanonFanBoy's image. He seems to have nailed the rising sun exposure and the model's flash exposure correctly :
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27692.105

No need for wide DR here...he got the exposure right, apparently according to his post....it wasn't that hard. Two meterings and a bit of compensation math. I guess that is what I would call rational...the application of science, application of photographic education and a dollop of talent.

Where is the evidence he exposed his highlights within 1/3 EV of clipping in Raw?

Looking at that link, he doesn't appear to have made that claim. But, while we're on the subject of evidence, where is yours?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you've posted thousands of words which would all be unnecessary if you would provide the only single set of data required to prove your point. But you choose not to because of some vague objection to what happens when you post a raw in heated discussions.

It's rapidly approaching "Rishi doth protest too much, methinks" territory.

Forget the raw, just post a screenshot of the conversion with no manual post-processing which shows the raw histogram. For most people, myself included, that should be enough to validate your position. The actual raw would of course be better because it would avoid the potential for claims like "you photoshopped at different histogram onto that screenshot."

 

[CaptureWhatYouSee]

Rishi. Come out and play...
My PhD may be from a State School, but, I at least learned about Scientific Integrity.

 

[Jack Douglas]

PBD, it's oh so easy for some people who are inclined that way, to make flippant comments that have no basis in reality and are at best exaggerative and it's certainly true that the only solution is to simply ignore them even though that's easier said than done.

Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool.

As far as Richi's particular engagement goes, he has chosen to stick with his position and it's probably pointless to pursue that issue.

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.

From your training in science you should accept that original data must always be available for review, regardless of what reaction it provokes. To do otherwise invites legitimate concerns over intellectual honesty.

Way back in University Physics we learned that if you do not have the raw data to back up your results, and that if the experiment is not reproducible, then it never happened. 32 years working in R+D backs up that statement.

Sorry Rishi, no file, no credibility...

I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.

If the fact that I do not provide one Raw file because I choose not to respond to threats (you may not remember the manner in which it was originally asked for...) makes me a non-scientist with no credibility, then so be it.

But I might suggest that anyone who thinks this may want to combine his/her 'scientific' training with some understanding of the humanities. Human psychology in particular.

 

[privatebydesign]

I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.

If the fact that I do not provide one Raw file because I choose not to respond to threats (you may not remember the manner in which it was originally asked for...) makes me a non-scientist with no credibility, then so be it.

But I might suggest that anyone who thinks this may want to combine his/her 'scientific' training with some understanding of the humanities. Human psychology in particular.

Blah blah blah blah............

Provide the one that proves you aren't a liar. You won't. You were asked nicely first, you obfuscated and evaded, you changed the subject, you got snarky, so yes, people got snarky back. But your outright refusal to post that single RAW file, that you were using as an example of "bad Canon", just made you utterly irrelevant.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.

If the fact that I do not provide one Raw file because I choose not to respond to threats (you may not remember the manner in which it was originally asked for...) makes me a non-scientist with no credibility, then so be it.

But I might suggest that anyone who thinks this may want to combine his/her 'scientific' training with some understanding of the humanities. Human psychology in particular.

Blah blah blah blah............

Provide the one that proves you aren't a liar. You won't. You were asked nicely first, you obfuscated and evaded, you changed the subject, you got snarky, so yes, people got snarky back. But your outright refusal to post that single RAW file, that you were using as an example of "bad Canon", just made you utterly irrelevant.

Asked " nicely" first? LOL. Why don't you go find the original request(s) / character assassination(s) and place it here?

Tell you what brother, I do NOT have Stockholm Syndrome. Try and mislead me, and the rest of the readers here, some other way.

Meanwhile, I don't respond positively to threats and fear-induced demands.

The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: you're not actually interested in the truth.

Only character assassination because you don't like the fact that I've said something remotely negative about your camera. Which we've even admitted may or may not make a difference for your shooting at all...

 

[privatebydesign]

The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: you're not actually interested in the truth.

Funny, I think it shows exactly the opposite, I think it shows you are not interested in the truth, if you were you'd publish it, but you won't, not because of some perceived slight but because you got caught telling a Sean, "it was the best exposed image in the history of camera testing. Period."

 

[rishi_sanyal]

The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: you're not actually interested in the truth.

Funny, I think it shows exactly the opposite, I think it shows you are not interested in the truth, if you were you'd publish it, but you won't, not because of some perceived slight but because you got caught telling a Sean, "it was the best exposed image in the history of camera testing. Period."

Funny, considering I've claimed the exact opposite: that it was actually not the 'perfect' ETTR exposure, primarily because no stills manufacturer even provides you the tools to optimally expose your Raw. I've stated this as one of the benefits of cameras that don't go adding noise of their own... Because they give you more flexibility in such right shooting conditions.

But red herrings abound: but you could have done this or that. I suppose I could have had a laptop with me to check the raw values using RawDigger on-site right? 'Hold on Lena let me just check the 14-bit raw value of this pixel...' I'm sure that wouldn't have disturbed the shoot. I could have constantly bracketed with my flash right, asking my model to hold the perfect pose? Because candid moments are so lame...

Of course none of this addresses the simple fact that there are cameras that don't impose this limitation on you, and that benefit is all we were trying to call attention to in that ONE aspect of the multifaceted review of that, and all cameras.

But yeah I realize controversy and character assassination and alternative facts and lying and misleading are much more fun, if not the norm, these days. So, please continue. I will happily be your target. It gives me entertaining stuff to read anyway. Sadly though, you mislead your own fellow readers, even though I'm sure you feel the exact opposite.

Wish we could come to a common understanding.

 

[privatebydesign]

But yeah I realize controversy and character assassination and alternative facts and lying and misleading are much more fun, if not the norm, these days. So, please continue. I will happily be your target. It gives me entertaining stuff to read anyway. Sadly though, you mislead your own fellow readers, even though I'm sure you feel the exact opposite.

Wars have been fought over less, so I'm ok with that. Though I'm not happy about it and wish we could come to a common understanding.

You're the one promulgating it, your the one that started this little mystery 'all but one RAW file' crap tonight. I know the exposure was bullsh!t, I called you out and you refuse to prove me a liar. You are the one pushing alternative facts, half truths and misleading nonsense for your own benefit, I'm not.

Either show us the RAW file or stop going on about it, that is the only obvious way to see who is being truthful.

 

[AlanF]

Perhaps someone involved could give a brief summary of the points of contention as 24 pages are rather too much to trawl through to find out what this is all about. I did like Jack's comment, which I considered adding to my signature.

Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Perhaps someone involved could give a brief summary of the points of contention as 24 pages are rather too much to trawl through to find out what this is all about. I did like Jack's comment, which I considered adding to my signature.

Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool.

Jack

Wow, Alan, you mean I actually wrote that! It must have been one of my better days! I often wonder how many poor judgment statements I've made amongst the 4000+ (I prefer not to check).

My wonderful deceased parents had one major flaw, neither could let go in an argument. I did not like the arguing that often went on over trivial stuff, but then who's to judge what is trivial?

Jack