People who are unfamiliar with the longstanding tradition of Bill Claff providing excellent, repeatable dynamic range data for new cameras may bridle at some of the implications of the observations. But they should know that Bill has developed his methodologies openly over years with input from this and other communities. The data he produces, and his interpretations - which are made cautiously, which doesn't imply "speculation" or "guessing" - are useful to photographers who are looking to judge the capabilities and direction of various camera systems.
One of the hardest factors to suss out in this endeavor is the degree to which image data is fundamentally better/purer due to hardware advancements, and image data which appears better because of software interpretation - that may or may not present downsides as well. The dynamic range data Bill produces is rather immutable. Whether you think it appropriate to call it "cooking" or not is a semantic question the science won't answer, but it is indeed happening.
Whether a software-induced increase in perceived dynamic range is desirable, or has disadvantages - such as Sony's "star eater" issue - is often up to the individual photographer. Some appreciate a sophisticated algorithm improving the perceived data in a fashion that I likely couldn't quite do as well in post. Others will bridle at the implication that they don't have full control over the "pure" data, and will often suffer from the conceit that they'd do better doing the manipulation themselves.
Ever since I've been fooling around with Canon 1 series cameras, Canon has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity." They provide the quality perception boost, but they consider the "RAW" data to be that which comes out the end of the processing chain, so they need not address the nature of the processing that was done. This explains the manual talking about the RAW files being the raw data. Canon has decided semantically to consider the data that comes out the sausage machine to be, by definition, the raw data. This means they're true to their word in writing the manual as they have.
-tig
[Side note:
I'm perhaps halfway through the process of creating an R3 review for CanonRumors and Camnostic. I'm scheduled to talk to some CPS people in bit more than a week to ask some remaining questions. I will be certain to ask about this, but I do not expect a direct answer due to my experience in the past with this. The first time I asked a Canon rep about this was back when the 1DX II was new. With that camera and the 6D Mark II, as well as the SL2 and a few others, they concentrated in their marketing (more than with other cameras) on processor upgrades. I asked a rep why it is that after noting the increased frames per second, autofocus points, other new features, etc., a photographer should care about the processor version? What sort of benefit was it that an upgraded processor could provide that wasn't redundant to these other features? He responded that it marked the class of image quality improvements that could be made when taking shots. He indicated that this is one of the two reasons that the 1 series had a superior look and quality - the other reason being the sensor hardware. He did not tell me that Canon "cooks" the files, but he did indicate that the capacity of the processor was a direct factor in image quality. My sense has been ever since - corroborated with multiple conversations with Canon USA employees - that the firm wants to market the processor improvements as a proxy for image quality improvements in software, without implying that the pros aren't getting their "raw data." Which, in some interpretations, is a contradiction.]
One of the hardest factors to suss out in this endeavor is the degree to which image data is fundamentally better/purer due to hardware advancements, and image data which appears better because of software interpretation - that may or may not present downsides as well. The dynamic range data Bill produces is rather immutable. Whether you think it appropriate to call it "cooking" or not is a semantic question the science won't answer, but it is indeed happening.
Whether a software-induced increase in perceived dynamic range is desirable, or has disadvantages - such as Sony's "star eater" issue - is often up to the individual photographer. Some appreciate a sophisticated algorithm improving the perceived data in a fashion that I likely couldn't quite do as well in post. Others will bridle at the implication that they don't have full control over the "pure" data, and will often suffer from the conceit that they'd do better doing the manipulation themselves.
Ever since I've been fooling around with Canon 1 series cameras, Canon has pursued a policy of "strategic ambiguity." They provide the quality perception boost, but they consider the "RAW" data to be that which comes out the end of the processing chain, so they need not address the nature of the processing that was done. This explains the manual talking about the RAW files being the raw data. Canon has decided semantically to consider the data that comes out the sausage machine to be, by definition, the raw data. This means they're true to their word in writing the manual as they have.
-tig
[Side note:
I'm perhaps halfway through the process of creating an R3 review for CanonRumors and Camnostic. I'm scheduled to talk to some CPS people in bit more than a week to ask some remaining questions. I will be certain to ask about this, but I do not expect a direct answer due to my experience in the past with this. The first time I asked a Canon rep about this was back when the 1DX II was new. With that camera and the 6D Mark II, as well as the SL2 and a few others, they concentrated in their marketing (more than with other cameras) on processor upgrades. I asked a rep why it is that after noting the increased frames per second, autofocus points, other new features, etc., a photographer should care about the processor version? What sort of benefit was it that an upgraded processor could provide that wasn't redundant to these other features? He responded that it marked the class of image quality improvements that could be made when taking shots. He indicated that this is one of the two reasons that the 1 series had a superior look and quality - the other reason being the sensor hardware. He did not tell me that Canon "cooks" the files, but he did indicate that the capacity of the processor was a direct factor in image quality. My sense has been ever since - corroborated with multiple conversations with Canon USA employees - that the firm wants to market the processor improvements as a proxy for image quality improvements in software, without implying that the pros aren't getting their "raw data." Which, in some interpretations, is a contradiction.]
Upvote
0