Skipper494: All very fine, but in film days we got grain from particles in the film, nothing from die film. As an engineer with quite a lot of experience in sensor design, I can assure you that most noise comes from the proximity of photo sites, or wiring, (even poor software) which is why lower resolution large sensors have less noise and more dynamic range.
Compare the Nikon D700 and the Sony NEX 7, for instance. Consider how good the Fuji S2 Pro was in it's day. Compare a lower resolution 1/1.7 sensor with a higher resolution 1/2.33, such as the Nikon P7000 with the Pan FZ35.
Frankly, too much emphasis is put on high numbers and marketing, instead of good photography results.
HelloI just refer you to this article on human visionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correctionMDE
HelloThe point about adding inverse gamma 2.2 (this needed for our vision) to linear data after the A/D is that those 14 or 16 bit tones in the lower greys and shadows are already very stretched, compounded by converting to 8 bit for display and printing. Adding more gamma to bring up the shadows further, makes the situation much worse. Gamma before A/D gives you the full set of tones and further gamma in digital domain is not so destructive. It also allows for more custom curves to concentrate processing on the most important areas of interest, as has already been suggested. Actually you would only need 8 bits of data to give a really large dynamic range and shadow noise almost eliminated for lower ISOs. You would not need to ETTR as all the tones would have a equal number of data points. MDE
HelloThe real problem with the perception of noise is that tone curves (gamma) is applied to already quantized data. Since the image is linear any stretching using a curve will show up gaps in the data especially in shadows (where the stretching is greatest).If the tone curve was applied to analogue data directly from the sensor, then since there are an infinite number of analogue data points any stretching would never be noticeable. If this were done the dynamic range of existing digital sensors would be quite amazing and the ability to pull up shadows would be phenomenal.Historical note, this is how old fashioned analogue TV worked.It is just easier and cheaper to do gamma curves in the digital domain than to build accurate analogue gamma amplifiers.MDE
graybalanced: Like a lot of giveaways, you must first add this pack to their shopping cart, and then you can't download what's in the shopping cart unless you have or create a VSCO account with your name and email address.
This might matter if you're concerned about leaving behind your contact info for a one-time download.
HelloWhen a product is 'Free', then the 'user' is the product.MDE
Tusk24: Like this image, the reflection is well seen in the composition.But 1/4 second handheld ?!Is your regular job working as a brain surgeon? :)
HelloHow can I say this without seeming mean, but the boy's feet are in the water? Should there not be ripples and disturbance of the reflection?Mike Engles
Beat Traveller: Always enjoy these old photo galleries.
YesThe present nearly always seems banal, as it is so familiar. Old photos are of a distant time and distance nearly always lends enchantment.There was a set of colour pictures from prewar England that were equally enchanting M Engles
spitfire31: "And since light field cameras capture 3D data through a single lens, it'd be much easier to shoot 3D films - all of the parallax problems presented by stereoscopic cameras would disappear."This I don't understand. 3D is 3D BECAUSE of parallax, corresponding to roughly the distance between the eyes.
How can a single lens on a static camera provide two different viewpoints necessary for the brain to reconstruct a 3D experience?
If you close one eye, does the world go flat? You still see depth, but the effect is not as good as with two eyes.Our eyes/brains do the same thing.
Picture 23, Why can I not find round specs like those?Very nice set of images. Old pictures do not need to be 'arty', the sense of place and time is enough.Mike
drshuayb: I purchased Lightroom 5 recently and I opened a few raw images of my living room on it and I have to say that canon's digital photo professional program rendered the colors (especially the leather couch) almost perfectly whereas LR gave my couch much more yellow to it than it actually is. Any suggestions please??
I do find that is a curious statement as I have just done a comparison with a virual copy. All parameters default, just varied the process version. To my eyes 2012 is much less yellow, than 2010 or 2003. Playing with the quarter tones would have no effect on the colour. a different calibration would have more effect.
Spectro: this is actually a useful article. Most of the tip article in the past yo have to dig around on this site. Most people using photoshop might already now this, but still good for beginners.
I don't think that this was mentioned, but you can use curves and levels to adjust the layer mask directly and that you can add to a layer mask by experimenting with the various gradient options like overlay and multiply.
Reilly Diefenbach: Now this I can see, especially for $49. Lightroom's ease of use instead of the clunky DXO interface and as good or better geometric correction. Good idea.
Thanks for your reply.I would really like to try the plugin for Lightroom, but it will not load,see previous message.What is the name of the plugin and what folder is it in, as perhaps the installer has not actually installed the plugin?
Hello OlivierGot your reply, I was looking in the wrong place.It would be good to try out the plugin in Lightroom, but as far as i can see it does not offer any more than the correction tools in Photoshop, so would not be inclined to buy the plugin at UKP49
Still no message. Why not post it here? Also could you give me the folder and the name of the plugin to see if it has been installed? As I said the Photoshop plugin has been installed.
I have not had your reply to my emai about DXO UK pricingl.
No response to the above, perhaps there will be one for this.I have installed the tryout, which works in Photoshop CS5, but get a 'error occurred while attempting to load this plugin' message.
PS OS is Win7 pro
It seems a Euro version is 49 Euro, but a UK version at UKP49 is the equivalent of 61 Euro, but prices include taxes.49 Euro is actually UKP 40