PIX 2015
ftphoto

ftphoto

Joined on Dec 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

ftphoto: This is a very interesting article, but I feel is incomplete as it does not address how the sensor / system uses the light available across the Dynamic Range. Let me try and explain:

12 Bit with 4,096 Levels from Black (Left) to White (Right) - think Histogram

The first stop on the white side uses 2,048 bits of information.
Leaving 2,048
The next stop uses 1,024
Leaving 1,024
The next stop uses 512
Leaving 512
The next stop 261
Next stop has 130 left
Next stop has 65 left
Next stop has 32.5

As you can see as we move from brighter to darker there are less and less available bits of data to make up the shadows. Thus creating more noise in the shadow areas of an image. That is why ETTR is so important and effective.

I would like to see this addressed more accurately than how I have explained it. It is the same for all sensors though larger sensors and higher pixel counts provide more data to use therefore less noise.

I certainly have something to learn and look forward to Part 2.

Hopefully there will be some significant solution (compromise) to the conundrum of "Noise" we all face. Particularly if "ETTR" is not the end all be all that we had been led to believe.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

DuncanDovovan: Got this link from www_zeeshan_de: http://www.zeeshan.de/fotografie_apsc_vs_vollformat/0_slta99.htm

Interesting. What this guy is saying though is that his camera under exposes by default by 1.3EV. And indeed you see the effect mentioned by this article that if you over-expose by 1.3EV and then bring the light intensity back in post-processing, the resulting image has less noise - even at ISO100.

BUT. The article above suggests this guy should over-expose by at least 2 stops, because the first stop is to compensate for his under exposure. And already in the 3rd, 4th and 5th pictures that have been over-exposed by 1 stop you can see that highlight clipping took place (look at the histogram). If he would expose 2 stops or 3 as suggested by this article, he would lose information in white areas of his picture completely.

DuncanDovovan I shoot with Fujifilm X Pro 1 and have shot with the XT-1. This system seems to have a conservative bias of at least 1 1/2 EV's to protect the highlights and Exposing To The Right works even with a sensor that is well known for low noise. This combined with my earlier post I think adds to the discussion and helps explain why noise is more prevalent in the shadows - the entire process / system has less and less data for mid tones to shadow detail available thus more noise.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:56 UTC

This is a very interesting article, but I feel is incomplete as it does not address how the sensor / system uses the light available across the Dynamic Range. Let me try and explain:

12 Bit with 4,096 Levels from Black (Left) to White (Right) - think Histogram

The first stop on the white side uses 2,048 bits of information.
Leaving 2,048
The next stop uses 1,024
Leaving 1,024
The next stop uses 512
Leaving 512
The next stop 261
Next stop has 130 left
Next stop has 65 left
Next stop has 32.5

As you can see as we move from brighter to darker there are less and less available bits of data to make up the shadows. Thus creating more noise in the shadow areas of an image. That is why ETTR is so important and effective.

I would like to see this addressed more accurately than how I have explained it. It is the same for all sensors though larger sensors and higher pixel counts provide more data to use therefore less noise.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:46 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
On Quick Look: The art of the unforeground article (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: Sorry but sand dunes in the foreground are a foreground. So are reflections of stars. How about "don't stick anything in the foreground that doesn't add to the image and if that leaves you with a simple foreground so be it".

The complete emphasis on "foreground" totally avoids Figure - Ground or Positive - Negative Space. The images themselves are beautiful. I don't want to take away from that. However, the Positive - Negative Space is balanced or Figure - Ground. Turn the images upside down and they will still be balanced. It does not require a special element of composition called a "Foreground" for them to be successful images. And successful they are. One could argue that these images are broken into three horizontal planes with the bottom being the foreground. Giving the images a base to build on. My question to the photographer is: "What is your subject?" Whatever it was you produced some beautiful images.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2015 at 10:59 UTC

Can you imagine the hit for a special rider on your homeowners or renters insurance! Yikes! Some really talented individual needs to win and refuse the loaner!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 06:04 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply

Can you imagine the hit for a special rider on your homeowners or renters insurance! Yikes! Some really talented individual needs to win and refuse the loaner!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 06:04 UTC as 36th comment
On Sinking at Sunset II photo in Mohammed Al Ali's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

The colors speak for themselves, but the perspective the photographer chose really added to the image by backlighting the ship by placing the setting sun behind it. My eye just keeps getting drawn back to the ship. I really like it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 05:37 UTC as 1st comment
On Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's article (109 comments in total)

Considering the limitations of color film at that time I find the shots interesting and they also provide a slice of Americana in a by-gone era. It never hurts to review our photographic past, but also to place it squarely in a historical perspective of what was taking place in the world at that time. Thanks DPreview for sharing these with us.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 05:30 UTC as 23rd comment
On Going Professional, Where to Begin? article (32 comments in total)
In reply to:

Devendra: go with canon? which koolaid are you drinking? and then you shoot with Canon 40D?

i stopped reading after that

i wish DPR would monitor this absurd articles from so called "pro"s

Something obviously struck a raw nerve with you. Was it the Canon vs. ????? or have you fallen for the snobbery of the bigger is better crowd. Please understand I am not calling you a "snob" in the least. I just don't understand your vitriolic response.

If you consider the the "Fathers of 35mm" with their Leica's were shooting equipment with far less sophistication and inferior optics than what is available today and yet we keep going back to Atget, Abell, Adams and a couple of my favourite contemporary photographers - Michael Freeman and Freeman Patterson and others for their use of light and composition.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2012 at 02:34 UTC
On Going Professional, Where to Begin? article (32 comments in total)

Coming from film - large, medium and 35mm format there is always an over emphasis on the latest greatest piece of equipment. I for one do not like the proliferation of expensive "Fast Zooms" when I am far more confident with a prime or two within the same range. If you need to zoom - use your feet.

This was a refreshing and honest article on one Professional's personal experience and recommendations. If you can afford a Hassey or Phase One Digital Medium Format set up then by all means go for it. It won't make you a better photographer / artist however nor allow you to capture images that are "impossible" with lesser equipment (you define that one).

Thanks for a refreshing perspective and one that is quite sensible!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 9, 2012 at 02:26 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Elinas: Cool... so the day that they will decide to make Camera raw available for the Fuji X-Pro1, this means I will need to buy CS6...

Adobe is not the most generous of software companies and yes their software is expensive no matter how you cut it. If I had waited (known) that CS6 was pending I could have delayed my purchase of CS5 Extended 30 days and got a "Free Upgrade" to CS6. Adobe does not support their customers for 90 days or even 30 when it comes to new releases and upgrades. Will CS6 Extended be worth the cost for me to upgrade? Time will tell as we all face Adobe and genuflect and gravel! It's all about the money! And yes I will eventually pony up for CS6 Extended upgrade sometime in the future. As to up grades to ACR, well you would think that Adobe could offer some compromise to their loyal customer base. If there isn't any money in it for them don't hold your breath. Ah, and I would have not waisted my money on LightRoom. Like the above post, CS5 and Bridge are much more to my liking.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2012 at 19:40 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11