-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 7D Firmware Update Version 1.2.3
- Thread starter David Tao
- Start date
I've just updated my firmware
Both the following raw photo shot -3 had all parameters set to 0 in ACR CS5 and DPP,
The top photo was loaded into DPP then sent to ACR CS5, and then pushed +3
The bottom was the same raw loaded straight into ACR CS5, and pushed + 3
Both the following raw photo shot -3 had all parameters set to 0 in ACR CS5 and DPP,
The top photo was loaded into DPP then sent to ACR CS5, and then pushed +3
The bottom was the same raw loaded straight into ACR CS5, and pushed + 3
and this is the same raw brought into dpp with the exposure setting at +2, then saved as a 16bit tiff, and loaded into ACR CS5 and pushed another +1
I often wonder why manually saving from DPP and then loading into photoshop ACR results in better colours, as apposed to letting DPP just "send" it to ACR? I thought it was still just saving it as a 16bit tiff anyway?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
I often wonder why manually saving from DPP and then loading into photoshop ACR results in better colours, as apposed to letting DPP just "send" it to ACR? I thought it was still just saving it as a 16bit tiff anyway?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Hi all,
I think I am missing something here, but why can't we just take photos by exposing them properly? why do we need to underexpose by 3 stops then push the exposure back up? I would be very concerned if this happens in a correctly exposed photograph though.
No pun intended. I just want to understand the point of the exercise.
thanks
I think I am missing something here, but why can't we just take photos by exposing them properly? why do we need to underexpose by 3 stops then push the exposure back up? I would be very concerned if this happens in a correctly exposed photograph though.
No pun intended. I just want to understand the point of the exercise.
thanks
Jerry Canon
Leading Member
I think the point is, that invariably, occasionally, some shadow areas in images are going to require being "pulled up" to these extents, even though we wish they didn't require this. At those times, and in those situations, It would simply be nice to have data there there that is capable of this extreme treatment without falling apart or creating some sort of wiers artifacts, right?
Jerry Brendle
yeah as Jerry said.
Generally for me, unless I was doing something like using Photoshop's ACR pen tool to dramatically bring up a dark key subject of the photo, or making an HDR from a single exposure, it's very rare that I ever have to bump exposure by 3
Generally for me, unless I was doing something like using Photoshop's ACR pen tool to dramatically bring up a dark key subject of the photo, or making an HDR from a single exposure, it's very rare that I ever have to bump exposure by 3
BernhardB
Member
Has anyone seen an improvement with the new firmware concerning the AF problems some 7Ds have?
Dave Largent
Senior Member
Was wondering if the problem was fixed as far back as the T2i?
Could someone post some (wow) pics using this technique?
paparios
Forum Enthusiast
Actually, in my case, is the other way around. I normally shoot ETTR and in post processing I get the exposure down for about 0.5 stops. This serves the purpose of reducing the amount of noise on the final result.
Miguel
Miguel
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
Ideally, all digital cameras would offer higher ISOs simply by so-called "under-exposure" of base ISO (in fact, that's how most, if not all, medium format digitals work). In fact, there are many cameras out there for a number of years, which give the same results, noise-wise, doing this, as actually using high ISOs. Most cameras don't do this automatically, but many really should. We blow out highlights unnecessarily, which negative film would have retained, to avoid "under-exposure". When a camera has little disadvantage to "under-exposure", we can choose to shoot it just like negative film. There are cameras out now, like the Nikon D7000, and the Pentax K5, which give less noise than the 7D at high ISOs, when these cameras are under-exposing from ISO 100 or 200 to obtain them, and the 7D is actually using the high ISO setting. These so-called "under-exposed" RAWs have more highlight potential, but give smaller compressed RAW files, with about the same noise as actually using a high ISO setting.
--
John
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
The normal tone curve of most conversions make shadow areas much darker than they appear in real life. In order for "real life" shadows to look as dark the shadows in a typical conversion, you have to squint so that your brain decides to darken the shadows into invisibility.
IMO, these contrast tone curves in the shadows are done for two reasons; to hide noise in the shadows, and to give the false impression of a full histogram. There is a certain satisfaction in seeing black in an image, but really, if you have very clean shadows and you have even tiny little areas that have true near-black, they suffice. In fact, even if you don't actually have true blacks and your dark grays aren't milky, you can get the same feeling. Of course, if you want large areas black, that is your choice, but that's what it should be - a choice - not a dictation by inferior technology.
--
John
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
You might want to go to the Sony, Pentax, or Nikon forums, where people have cameras that are actually good at DR. Only Olympus has DR as bad or worse than Canon.
--
John
Actually, what I want to see is some "wow" pics (using the technique of under exposing by 3-4 stops) which are ruined by the 'banding" of the 7D. Thanks in advance.
You might want to go to the Sony, Pentax, or Nikon forums, where people have cameras that are actually good at DR. Only Olympus has DR as bad or worse than Canon.
--
John
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
I don't understand your request. Do you mean "wow", subject- and composition-wise, or "wow", DR-wise?
With people not being in the habit of "under-exposing", why would you expect many of the former? And with ruined DR, how would you gauge the potential with better DR? If you could imagine the latter, I don't know why you would require proof. Are you saying that you can't imagine what more DR could be used for? Can you imagine the difference between white neon signs in a night scene and colored ones? A solid white moon vs one with a face in it? The details in the cobblestone in front of a car's headlights, vs a solid white street?
--
John
I mean a "wow" pic from the point of view of the person who took the pic and did all the required pp using this technique. A "wow" pic but ruined by the banding of the 7D.
I don't understand your request. Do you mean "wow", subject- and composition-wise, or "wow", DR-wise?
With people not being in the habit of "under-exposing", why would you expect many of the former? And with ruined DR, how would you gauge the potential with better DR? If you could imagine the latter, I don't know why you would require proof. Are you saying that you can't imagine what more DR could be used for? Can you imagine the difference between white neon signs in a night scene and colored ones? A solid white moon vs one with a face in it? The details in the cobblestone in front of a car's headlights, vs a solid white street?
--
John
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I doubt you'll find them as I've not seen any yet but we may as time goes on and people start to exploit this capability with their new cameras. IMO this is not a capability that the vast majority of people will appreciate or use until output devices (monitors, printers) improve to the point where they can show greater DR in the final image as the typical photographer is not spending time in PS lifting shadows to recover poorly shot or high DR images. It's also a "pixel peeper" thing as much (most, all) of the noise and/or banding does not show in the output of the final image even with large prints and there are ways to clean it up if it does. The pixel peeping techno types are very excited about it and some of the rest of us can see the benefit for some photographic situations but IMO this is not a game changer for photography as we currently know it but that doesn't mean I don't want Canon to improve in the area. I liken it to another capability of your camera like 10 FPS on the 1Dmk4. For some people it's extremely important where others like to have it if they need it and yet some never use it once in the entire time they shoot with the camera.
Bob
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Bob
--Actually, what I want to see is some "wow" pics (using the technique of under exposing by 3-4 stops) which are ruined by the 'banding" of the 7D. Thanks in advance.
You might want to go to the Sony, Pentax, or Nikon forums, where people have cameras that are actually good at DR. Only Olympus has DR as bad or worse than Canon.
--
John
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
I am talking about a technique not a feature of the camera like 10fps.
I doubt you'll find them as I've not seen any yet but we may as time goes on and people start to exploit this capability with their new cameras. IMO this is not a capability that the vast majority of people will appreciate or use until output devices (monitors, printers) improve to the point where they can show greater DR in the final image as the typical photographer is not spending time in PS lifting shadows to recover poorly shot or high DR images. It's also a "pixel peeper" thing as much (most, all) of the noise and/or banding does not show in the output of the final image even with large prints and there are ways to clean it up if it does. The pixel peeping techno types are very excited about it and some of the rest of us can see the benefit for some photographic situations but IMO this is not a game changer for photography as we currently know it but that doesn't mean I don't want Canon to improve in the area. I liken it to another capability of your camera like 10 FPS on the 1Dmk4. For some people it's extremely important where others like to have it if they need it and yet some never use it once in the entire time they shoot with the camera.
Bob
--Actually, what I want to see is some "wow" pics (using the technique of under exposing by 3-4 stops) which are ruined by the 'banding" of the 7D. Thanks in advance.
You might want to go to the Sony, Pentax, or Nikon forums, where people have cameras that are actually good at DR. Only Olympus has DR as bad or worse than Canon.
--
John
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
rwbaron
Forum Pro
I understand but this is a difference in hardware that allows for the technique to be possible.
Bob
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Bob
--I doubt you'll find them as I've not seen any yet but we may as time goes on and people start to exploit this capability with their new cameras. IMO this is not a capability that the vast majority of people will appreciate or use until output devices (monitors, printers) improve to the point where they can show greater DR in the final image as the typical photographer is not spending time in PS lifting shadows to recover poorly shot or high DR images. It's also a "pixel peeper" thing as much (most, all) of the noise and/or banding does not show in the output of the final image even with large prints and there are ways to clean it up if it does. The pixel peeping techno types are very excited about it and some of the rest of us can see the benefit for some photographic situations but IMO this is not a game changer for photography as we currently know it but that doesn't mean I don't want Canon to improve in the area. I liken it to another capability of your camera like 10 FPS on the 1Dmk4. For some people it's extremely important where others like to have it if they need it and yet some never use it once in the entire time they shoot with the camera.
Bob
--Actually, what I want to see is some "wow" pics (using the technique of under exposing by 3-4 stops) which are ruined by the 'banding" of the 7D. Thanks in advance.
You might want to go to the Sony, Pentax, or Nikon forums, where people have cameras that are actually good at DR. Only Olympus has DR as bad or worse than Canon.
--
John
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum