Shadow detail obsession bla bla bla

John Sheehy · May 31, 2011

Chato said:
bobn2 said:

Chato said:

But you are doing more than this, you have said that if I shot at ISO 100 with the same amount of light, then I could get the same image at that shot at ISO 800. A three stop difference.

I'm not specuating here, I'm telling you this as a fact. It would be impossible to save this image if that had occured.

Click to expand...

It's not a fact, you are speculating about something that you have never tried. Try it and see.

Click to expand...

I'm dropping out of this thread. I'm not going to argue sceince with you. You know too much. On the other hand, I'll trust my eyes over anything you tell me...

I've screwed up enough images by forgetting to set the right speed to know that the limit with ACR is two stops. Even two stops degrades the image. Three stops? Garbage.

No offense intended, but you seem to have a weak grasp of the difference between relative concerns, and absolute concerns.

Bob and I have both explained to you exactly what we are talking about, and yet you are talking about something else. You claim experience in the matter, and yet you don't demonstrate it, always alluding to something else entirely. Bob and I are both the type of people who mean every word we say. Ever qualifier, every conjunction. You seem to be reading our posts and dropping important words at will.

There is little, if any difference with your D2X, between shooting at ISO 200 and -3 EC, and shooting at ISO 1600 with 0 EC. Both are the same amount of exposure on the sensor, the same amount of noise reading the sensor, and digitizing it. The only difference is the greater technical (but not visible) quantization of the ISO 200 @ -3 EC. The camera has too much read noise for anything to visibly quantize in the RAW data at any ISO. 11 bits would be ample for the camera.

You haven't done anything like this, as far as I can tell, from what you describe. You seem to be judging ISO 200 @ -3 EC, not by how it compares to getting the same exposure index with the ISO 1600 setting, but by how it compares to ISO 200 @ 0 EC.

--
John

bobn2 · May 31, 2011

Windancer said:
bobn2 said:

since I did my first processing and enlarging forty years ago, however, i have realised that digital isn't the same as film and that 'right exposure' is not important to the medium. Further, that adjusting exposure to change image brightness is simply a bad idea.

Click to expand...

I'm only guessing but I suppose "you walk on water too!"

Why would you think that? I can swim, but understand the difference between swimming and walking. Do you not?

Windancer said:
I think you would agree that a properly exposed photo is easier to work on

I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as a 'properly exposed photo' with digital. There was with film, but digital is a different medium entirely.

Windancer said:
and has nothing to do with tonemapping a photograph.

It has everything to do with tone mapping. Tone mapping is the only thing that determines what is white and what is black and what are the shades in between.

Instead of being sarcastic, you could perhaps just start to get an inkling that there is something that you don't know here.
--
Bob

Windancer · May 31, 2011

bobn2 said:
I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as a 'properly exposed photo' with digital. There was with film, but digital is a different medium entirely.

There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph, if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure. Granted this does not allow for any creativity that the photographer may want due to under or over exposure

bobn2 said:
Instead of being sarcastic, you could perhaps just start to get an inkling that there is something that you don't know here.

You have no idea what I may or may not know, as far as iI am concerned this discussion is finished.

terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
See my profile for all my equipment.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

bobn2 · May 31, 2011

Windancer said:
bobn2 said:

I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as a 'properly exposed photo' with digital. There was with film, but digital is a different medium entirely.

Click to expand...

There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph,

what, then, defines that 'proper' exposure?

Windancer said:
if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure. Granted this does not allow for any creativity that the photographer may want due to under or over exposure

So the 'proper' exposure is the exposure as metered by an incident light meter? Is that what you are saying? At which ISO?

Windancer said:
Windancer said:

Instead of being sarcastic, you could perhaps just start to get an inkling that there is something that you don't know here.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what I may or may not know,

I am gaining a better idea of what you don't know with every post you make.

Windancer said:
as far as iI am concerned this discussion is finished.

fine, maybe you don't know enough to continue it.
--
Bob

John Sheehy · May 31, 2011

Windancer said:
bobn2 said:

I wouldn't agree that there is such a thing as a 'properly exposed photo' with digital. There was with film, but digital is a different medium entirely.

Click to expand...

There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph, if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure. Granted this does not allow for any creativity that the photographer may want due to under or over exposure

Windancer said:

Instead of being sarcastic, you could perhaps just start to get an inkling that there is something that you don't know here.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what I may or may not know, as far as iI am concerned this discussion is finished.

I won't extrapolate on the rest of your life, but from your statements here, there seems to be a bit you don't know about digital RAW capture. It is unfortunate that so many people carry film concepts over to digital photography. Digital cameras just record the approximate number of photons striking the photosites. If you have a nice saturated blue object that has RAW RGB in the ratio 2:4:13, that ratio (and therefore, the saturation) is exactly the same whether you expose to the right for 2000:4000:13000, or a weaker exposure of 400:800:2600, or even weaker at 20:40:130, and with crafty conversion for a small output image, even down to 0.2:0.4:1.3. There is no optimal midpoint where the color saturates more, and it does not get pale in the RAW highlights; it is good until it actually clips.

I think that perhaps you're reading far too much of what a RAW converter does to the RAW data into the RAW data itself.

The whitepoint and graypoint in RAW data are merely conventions; they are not RAW levels with any special recording characteristics. They are just metering targets for ISOs. ISOs in and of themselves are useless, except as comparable standards.

--
John

Ian Stuart Forsyth · May 31, 2011

Windancer said:
There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph, if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure. Granted this does not allow for any creativity that the photographer may want due to under or over exposure

+1 on that

I think it’s even more critical with digital to expose correctly If everything was left to histograms and software you would lose any depth when trying to convey any mood in a photograph. It boils down to what the photographer wants to preserve or burn off during his exposure and whatever metering used is only a starting point in the photography.

Take this photo I spot metered with the camera on a few key points to judge the best exposure. If not for my fine tuning the exposure this photo would not have been captured.

Windancer said:
terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
See my profile for all my equipment.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

By the way nice gallery
--
A Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
http://ianstuartforsythphotography.com

bobn2 · May 31, 2011

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph, if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure. Granted this does not allow for any creativity that the photographer may want due to under or over exposure

Click to expand...

+1 on that

I think it’s even more critical with digital to expose correctly If everything was left to histograms and software you would lose any depth when trying to convey any mood in a photograph. It boils down to what the photographer wants to preserve or burn off during his exposure and whatever metering used is only a starting point in the photography.

Take this photo I spot metered with the camera on a few key points to judge the best exposure. If not for my fine tuning the exposure this photo would not have been captured.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
See my profile for all my equipment.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

Click to expand...

Sorry, you make two bold assertions there without evidence to back them:

'If everything was left to histograms and software you would lose any depth when trying to convey any mood in a photograph.'

'If not for my fine tuning the exposure this photo would not have been captured.'
They are both flat out untrue.

There's a whole load of film era people (whether or not they actually used film) who wrap this whole phony idea of 'correct' exposure' in a bogus mystique that informs nobody and stops people understanding what really goes on in a digital camera.

--
Bob

Great Bustard · May 31, 2011

Chato said:
bobn2 said:

Chato said:

But you are doing more than this, you have said that if I shot at ISO 100 with the same amount of light, then I could get the same image at that shot at ISO 800. A three stop difference.

I'm not specuating here, I'm telling you this as a fact. It would be impossible to save this image if that had occured.

Click to expand...

It's not a fact, you are speculating about something that you have never tried. Try it and see.

Click to expand...

I'm dropping out of this thread. I'm not going to argue sceince with you. You know too much. On the other hand, I'll trust my eyes over anything you tell me...

I've screwed up enough images by forgetting to set the right speed to know that the limit with ACR is two stops. Even two stops degrades the image. Three stops? Garbage.

...they know what they're talking about. The D2x is an "ISOless" camera. That is, the read noise is flat throughout the ISO range:

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

This means that changing the ISO does not have any effect on noise for a fixed aperture and shutter speed , but it may result in blown highlights, if you use higher ISOs.

So, do the experiment they suggest. Shoot a "high ISO" scene as you normally would (and in RAW), and take note of the f-ratio and shutter speed. Reshoot the same scene in M mode, ISO 100, with the same f-ratio and shutter speed.

Convert the first photo, and then convert the second photo with the proper EC so that it matches the apparent exposure as the first (e.g., if the first were at ISO 1600, convert the ISO 100 pic with +4 EC).

Post the results so we all can see. Let me show you what you might expec (from another "ISOless" camera):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36903045

What do you have to lose?

bobn2 · Jun 1, 2011

Great Bustard said:
Chato said:

bobn2 said:

Chato said:

But you are doing more than this, you have said that if I shot at ISO 100 with the same amount of light, then I could get the same image at that shot at ISO 800. A three stop difference.

I'm not specuating here, I'm telling you this as a fact. It would be impossible to save this image if that had occured.

Click to expand...

It's not a fact, you are speculating about something that you have never tried. Try it and see.

Click to expand...

I'm dropping out of this thread. I'm not going to argue sceince with you. You know too much. On the other hand, I'll trust my eyes over anything you tell me...

I've screwed up enough images by forgetting to set the right speed to know that the limit with ACR is two stops. Even two stops degrades the image. Three stops? Garbage.

Click to expand...

...they know what they're talking about. The D2x is an "ISOless" camera. That is, the read noise is flat throughout the ISO range:

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

This means that changing the ISO does not have any effect on noise for a fixed aperture and shutter speed , but it may result in blown highlights, if you use higher ISOs.

So, do the experiment they suggest. Shoot a "high ISO" scene as you normally would (and in RAW), and take note of the f-ratio and shutter speed. Reshoot the same scene in M mode, ISO 100, with the same f-ratio and shutter speed.

Convert the first photo, and then convert the second photo with the proper EC so that it matches the apparent exposure as the first (e.g., if the first were at ISO 1600, convert the ISO 100 pic with +4 EC).

Post the results so we all can see. Let me show you what you might expec (from another "ISOless" camera):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36903045

He wouldn't expect that from a D2X, it has about 3 stops less DR than a D7000. Careful not to raise expectations too much.

Great Bustard said:
What do you have to lose?

I think what people have to lose is a whole load of expertise they think they've gained. It's been put around so much and so often that the core of photographic technique is control of exposure to adjust image density, whenpeople come and say that's all a waste of time, it's not taken kindly. People lose what their photography is about. Strange, but true.
--
Bob

Barry Fitzgerald · Jun 1, 2011

We've enough latitude in the shadow areas on digital what we need now if more in the highlight range.

As for some of the expert posters I can't take a guy seriously who says a Panasonic FZ has better noise sensor performance than a DSLR based on a deeply flawed cropping a DSLR image to match the sensor size of the FZ one and then declaring the FZ the winner because the APS-C shot has been robbed of loads of resolution

The most ridiculous test I've ever seen on the internet ;-)

Steen Bay · Jun 1, 2011

bobn2 said:
Great Bustard said:

Chato said:

bobn2 said:

Chato said:

But you are doing more than this, you have said that if I shot at ISO 100 with the same amount of light, then I could get the same image at that shot at ISO 800. A three stop difference.

I'm not specuating here, I'm telling you this as a fact. It would be impossible to save this image if that had occured.

Click to expand...

It's not a fact, you are speculating about something that you have never tried. Try it and see.

Click to expand...

I'm dropping out of this thread. I'm not going to argue sceince with you. You know too much. On the other hand, I'll trust my eyes over anything you tell me...

I've screwed up enough images by forgetting to set the right speed to know that the limit with ACR is two stops. Even two stops degrades the image. Three stops? Garbage.

Click to expand...

...they know what they're talking about. The D2x is an "ISOless" camera. That is, the read noise is flat throughout the ISO range:

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

This means that changing the ISO does not have any effect on noise for a fixed aperture and shutter speed , but it may result in blown highlights, if you use higher ISOs.

So, do the experiment they suggest. Shoot a "high ISO" scene as you normally would (and in RAW), and take note of the f-ratio and shutter speed. Reshoot the same scene in M mode, ISO 100, with the same f-ratio and shutter speed.

Convert the first photo, and then convert the second photo with the proper EC so that it matches the apparent exposure as the first (e.g., if the first were at ISO 1600, convert the ISO 100 pic with +4 EC).

Post the results so we all can see. Let me show you what you might expec (from another "ISOless" camera):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36903045

Click to expand...

He wouldn't expect that from a D2X, it has about 3 stops less DR than a D7000. Careful not to raise expectations too much.

bobn2 said:

What do you have to lose?

Click to expand...

I think what people have to lose is a whole load of expertise they think they've gained. It's been put around so much and so often that the core of photographic technique is control of exposure to adjust image density, whenpeople come and say that's all a waste of time, it's not taken kindly. People lose what their photography is about. Strange, but true.

Well, yes, but on the other hand, what does Dave or anybody else have to gain by doing it 'your' way? People don't increase the ISO (reduce the exposure) unless it's absolutely necessary, because they know that the result is more noise in the image. So why bother, is there really any need to change anything, won't the end result be exactly the same in both cases? I do agree though that so-called ISO-less cameras (which we don't have yet) would be a nice thing, because the (little minority of) RAW shooters would get more highlight headroom when shooting at higher ISOs (in low light, with reduced exposure relative to full saturation of the sensor), meaning that we/they wouldn't have to worry so much about blown highlights (but only at higher ISOs, at base ISO nothing would change).

noirdesir · Jun 1, 2011

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

There is a proper exposure even for digital photograph, if you use an incident light meter it would give you a "starting point" for exposure.

Click to expand...

In the film era it was important to place the mid-tones where one wanted the greatest differentiation into the steepest (middle) part of the tone curve. Measuring incident light (assuming exactly calibrated light meters, film ISOs, t/f-stops and shutter speed) did exactly this.

The tone curve of a digital sensor however is essentially flat, placing the mid-tones precisely is thus much less relevant. What matters is to not blow (any significant) highlights and to minimise image noise. Since we still want a steep tone curve in the mid-tones, every raw converter (incl. the in-camera jpeg engine) applies an S-shaped tone curve adjustment:

But we can, from the same digitally captured data apply any number of different tone-curves:

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
I think it’s even more critical with digital to expose correctly. If everything was left to histograms and software you would lose any depth when trying to convey any mood in a photograph. It boils down to what the photographer wants to preserve or burn off during his exposure

Exactly, except that with digital, you place and shape your tone curve in post, not during capture (and film development). With film you had to balance exposure to protect highlights & shadows AND place mid-tones in the steepest part of the tone curve. With digital you 'only' have to protect highlights and maximise exposure (to minimise noise).

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Take this photo I spot metered with the camera on a few key points to judge the best exposure. If not for my fine tuning the exposure this photo would not have been captured.

If you start with the mindset that you cannot change the mapping of the digitally captured raw values via a tone curve into the output tonal values (because with film you could not), then you have fine tune exposure with digital somewhat similarly as with film. But that is only somewhat correct if you shoot jpeg-only.

noirdesir · Jun 1, 2011

Steen Bay said:
Well, yes, but on the other hand, what does Dave or anybody else have to gain by doing it 'your' way?

You have answered that yourself: significantly more headroom at 'higher ISOs'

Steen Bay said:
People don't increase the ISO (reduce the exposure) unless it's absolutely necessary, because they know that the result is more noise in the image.

Steen Bay said:
So why bother, is there really any need to change anything, won't the end result be exactly the same in both cases?

If you go from ISO 100 to 1600, you loose four stops of dynamic range headroom (on 'ISO-less' cameras, on a D3/D700 this would rather apply to going from ISO 1600 to 6400). Four stops of extra headroom is 'exactly the same result' for you?

Steen Bay said:
because the (little minority of) RAW shooters would get more highlight headroom when shooting at higher ISOs (in low light, with reduced exposure relative to full saturation of the sensor), meaning that we/they wouldn't have to worry so much about blown highlights (but only at higher ISOs, at base ISO nothing would change).

I would bet anybody discussing things here on this level shoots raw, thus your 'little minority' is actually the vast majority. And this whole discussion is mainly about higher ISOs (though even at base ISO you can reduce noise for low dynamic range subjects by ETTR).

bobn2 · Jun 1, 2011

Steen Bay said:
Steen Bay said:

I think what people have to lose is a whole load of expertise they think they've gained. It's been put around so much and so often that the core of photographic technique is control of exposure to adjust image density, whenpeople come and say that's all a waste of time, it's not taken kindly. People lose what their photography is about. Strange, but true.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but on the other hand, what does Dave or anybody else have to gain by doing it 'your' way?

Better photos with less noise and less highlight loss

Steen Bay said:
People don't increase the ISO (reduce the exposure) unless it's absolutely necessary, because they know that the result is more noise in the image.

I don't think that's how people work at all. If 'raising the ISO' was the way people tried to deal with exposure, ISO would be a primary control instead of being buried away in menus or requiring a button push and not being displayed in the VF. The whole UI of a camera, and most people's way of working is based on the idea that you load virtual film (set an ISO) and work with than until forced to change. The net result is that you will inevitably end up in some cases using less exposure for a shot than you might, and thus getting more noise.

Steen Bay said:
So why bother, is there really any need to change anything,

whether there is a 'need' depends on your needs. There so much obsessing about achieving absolutely the best IQ, why shouldn't people have available this rather simple little expedient?

Steen Bay said:
won't the end result will be exactly the same in both cases?

No. The 'guess the light level and set ISO' apprach inevitably involves useing a lower exposure than necessary in some situations, unless you think that people only centre the meter by increasing exposure.

Steen Bay said:
I do agree though that so-called ISO-less cameras (which we don't have yet) would be a nice thing, because the (little minority of) RAW shooters would get more highlight headroom when shooting at higher ISOs (in low light, with reduced exposure relative to full saturation of the sensor), meaning that we/they wouldn't have to worry so much about blown highlights (but only at higher ISOs, at base ISO nothing would change).

Actually, ISOless is more or less irrelevant to the question about exposure technique, except insomuch as it makes a rational technique much easier operationally. The reason that this discussion always comes up when discussion ISO and the effects of ISO, is that the widespread misunderstandings about the meaning of 'ISO', the effect of the ISO control and the role of exposure all lead back to adoption of the film metaphor in the design of digital cameras, and the following of false inferences from that.

One of the reasons I get snippy about it is that you see so many threads and posts misleading beginners and honest enquirers about 'correct' exposure and the whole mystique that surrounds it, generally conversations of the kind

The most important thing is to nail the exposure
How do I do that?
Just ensure that you get the correct exposure
How do I ensure that I get the correct exposure?
A good incident light meter is a good starting place
what should I do with it?
well, if you start to use it you will gain an appreciation of what the correct exposure
I don't have an incident light meter, and I use the camera's meter?
The camera won't always give the correct exposure, you need to learn how your camera operates to know how much EC to use
How do I do that?
As you use it you will learn the situations in which it gives correct exposure and when it doesn't.
How do i know when it's giving correct exposure?
You see when the exposure is correct
What is correct exposure?
You will know it when you see it
That wasn't an answer - what is correct exposure?
Correct exposure is proper exposure
what is 'proper exposure'
It's when the image looks like you want it to look.
I can get it how I want it to look in photoshop.
That's no good, you must get it right in the camera
Why?
Because the most important thing is to nail the exposure.

Steen Bay · Jun 1, 2011

noirdesir said:
Steen Bay said:

Well, yes, but on the other hand, what does Dave or anybody else have to gain by doing it 'your' way?

Click to expand...

You have answered that yourself: significantly more headroom at 'higher ISOs'

Yes, and that'll be nice, especially if in a hurry, but is it really that important and useful? Hasn't it always been the photographers responsibility, always been part of getting the 'correct exposure', to protect important highlights? Wouldn't an 'ISO-less' camera just allow us to be a bit more 'sloppy' at higher ISOs?

noirdesir said:
noirdesir said:

People don't increase the ISO (reduce the exposure) unless it's absolutely necessary, because they know that the result is more noise in the image.

Click to expand...

noirdesir said:

So why bother, is there really any need to change anything, won't the end result be exactly the same in both cases?

Click to expand...

If you go from ISO 100 to 1600, you loose four stops of dynamic range headroom (on 'ISO-less' cameras, on a D3/D700 this would rather apply to going from ISO 1600 to 6400). Four stops of extra headroom is 'exactly the same result' for you?

Yes, exactly the same result, because, like I said above, it's the photographers job to protect the highlights he wants to protect, and if doing so, then the additional headroom isn't needed.

noirdesir said:
noirdesir said:

because the (little minority of) RAW shooters would get more highlight headroom when shooting at higher ISOs (in low light, with reduced exposure relative to full saturation of the sensor), meaning that we/they wouldn't have to worry so much about blown highlights (but only at higher ISOs, at base ISO nothing would change).

Click to expand...

I would bet anybody discussing things here on this level shoots raw, thus your 'little minority' is actually the vast majority.

Maybe so, but only a little minority of the cameras sold can shoot RAW, and I'll bet that only a little minority of those who own a camera capable of shooting RAW, actually is doing it.

noirdesir said:
And this whole discussion is mainly about higher ISOs (though even at base ISO you can reduce noise for low dynamic range subjects by ETTR).

John Sheehy · Jun 1, 2011

Steen Bay said:
Well, yes, but on the other hand, what does Dave or anybody else have to gain by doing it 'your' way?

Smaller RAW files, and more highlight headroom, with the same noise levels.

Steen Bay said:
People don't increase the ISO (reduce the exposure) unless it's absolutely necessary, because they know that the result is more noise in the image.

That's only true when the ISO dictates the exposure, with constant EC. Just about everyone has this part right. It is not a point of debate.

Steen Bay said:
So why bother, is there really any need to change anything, won't the end result be exactly the same in both cases?

No; using higher gains than what are necessary to actually gain on anything substantial result in larger compressed RAW files, and lower clipped highlight levels.

I do agree though that so-called ISO-less cameras (which we don't have yet)

We don't have them in firmware (except in medium format digital cameras and backs). We've had them in hardware since day one of digital photography. Digital cameras which don't really gain anything from gain have always been with us.

Steen Bay said:
would be a nice thing, because the (little minority of) RAW shooters would get more highlight headroom when shooting at higher ISOs (in low light, with reduced exposure relative to full saturation of the sensor), meaning that we/they wouldn't have to worry so much about blown highlights (but only at higher ISOs, at base ISO nothing would change).

This is exactly how medium format digital cameras have worked, all along. One gain, many ISO "settings". The same DR at all ISOs.

--
John

John Sheehy · Jun 1, 2011

Steen Bay said:
Yes, and that'll be nice, especially if in a hurry, but is it really that important and useful? Hasn't it always been the photographers responsibility, always been part of getting the 'correct exposure', to protect important highlights? Wouldn't an 'ISO-less' camera just allow us to be a bit more 'sloppy' at higher ISOs?

Sloppy at what? A pointless game?

Steen Bay said:
Yes, exactly the same result, because, like I said above, it's the photographers job to protect the highlights he wants to protect, and if doing so, then the additional headroom isn't needed.

So the end of photography is a skill game of avoiding unnecessary quirks, and not the final product?

Steen Bay said:
Maybe so, but only a little minority of the cameras sold can shoot RAW, and I'll bet that only a little minority of those who own a camera capable of shooting RAW, actually is doing it.

It doesn't matter; all cameras capture RAW under the hood, and "gain" is just a joke in most cameras; an electrical multiplication that only throws away headroom.

--
John

noirdesir · Jun 1, 2011

Steen Bay said:
noirdesir said:

significantly more headroom at 'higher ISOs'

Click to expand...

Yes, and that'll be nice, especially if in a hurry, but is it really that important and useful? Hasn't it always been the photographers responsibility, always been part of getting the 'correct exposure', to protect important highlights?

When you set a high ISO (on an 'ISO-less' camera), you throw away highlight data. If you then expose for the highlights, you are forced to use a shorter exposure than your other constraints (f-stop, shutter speed) would require you to use. Thus, you capture less photons and have more noise in your image.

Only when the subject's dynamic range is small enough such that protecting the highlights does not require you to shorten the exposure (compared to the maximum exposure given f-stop and shutter speed constraints) is it irrelevant whether you 'underexpose' at base ISO or expose 'correctly' at higher ISO.

Steen Bay said:
Wouldn't an 'ISO-less' camera just allow us to be a bit more 'sloppy' at higher ISOs?

If you are at upper limit of your possible exposure settings (f-stop & shutter speed) and nothing in the overall scene is exceeding the saturation limit of your sensor (at these settings), then an 'ISO-less' camera allows you to just stick with that exposure setting (ie, manual exposure) and not worry about variations in brightness within your scene.

Steen Bay said:
Yes, exactly the same result, because, like I said above, it's the photographers job to protect the highlights he wants to protect, and if doing so, then the additional headroom isn't needed.

As I said above, if you choose a shorter exposure than necessary (from a motion blur point of view) in order to protect your highlights at high ISO, you are getting more noise than necessary. Protecting the highlights by not throwing away highlight data (ie, staying at base ISO) leads to better images than protecting highlights by reducing exposure (and thus reducing photons counted).

Steen Bay said:
Maybe so, but only a little minority of the cameras sold can shoot RAW, and I'll bet that only a little minority of those who own a camera capable of shooting RAW, actually is doing it.

Well, anyone who is really thinking about how to expose correctly (and that should include anybody posting in or reading this thread) IS using a raw-capable camera and IS shooting raw.

If you really worry about correct exposure, you are shooting raw. If you don't shoot raw, you are not serious about optimal exposure.

(That is not say that you have be that concerned about exposure to make reasonably technically good pictures but if you really worry about it, you do shoot raw.)

John Sheehy · Jun 1, 2011

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
I think it’s even more critical with digital to expose correctly If everything was left to histograms and software you would lose any depth when trying to convey any mood in a photograph. It boils down to what the photographer wants to preserve or burn off during his exposure and whatever metering used is only a starting point in the photography.

Unless one is working with a camera like my Canon 5D2, which records beautiful images but only within a very narrow exposure latitude at low ISOs, there is a very wide range of workable exposures, where all contrast and saturation is intact in the RAW.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:
Take this photo I spot metered with the camera on a few key points to judge the best exposure. If not for my fine tuning the exposure this photo would not have been captured.

What ISO? What camera?

--
John

John Sheehy · Jun 1, 2011

Barry Fitzgerald said:
We've enough latitude in the shadow areas on digital what we need now if more in the highlight range.

As for some of the expert posters I can't take a guy seriously who says a Panasonic FZ has better noise sensor performance than a DSLR based on a deeply flawed cropping a DSLR image to match the sensor size of the FZ one and then declaring the FZ the winner because the APS-C shot has been robbed of loads of resolution

The most ridiculous test I've ever seen on the internet ;-)

What is ridiculous is your tendency to assume you understand what you are reading, when the fact clearly is, that you do not. That demonstration was about the size of pixels versus performance per unit of sensor area. You clearly are not sharp enough to understand the value of that metric.

BTW, my Casio with a 1/2.3" sensor with 1.7 micron pixels is much better than the FZ50, per unit of sensor area. Better than any DSLR, except the D3s, and then the D3s is only better at high ISOs (D3s is the current king of low high-ISO noise per unit of sensor area, better than the 1D4 by more than a stop).

--
John

Shadow detail obsession bla bla bla

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts