New and old Canons.

Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
 
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
 
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
Every shot requires processing.
 
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.

I'm talking about no extra human intervention, so for Raw : open a RAW file with whatever, using default settings, then save it to whatever format you want. Print it if you want. And of course there's always behind-the-scene machine processing going on (except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
 
It seems all digital cameras have similar curves,simple answer to simple question.
If correctly exposed digital files seem to look very similar if exposed within certain limits,raw files only using say Adobe standard.
That is to be expected, just as cd players sound similar,"not the same"
The problem for us all is that digital cameras users are now expected to become our own photo lab.
We need calibrated monitors,expensive computers,spectrophotometers ,viewing booths,a room painted mid gray,special printers,printer profiles and paper.
There is a lot more but you get my drift.
The annoying thing to me and many others is that in days of old, a photographer could buy a camera keep it for years and Kodak and Ilford
would take care of many improvements.
In fact if I bought a Gandolfi 10x8 camera a weston meter, a taylor hobson lens,in 1962 that kit would still be producing a cash flow.
Try that with digital!
 
Last edited:
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.

I'm talking about no extra human intervention, so for Raw : open a RAW file with whatever, using default settings, then save it to whatever format you want. Print it if you want. And of course there's always behind-the-scene machine processing going on (except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
forgive me...but if you are going to do nothing to the raw file..is there any point in shooting raw in the first place...maybe i missed something
 
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.

I'm talking about no extra human intervention, so for Raw : open a RAW file with whatever, using default settings, then save it to whatever format you want. Print it if you want. And of course there's always behind-the-scene machine processing going on (except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
forgive me...but if you are going to do nothing to the raw file..is there any point in shooting raw in the first place...maybe i missed something
Where is it said that nothing will be done with it? It's a question of getting it to a format suited for its use.

The point of shooting raw is having the choice of better processing than with jpg, not whether you need to do any. But that's ok, you are forgiven :-)
 
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
I'm talking about no extra human intervention, so for Raw : open a RAW file with whatever, using default settings, then save it to whatever format you want.
Which means the data was processed.
Print it if you want. And of course there's always behind-the-scene machine processing going on...
Exactly, and the user decides how to use it. Default only mean the Camera engines make the decisions ahead of time and the user concurs.
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
 
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
I'm talking about no extra human intervention, so for Raw : open a RAW file with whatever, using default settings, then save it to whatever format you want.
Which means the data was processed.
Yes, well done.
Print it if you want. And of course there's always behind-the-scene machine processing going on...
Exactly, and the user decides how to use it. Default only mean the Camera engines make the decisions ahead of time and the user concurs.
Yes, very good.
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
Not limiting at all, since if the out of the box results are not good enough, you can choose to process until your butt drops off.
 
Has any owner of a Canon 6d compared is dynamic range at sensible iso settings with older

Canon models, like for instance a 40d.It is very difficult to see any real advantage in normal use!. It would be reasonable to suppose 6D file would need less h/l and shadow adjustment than 40d I have not found this is to be true.
output tone curves from raw processers will be the same. this is actually a GOOD thing.

canon color science is consistent across almost 10 years of camera generations.
It is true after fairly large dose of p/s the files are good but why is this so necessary?
because it's always necessary if you want something "out of the norm".
Sorry, I have to disagree, but just with the "always", if the lighting is good when you take the shot, you use a good lens and get the right perspective, you can get spectacular results with today's good cameras and lenses.
you can use that same analogy with any camera.

you missed the entire point. the tone curves are going to be standard because the "look" needs to be standard across generations or bodies of cameras.

if you need to "outside of norm" as far as processing, then today's raw files offer a greater degree of latitude to do so.
You missed the entire point, if you have or set up good lighting, good subject, know how to compose and shoot, you sometimes get a shot that doesn't need any processing.
did you read the OP's comments?

he's asking/bitching/talking about WHY by default RAW files look the same between generations of canon cameras.

God..
 
Last edited:
It seems all digital cameras have similar curves,simple answer to simple questi1on.
If correctly exposed digital files seem to look very similar if exposed within certain limits,raw files only using say Adobe standard.
they should. yes. you will get subtle differences such as some don't like Sony greens.
That is to be expected, just as cd players sound similar,"not the same"
yes, such as 5DSr using adobe, crushes the blacks more.
The problem for us all is that digital cameras users are now expected to become our own photo lab.
yes.
We need calibrated monitors,expensive computers,spectrophotometers ,viewing booths,a room painted mid gray,special printers,printer profiles and paper.
if print is your final medium. yes. of course you can outsource alot of that, but you still need the room and calibrated monitor.
There is a lot more but you get my drift.
The annoying thing to me and many others is that in days of old, a photographer could buy a camera keep it for years and Kodak and Ilford
would take care of many improvements.
In fact if I bought a Gandolfi 10x8 camera a weston meter, a taylor hobson lens,in 1962 that kit would still be producing a cash flow.
Try that with digital!
you sir, are most certainly correct.

it's the hidden cost of digital - mind you, with digital you never have to pay for a roll of film so depending on how much you shoot, it could be a break even expense. however time is money. and you can also re-process your digital "negative" or RAW as time goes on, and as software and tools change. something we really couldn't do with film.
 
Last edited:
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
But still processed...you simply choose to hire it out to the folks back at Canon
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
Not limiting at all, since if the out of the box results are not good enough, you can choose to process until your butt drops off.
Still limiting in that once done (assuming you indeed are shooting JPEG) there is no going back and little/less room going forward. Options are limited. Bottom line, all Digital images are indeed processed...to different degrees. Even the basic RAW file contains a JPEG that was processed based on someones input.
 
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
But still processed...you simply choose to hire it out to the folks back at Canon
Fabulous extrapolation, but where am I doing any processing???
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
Not limiting at all, since if the out of the box results are not good enough, you can choose to process until your butt drops off.
Still limiting in that once done (assuming you indeed are shooting JPEG) there is no going back and little/less room going forward. Options are limited. Bottom line, all Digital images are indeed processed...to different degrees. Even the basic RAW file contains a JPEG that was processed based on someones input.
Wrong assumption, 99.9% of the time I shoot RAW + JPG.

And yes, of course there is lots of processing going on, the point was whether sometimes you don't need to do any extra yourself. If your shooting is week, then most likely. If your shooting is good and conditions are right, sometimes you don't need to.
 
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
But still processed...you simply choose to hire it out to the folks back at Canon
Fabulous extrapolation, but where am I doing any processing???
You your selected "out of camera defaults". That's the processing you chose to have performed and by whom.
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
Not limiting at all, since if the out of the box results are not good enough, you can choose to process until your butt drops off.
Still limiting in that once done (assuming you indeed are shooting JPEG) there is no going back and little/less room going forward. Options are limited. Bottom line, all Digital images are indeed processed...to different degrees. Even the basic RAW file contains a JPEG that was processed based on someones input.
Wrong assumption, 99.9% of the time I shoot RAW + JPG.
Then 100% of the time...you are still looking at images that have been processed
And yes, of course there is lots of processing going on, the point was whether sometimes you don't need to do any extra yourself.
The point made earlier was that "Every shot requires processing". To which you suggested "Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box" . Which we know isn't true
If your shooting is week, then most likely. If your shooting is good and conditions are right, sometimes you don't need to.
Even if "your shooting is good and conditions are right"...Every shot still requires processing. You always have to decide as to the "how" of it...before, after, or a combination of the two. Deafult, Vivid, flat. etc. ...you see no image that hasn't been processed

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)
 
Last edited:
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
But still processed...you simply choose to hire it out to the folks back at Canon
Fabulous extrapolation, but where am I doing any processing???
You your selected "out of camera defaults". That's the processing you chose to have performed and by whom.
Out of the box default, you don't select anything, that's what a default is, a default of choice, you click, you get a pic. Try processing the word default.

Yawn.
...(except once you've got a hard print in your hand!), but here it's about the human brain making choices and changes.
And deciding to go with defaults is also a decision and processing, Some would call it a bit lazy and I think of it as more a convenience/speed decision. Regardless...a limiting decision
Not limiting at all, since if the out of the box results are not good enough, you can choose to process until your butt drops off.
Still limiting in that once done (assuming you indeed are shooting JPEG) there is no going back and little/less room going forward. Options are limited. Bottom line, all Digital images are indeed processed...to different degrees. Even the basic RAW file contains a JPEG that was processed based on someones input.
Wrong assumption, 99.9% of the time I shoot RAW + JPG.
Then 100% of the time...you are still looking at images that have been processed
And yes, of course there is lots of processing going on, the point was whether sometimes you don't need to do any extra yourself.
The point made earlier was that "Every shot requires processing". To which you suggested "Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box" . Which we know isn't true
If your shooting is week, then most likely. If your shooting is good and conditions are right, sometimes you don't need to.
Even if "your shooting is good and conditions are right"...Every shot still requires processing. You always have to decide as to the "how" of it...before, after, or a combination of the two. Deafult, Vivid, flat. etc. ...you see no image that hasn't been processed
 
You your selected "out of camera defaults". That's the processing you chose to have performed and by whom.
Out of the box default, you don't select anything, that's what a default is, a default of choice, you click, you get a pic.
Yes...default means you choose preselected options/settings to use as your processing settings. It's often the settings company folks decides is best. Often a marketing based decision (on their part). And by you choosing to use "default", you choose the processing chosen for you. Kind of the "Polaroid" approach to processing choice. Nothing wrong really, but In either case (default or not) every shot requires processing.... As Bob points out
 
Last edited:
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
Would you consider manually applying a preset in LR after import as processing? How about applying the preset automatically after import?

I am with you when it comes to distinguishing between leaving things in automatic mode and the user manually intervening. That is a distinctive choice about how much work you want to do. Where I possibly differ is whether (a) there is such a thing as default image processing or whether (b) there is merit in striving to shoot such that no manual intervention is necessary beyond saving time for manual processing. In regard to (a), there is almost always a choice (between in-camera processing or selecting a raw converter), different people will come to different conclusions what the default is, which in itself shows that there is no such thing as a true default, there only choices between different automation routines.
 
Every shot requires processing.
Not if you use default setting JPG out of the box.
Which means you chose to process the RAW data and picked the in-camera JPEG engine to do the processing
Ooo, I do love this pedantic nit-picking. A choice, not me doing processing.
But still processed...you simply choose to hire it out to the folks back at Canon
Fabulous extrapolation, but where am I doing any processing???
You your selected "out of camera defaults". That's the processing you chose to have performed and by whom.
Out of the box default, you don't select anything, that's what a default is, a default of choice, you click, you get a pic. Try processing the word default.
There is still the choice between using the in-camera jpegs or the raws (and then which raw converter).
 
You your selected "out of camera defaults". That's the processing you chose to have performed and by whom.
Out of the box default, you don't select anything, that's what a default is, a default of choice, you click, you get a pic.
Yes...default means you choose preselected options/settings to use as your processing settings. It's often the settings company folks decides is best. Often a marketing based decision (on their part). And by you choosing to use "default", you choose the processing chosen for you. Kind of the "Polaroid" approach to processing choice. Nothing wrong really, but In either case (default or not) every shot requires processing.... As Bob points out
Except that default means the settings you get if you don't choose anything. You might not even know that there are settings to choose from. :-)
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top