Ernie Misner
Forum Pro
Same here. As a landscape photographer I love ISO 64 and having the ISO optimized for low ISO's. That is my most used ISO and superb for moving water and long exposures too.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
No one needs 46MP (Z7)
- Thread starter Enthusiast3003
- Start date
I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s done in camera and baked into the raw, you don’t get to do it over later.Having those options is certainly good, and no one is arguing that there should be less flexibility in post. I was merely stating my preference on the matter.I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
That's not what I said. What I did say is that I prefer that whatever I can get right in-camera during capture, do it there, as opposed to in post. Like WB, exposure, etc.You can’t have it both ways. If it’s done in camera and baked into the raw, you don’t get to do it over later.Having those options is certainly good, and no one is arguing that there should be less flexibility in post. I was merely stating my preference on the matter.I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Oh. Then we've not been communicating all along. I was talking about processing.That's not what I said. What I did say is that I prefer that whatever I can get right in-camera during capture, do it there, as opposed to in post. Like WB, exposure, etc.You can’t have it both ways. If it’s done in camera and baked into the raw, you don’t get to do it over later.Having those options is certainly good, and no one is arguing that there should be less flexibility in post. I was merely stating my preference on the matter.I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
If we're broadening the scope of (at least my half of) the discussion, my objective for a raw file is one the forecloses the fewest useful options in postproduction.
Jim
If you strictly meant processing after capture, my bad, I misunderstood, and fully agree with you.Oh. Then we've not been communicating all along. I was talking about processing.That's not what I said. What I did say is that I prefer that whatever I can get right in-camera during capture, do it there, as opposed to in post. Like WB, exposure, etc.You can’t have it both ways. If it’s done in camera and baked into the raw, you don’t get to do it over later.Having those options is certainly good, and no one is arguing that there should be less flexibility in post. I was merely stating my preference on the matter.I want options, flexibility, and future proofing. If I get an order for a print, I will often go back to the raw file and start anew instead of hitting control-P.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
If we're broadening the scope of (at least my half of) the discussion, my objective for a raw file is one the forecloses the fewest useful options in postproduction.
DiffractionLtd
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,836
- Reaction score
- 1,605
JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
DiffractionLtd
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,836
- Reaction score
- 1,605
That's what happened to cameras because of phone cameras. Once something reaches a certain percentage of quality against a benchmark, the use of the benchmark declines.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Back in 1988, I was not allowed to buy two SUN work stations, two weeks later I worked at another company...
Best regards
Erik
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Once you get diffraction limited...That's what happened to cameras because of phone cameras. Once something reaches a certain percentage of quality against a benchmark, the use of the benchmark declines.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
The way I see it, camera makers have done a lot of effort developing processing yielding good images. So it is quite feasible to rely on the camera to produce great images. It is a bit like it used to be with slide film.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Photographer selects ISO (film), rendering intent (like Ektachrome or Velvia) exposure and Kodak or Fujifilm makes the rest. Great many shots were made on slide film, I still have thousands of those, to be scanned.
But, once the camera processed the image, must information is lost. With raw we can use all the information. I don't think it is granted that we do a better job than the camera.
But, in camera processing may not be a good match for a photographers vision. Also, that vision may change.
Best regards
Erik
DiffractionLtd
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,836
- Reaction score
- 1,605
Trouble is, going from 90% diffraction limited to 100% might end up costing three times as much or more and may not even be worth it. There are a lot of other things that can limit resolution than just the lens, especially when pixel counts of the sensor are high.Once you get diffraction limited...That's what happened to cameras because of phone cameras. Once something reaches a certain percentage of quality against a benchmark, the use of the benchmark declines.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi DiffractionLtd,Trouble is, going from 90% diffraction limited to 100% might end up costing three times as much or more and may not even be worth it. There are a lot of other things that can limit resolution than just the lens, especially when pixel counts of the sensor are high.Once you get diffraction limited...That's what happened to cameras because of phone cameras. Once something reaches a certain percentage of quality against a benchmark, the use of the benchmark declines.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Just joking, you know.
But, I have run some careful testing on some gear I have, a Sonnar 180/4 CFi with a Phase one P45+ back, and i have realized that I am giving up a lot of sharpness using it at f/11 instead of f/5.6.
In many cases we need to stop down, either to get enough DoF or to guard against focusing errors.
I mostly used f/11 on my Phase One P45 gear, as I felt is was like optimum. But doing pretty accurate measurements, I have found that stopping down my best lens from f/5.6 to f/11 throws away about 55% of the image quality. That was much more than what I have expected.
Best regards
Erik
DiffractionLtd
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,836
- Reaction score
- 1,605
That's interesting and it indicates the lenses must be pretty exceptional. Any lens (and there are more every day) than can maximize image quality wide open or down just 1 stop is usually excellent. In the "old days" the general rule of thumb for 35mm lenses was to stop them down to f8 to get best image quality. Not so much today.Hi DiffractionLtd,Trouble is, going from 90% diffraction limited to 100% might end up costing three times as much or more and may not even be worth it. There are a lot of other things that can limit resolution than just the lens, especially when pixel counts of the sensor are high.Once you get diffraction limited...That's what happened to cameras because of phone cameras. Once something reaches a certain percentage of quality against a benchmark, the use of the benchmark declines.Mumble. [must remember to stifle oneself.]JPEGs are getting so good now (See Fuji 50mp medium format cameras) that even RAW may see a decline in usage.I conversely prefer to never do anything in post that can be done at least as well in-camera. Such as proper exposure and then push +5 or some crazy stuff like that
Just joking, you know.
But, I have run some careful testing on some gear I have, a Sonnar 180/4 CFi with a Phase one P45+ back, and i have realized that I am giving up a lot of sharpness using it at f/11 instead of f/5.6.
In many cases we need to stop down, either to get enough DoF or to guard against focusing errors.
I mostly used f/11 on my Phase One P45 gear, as I felt is was like optimum. But doing pretty accurate measurements, I have found that stopping down my best lens from f/5.6 to f/11 throws away about 55% of the image quality. That was much more than what I have expected.
Best regards
Erik
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum