-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What puzzles me about OVF versus EVF
- Thread starter OpticsEngineer
- Start date
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
You look from the result - best photos.
To me photography is not result related in the first line.
Photography is to me the art of seeing or the art of learning to see. Its more philosphy than technique. For this approach, you want to be as close as possible to nature.
And even if you may not get technically best results, I am sure your results (in terms of photos) will be different as your mind setup is different.
Hello
What happens with an EVF when :
- you use the setting for the JPG 'save the shadows'
My Pentax cameras do have this setting for the JPG's and it do a pushing the shadow PP (or maybe better to say : it burn only the dark parts) before it save the JPG (like I do with my RAW picture here). To my mind this setting do not change your exposure, it's a pure PP, meanwhile the save the highlight setting do influence the matrix metering and try to save the too bright areas the matrix metering had detected with maybe up to a -1EV exposure compensation setting for the shot.
So, when this save the shadows is active, do the EVF also show this pushing the shadows, or are the shadows badly visible in the EVF and only brighter in the JPG picture the camera made?
best regards. KPM2
What happens with an EVF when :
- you use the setting for the JPG 'save the shadows'
My Pentax cameras do have this setting for the JPG's and it do a pushing the shadow PP (or maybe better to say : it burn only the dark parts) before it save the JPG (like I do with my RAW picture here). To my mind this setting do not change your exposure, it's a pure PP, meanwhile the save the highlight setting do influence the matrix metering and try to save the too bright areas the matrix metering had detected with maybe up to a -1EV exposure compensation setting for the shot.
So, when this save the shadows is active, do the EVF also show this pushing the shadows, or are the shadows badly visible in the EVF and only brighter in the JPG picture the camera made?
best regards. KPM2
Last edited:
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
It has nothing to do with on location processing and all about maximizing what the camera is capable of producing All of my processing is done on the PC. the major reason is that the cameras processing cannot compensate for any clipping produced with it.
-WB clipping mainly in the red channels when there is really no clipping within the raw file but any work done with the cameras processing will clip this data
-The headroom built into the camera with no way of removing it with the cameras processing
-Color space clipping mainly in the red and blues
- setting the optimum iso for an exposure as many cameras now can produce less noise by increasing the iso for the same exposure. To do this you really need to know your white point and how it sits within the raw container your camera produces.
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
To maximize to exposure ( the reason for this is so that you can go deeper into the shadows with less noise ) because this is the only way as to dive into the shadow details as this is how all camera produce large DR. with out this large exposure you are cutting off the bottom end of your DR. Now if you are raising your iso to are in effect cutting off the top end of what you camera can record with regard to DR.
My question to you is how do you, how can you determine where this larger exposure falls and how far is it from clipping? how does a OVF aid in this ?
You are then falling onto the camera metering system, the big problem with this is that it is setup for your camera to produce an image with the same lightness as what your jpg camera processing will produce. If you are shooting raw then for many cameras you are underexposing and therefor limited the bottom end of DR and introducing more noise into the shadows and mid tones and with the red channel you can be even further underexposing the image another stop in those areas.
To really know that you are using the sensor to produce an optimum exposure for the raw file you really need to know how that information is being stored, for this you really need to know where your white point sits within the raw file.
How does an OVF tell you this?
How does looking thru the OVF at the shadows tell you where you DR sits within the raw file? remember your DR bottom is only determined by how larger the exposure is for that given camera .
Now you can go about setting up the camera metering system but that would entail the user to know where the clipping point in the raw file sites, for many camera's this is 1- 1.5 stops and if you are using the cameras metering system for red this can even be as high as 2- 2.5 stop!
To really know this you must look at the very medium that is doing the recording and this is the sensor and not how we imagine how the scene looks thru our eyes, How light and dark the image appears is the processing done to the image after the data is collected
If you are using the cameras default metering then it is based on the preprogramed default lightness of the jpg.
With adjustment like Uniwb and custom profile that produce the LV image can give the user a much more accurate portrayal of what data is represented in the raw file than anything you think you an imagine in the OVF
I could even use my old K5 for that. Ok normally I meter in the shadows for such a scene, but do not a picture. I simple look at the ISO and look at the ISO when I look to the bright grass. On that way I can compare the different and know, a PP which do burn the shadows is easily possible. Now the wording shadow is maybe not good, better I say the darker areas, which need an other exposure like the bright grass area, so that they looks like my eyes do see them (this is a backyard scene, so please believe me that I know how bright the stones and grass have to look's like ). This is by the way only a compare-picture I made for the weekly thread, my main picture was the scene in snow...yes it's April and we got all white with snow at this day and only 2 hour's later the sun was back and all was without snow again.
best regards KPM2What we are left with is setting your chosen white point within the scene so that the user can record as much of the scenes DR and storing it within the storage capacity of the raw file .
How does looking thru a OVF help you with this because the OVF would have to give you the insight as to how the scenes DR falls within the DR capacity of the raw file , you are then left with using the cameras metering system.
For most manufactures the cameras metering system tell you nothing with how the scenes DR fall within the capacity of the raw file, it is setup such to give you the correct lightness as you would see with a cameras jpg file and not the raw, most cameras need an EC of 1.0- 1.5 stops to allow the user a more realistic exposure for a raw file.
This does not even include as to the scene is being captured based on the 3 color channels being recorded as they are highly dependent on the illuminate ( light source) and the design of the sensor. None of this can be viewed within an OVF
Here is a color target that with an EC of 1.3 and the 4 raw histograms to the right showing how much variation in how the channels are being recorded.
If I am wanting to make full use of my camera I really need the insight as to how the image is being captured by the medium and the OVF does nothing close to this,
What I would much prefer is to have a more realistic view as to how the image is being record as a medium ( raw file) . This is an image that was captured with the optimum exposure for the iso, The image is very green as that channel is receiving 2 -3 times the amount of light as the red channel so for me it was important that the green in the reeds was not clip so that I was able to record as much in the red channels to help reduce noise in those reds. Even thou my subject was black my exposure was set by not allowing the green channel in the reed to clip, how light or dark the redwing was in the OVF did not help as it was the DR and how it was stored within the raw file that did. This was done by storing as much of the light from the bird set by my clipping point in the image.
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release
Hello Ian Stuart Forsyth
Your answers are very interesting, but I think we talk about different scene situations.
Your examples show a colour card, ok, but the colour card is even illuminated ! Your way now is good for to get the right look for all the colours of the card. The other example is a black bird in the surrounding of the green grass. But Illumination wise, this is a simple situation, because all objects get the same illumination. Ok, it is still a trouble to get the right exposure, so that no colour channel clip. You control it via the RGB histogram. Now, just for fun; how do your EVF show this histogram....can you make a picture of your EVF view ?
Now to my example: I have not a even illuminated scene. Some areas are direct illuminated by the sun, others got very indirect light through the trees. Ok, your histogram would show that I do not clip a colour channel, but a histogram do not show the places of the area. My scene is simple: for the direct sun illuminated areas I need this exposure and for the indirect illuminated areas (like a cloudy day illumination) I would need an other, for to match the look of the picture like my eyes see the scene. So, using a histogram is good for your examples, but helps not much in my scene example. I ca. know how much I can push (or better to say burn) areas later in PP, which got an underexposed do to my settings, because my settings was made for the brighter and direct illuminated areas in this example. All what I need for this is a metering for the indirect illuminated areas and compare the different of the metering results with the metering of the direct illuminated areas. When the exposure steps are ca. 1-2 steps, I know that I can push this area, without getting too much noise into it.
So, what do the OVF helps here? On thing is clear, even with an EVF I would do this two metering for this scene and the histogram in the EVF could not help me here. The OFV do simple show me the scene like my eyes see and that is important for my memory how to PP the picture later. It is also a joy and a big help to see during I compose and capturing the picture the scene via my eyes....and not via an EVF, where the indirect illuminated areas in my example scene are simply very dark...that is not a great composing help to look at such a scene. We have here in this area the Breitachklamm....this is for example a really nightmare for EVF camera users, because the exposure different of the direct by the sun illuminated areas and the indirect canyon illuminated areas are so great, that the EVF do show only one area good, when the scene show both areas...one is pure black or total white than....ok, what my eyes can see and therefore also the look of my OVF is very different ....they can combine both areas into a nice visibility. And I can compose the picture much easier as when I had to compose with total white or total black boarder scene in it.
best regards KPM2
Your answers are very interesting, but I think we talk about different scene situations.
Your examples show a colour card, ok, but the colour card is even illuminated ! Your way now is good for to get the right look for all the colours of the card. The other example is a black bird in the surrounding of the green grass. But Illumination wise, this is a simple situation, because all objects get the same illumination. Ok, it is still a trouble to get the right exposure, so that no colour channel clip. You control it via the RGB histogram. Now, just for fun; how do your EVF show this histogram....can you make a picture of your EVF view ?
Now to my example: I have not a even illuminated scene. Some areas are direct illuminated by the sun, others got very indirect light through the trees. Ok, your histogram would show that I do not clip a colour channel, but a histogram do not show the places of the area. My scene is simple: for the direct sun illuminated areas I need this exposure and for the indirect illuminated areas (like a cloudy day illumination) I would need an other, for to match the look of the picture like my eyes see the scene. So, using a histogram is good for your examples, but helps not much in my scene example. I ca. know how much I can push (or better to say burn) areas later in PP, which got an underexposed do to my settings, because my settings was made for the brighter and direct illuminated areas in this example. All what I need for this is a metering for the indirect illuminated areas and compare the different of the metering results with the metering of the direct illuminated areas. When the exposure steps are ca. 1-2 steps, I know that I can push this area, without getting too much noise into it.
So, what do the OVF helps here? On thing is clear, even with an EVF I would do this two metering for this scene and the histogram in the EVF could not help me here. The OFV do simple show me the scene like my eyes see and that is important for my memory how to PP the picture later. It is also a joy and a big help to see during I compose and capturing the picture the scene via my eyes....and not via an EVF, where the indirect illuminated areas in my example scene are simply very dark...that is not a great composing help to look at such a scene. We have here in this area the Breitachklamm....this is for example a really nightmare for EVF camera users, because the exposure different of the direct by the sun illuminated areas and the indirect canyon illuminated areas are so great, that the EVF do show only one area good, when the scene show both areas...one is pure black or total white than....ok, what my eyes can see and therefore also the look of my OVF is very different ....they can combine both areas into a nice visibility. And I can compose the picture much easier as when I had to compose with total white or total black boarder scene in it.
best regards KPM2
To maximize to exposure ( the reason for this is so that you can go deeper into the shadows with less noise ) because this is the only way as to dive into the shadow details as this is how all camera produce large DR. with out this large exposure you are cutting off the bottom end of your DR. Now if you are raising your iso to are in effect cutting off the top end of what you camera can record with regard to DR.
My question to you is how do you, how can you determine where this larger exposure falls and how far is it from clipping? how does a OVF aid in this ?
You are then falling onto the camera metering system, the big problem with this is that it is setup for your camera to produce an image with the same lightness as what your jpg camera processing will produce. If you are shooting raw then for many cameras you are underexposing and therefor limited the bottom end of DR and introducing more noise into the shadows and mid tones and with the red channel you can be even further underexposing the image another stop in those areas.
To really know that you are using the sensor to produce an optimum exposure for the raw file you really need to know how that information is being stored, for this you really need to know where your white point sits within the raw file.
How does an OVF tell you this?
How does looking thru the OVF at the shadows tell you where you DR sits within the raw file? remember your DR bottom is only determined by how larger the exposure is for that given camera .
Now you can go about setting up the camera metering system but that would entail the user to know where the clipping point in the raw file sites, for many camera's this is 1- 1.5 stops and if you are using the cameras metering system for red this can even be as high as 2- 2.5 stop!
To really know this you must look at the very medium that is doing the recording and this is the sensor and not how we imagine how the scene looks thru our eyes, How light and dark the image appears is the processing done to the image after the data is collected
If you are using the cameras default metering then it is based on the preprogramed default lightness of the jpg.
With adjustment like Uniwb and custom profile that produce the LV image can give the user a much more accurate portrayal of what data is represented in the raw file than anything you think you an imagine in the OVF
I could even use my old K5 for that. Ok normally I meter in the shadows for such a scene, but do not a picture. I simple look at the ISO and look at the ISO when I look to the bright grass. On that way I can compare the different and know, a PP which do burn the shadows is easily possible. Now the wording shadow is maybe not good, better I say the darker areas, which need an other exposure like the bright grass area, so that they looks like my eyes do see them (this is a backyard scene, so please believe me that I know how bright the stones and grass have to look's like ). This is by the way only a compare-picture I made for the weekly thread, my main picture was the scene in snow...yes it's April and we got all white with snow at this day and only 2 hour's later the sun was back and all was without snow again.
best regards KPM2What we are left with is setting your chosen white point within the scene so that the user can record as much of the scenes DR and storing it within the storage capacity of the raw file .
How does looking thru a OVF help you with this because the OVF would have to give you the insight as to how the scenes DR falls within the DR capacity of the raw file , you are then left with using the cameras metering system.
For most manufactures the cameras metering system tell you nothing with how the scenes DR fall within the capacity of the raw file, it is setup such to give you the correct lightness as you would see with a cameras jpg file and not the raw, most cameras need an EC of 1.0- 1.5 stops to allow the user a more realistic exposure for a raw file.
This does not even include as to the scene is being captured based on the 3 color channels being recorded as they are highly dependent on the illuminate ( light source) and the design of the sensor. None of this can be viewed within an OVF
Here is a color target that with an EC of 1.3 and the 4 raw histograms to the right showing how much variation in how the channels are being recorded.
If I am wanting to make full use of my camera I really need the insight as to how the image is being captured by the medium and the OVF does nothing close to this,
What I would much prefer is to have a more realistic view as to how the image is being record as a medium ( raw file) . This is an image that was captured with the optimum exposure for the iso, The image is very green as that channel is receiving 2 -3 times the amount of light as the red channel so for me it was important that the green in the reeds was not clip so that I was able to record as much in the red channels to help reduce noise in those reds. Even thou my subject was black my exposure was set by not allowing the green channel in the reed to clip, how light or dark the redwing was in the OVF did not help as it was the DR and how it was stored within the raw file that did. This was done by storing as much of the light from the bird set by my clipping point in the image.
Last edited:
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
Depends on your camera - if you have a camera with a very good sensor - good controlled by the camera - you can work with some safety spare to the right and still get optimal results. This is how I use my K1.
However, it is also not good to expose controlled by histogram, exclusively. Sometimes the parts that cause clipping are of no interest and you better let it blow out and get better results for the rest of the photo - just imagine you have the sun itself on the photo.
For me the control of the exposure triangle is mainly driven by experience, controlled by the values for the three edges of the triangle and the under/overexposure bars in my OVF - from time to time controlled by a look at the back monitor with detailled histograms for each solor channel on them. I don't need this information for each of my photos. This is simply information I do not miss.
So the idea is like that, right?
- true photographers enjoy OVFs for taking photos on a live concert
- but they enjoy viewing/showing their photos on electronic screens
--
Cheers,
Alex
Last edited:
RBIV
Senior Member
Bracket !
I guess, for the sake of the discussion, this is cheating. But it works with both kinds of viewfinders.... :-D
I guess, for the sake of the discussion, this is cheating. But it works with both kinds of viewfinders.... :-D
Holger Bargen
Veteran Member
No, I can't define a "true photographer".
People are different and the reasons why people are photographers are different.
The people I talk about and the grop of photographers I belong to, are photographers who see their photography a lifestyle, as a kind of philosophy and not as a way to achieve best results.
I don't think that I have to explain the major group of photographers who may have to sell photos and who have to get best results from every situation. They have their camera for best photos and they aim at photos as result of their work. This will be the largest group and most brands serve this group of photographers.
People for who the camera is part of their lifestyle aim at learning to see the world. Maybe the best way to describe it ist to talk about may way of doing photography.
I am photographer since I am a schoolboy - approx. at the age of 14.
I remember my first camera. A Pentax ME with a simple 50 mm f 1.7 lens on it. Since then I take photos even though I have no camera with me. While driving with the schoolbus, I had the viewfinder in my inner eye and was searching for compositions, details that would end up with harmonic structures, guessing best and fitting settings of exposure time and aperture ...
I learned to see the world through a viewfinder and I learned how this view helped me to find beauty all over the world.
The best camera for this kind of photography is the one that becomes part of your body, part of your being. And here Pentax cameras are absolutely top level. You can use them intuitvely and the distance between you and the subject is almost not present. OVF is part of that concept. I can't imagine to get a similar feeling while looking on a tiny video screen.
Taking photos is the biggest part of the joy doing photography this way - and the second part is post-processing where you sometimes detect structures, colour contrasts, details etc. that you did not realised in the field and that now become part of the composition. However, it is still not the joy at the perfect results but the way to learn to see, to detect, to invent, to grow regarding the skills etc. that is the major part.
Due to photography I am a different person and the photography helps me to grow as personality.
I hope you get a little insigth in my way of doing photography and maybe you realize that I need a completely different technical equipment than most of the photographers do.
If you don't realize that there are different way of doing photography, you will not understand why some people prefer technology that seems to be obsolete if you look at your own way of doing photography.
It is important to talk about these things as understanding each other is the key to accept everyone in his own unique way.
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
The image was posted to show you how you would need to see your image as the way your raw file the medium is recording the light.
here is how it would look using the cameras default processing
This is as how the raw data was recorded
The exposure was set as not to clip the lightest area in the photo that was also important as not to clip to me.
and the final image
If there is such a variance in how we see, how the camera process and what is recorded in the raw file what is the important tools needed to judge the exposure of the image?
How does judging the image by how your eyes see it equate to judging exposure?
The image has a heavy green tint as that is how the image is being captured before any white balance is being applied, this is important to understand as there is no way for the user to see this without viewing the data
To really see as to how the image is going to be captured and where white point is going to be captured the only real way is by how the image is being captured within the raw file. The image was posted as to how you would really need to see the image in your OVF if you want to see how the image is being recorded. Sure looking thru the a nice clean OVF is nice but from the standpoint of one of the key needs it to judge exposure what does it tell you?
How does seeing into the shadow as how your eyes see it thru the OVF help you when the data being recorded is very different to hat you see and this includes the shadow information which its determined by the DR of camera and the shot noise of the light.
To insure that you get the correct exposure with not color channels clipping you really need to see how the data is being recorded.
the histogram tells you what clipping is happening to the processed data and not what is happening to the raw unless you override whit balance and the headroom between raw and the cameras processing.
I don't use an EVF but I see how powerful a tool it can be setup correctly as a window into a much better understanding has to how the image will be record in the raw file
Every camera that I have own from the K20d I have setup to give me a playback of a more accurate representation of the raw file, Having this tool without real-time viewing would expand the situations that I can expose for raw I would not need the time to chimp
It really is not about uneven illuminated scene because regardless you are setting your white point, and for the best exposure for raw is very different from your cameras default metering settings.
Why is it important to see the scene like your eyes when judging exposure?
Your eyes do not see as to how your camera is recording. Seeing into the shadows do not tell as to your camera sees into those shadows,
how for you can process into those shadow can only controlled by how large the exposure is, the DR of your camera and the shot noise of the light ( the noise created by the very light you are photographing)
If the histogram was setup to give you a better raw representation this would be the best case scenario as an aid in setting your white point, You may not even have a white point found within the image you are photographing, using the histogram you could further increase your exposure and aid in how clean and far you can go into the shadows ( remember that it is the processing that determines how light or dark you images is )
Knowing how your white point and tonal range of a scene as his falls within your raw fill is always the best goal too
1. Increase the DR that you can record
2. Decease the amount of noise you are generating in your image
3. Lets you set best iso so you can generate the greatest DR of your camera and setting your cameras clipping point to far down in the tonal range of your scene.
Unless you see as to what data is being recorded there is no way to judge your exposure. Using your eyes and even the extent your cameras metering system don't tell how the data is being recorded. The optimum exposure is determined by the light source and this will determine what color channels clip first with relation to the 3 of them,. How much headroom the camera has, and how you want to place the tonal rang of the image into the raw file container. To know all of this you must first see as to how it is being recorded.
I have never used an OVF for this, however using my unobstructed view before placing the camera to my eyes i find is the best way, how light and dark areas are does not require a OVF . How I process the image really boils down to where I what white 255,255,255 and 0,0,0 within the raw range of the file.
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release
Last edited:
JeremieB
Senior Member
While I agree on the theory of course, in practice I would consider it if cameras were providing RAW histograms and 111 WB settings, but to my knowledge even MILCs do not ?The image was posted to show you how you would need to see your image as the way your raw file the medium is recording the light.
here is how it would look using the cameras default processing
This is as how the raw data was recorded
The exposure was set as not to clip the lightest area in the photo that was also important as not to clip to me.
and the final image
If there is such a variance in how we see, how the camera process and what is recorded in the raw file what is the important tools needed to judge the exposure of the image?
How does judging the image by how your eyes see it equate to judging exposure?
The image has a heavy green tint as that is how the image is being captured before any white balance is being applied, this is important to understand as there is no way for the user to see this without viewing the data
To really see as to how the image is going to be captured and where white point is going to be captured the only real way is by how the image is being captured within the raw file. The image was posted as to how you would really need to see the image in your OVF if you want to see how the image is being recorded. Sure looking thru the a nice clean OVF is nice but from the standpoint of one of the key needs it to judge exposure what does it tell you?
How does seeing into the shadow as how your eyes see it thru the OVF help you when the data being recorded is very different to hat you see and this includes the shadow information which its determined by the DR of camera and the shot noise of the light.
To insure that you get the correct exposure with not color channels clipping you really need to see how the data is being recorded.
the histogram tells you what clipping is happening to the processed data and not what is happening to the raw unless you override whit balance and the headroom between raw and the cameras processing.
I don't use an EVF but I see how powerful a tool it can be setup correctly as a window into a much better understanding has to how the image will be record in the raw file
Every camera that I have own from the K20d I have setup to give me a playback of a more accurate representation of the raw file, Having this tool without real-time viewing would expand the situations that I can expose for raw I would not need the time to chimp
It really is not about uneven illuminated scene because regardless you are setting your white point, and for the best exposure for raw is very different from your cameras default metering settings.
Why is it important to see the scene like your eyes when judging exposure?
Your eyes do not see as to how your camera is recording. Seeing into the shadows do not tell as to your camera sees into those shadows,
how for you can process into those shadow can only controlled by how large the exposure is, the DR of your camera and the shot noise of the light ( the noise created by the very light you are photographing)
If the histogram was setup to give you a better raw representation this would be the best case scenario as an aid in setting your white point, You may not even have a white point found within the image you are photographing, using the histogram you could further increase your exposure and aid in how clean and far you can go into the shadows ( remember that it is the processing that determines how light or dark you images is )
Knowing how your white point and tonal range of a scene as his falls within your raw fill is always the best goal too
1. Increase the DR that you can record
2. Decease the amount of noise you are generating in your image
3. Lets you set best iso so you can generate the greatest DR of your camera and setting your cameras clipping point to far down in the tonal range of your scene.
Unless you see as to what data is being recorded there is no way to judge your exposure. Using your eyes and even the extent your cameras metering system don't tell how the data is being recorded. The optimum exposure is determined by the light source and this will determine what color channels clip first with relation to the 3 of them,. How much headroom the camera has, and how you want to place the tonal rang of the image into the raw file container. To know all of this you must first see as to how it is being recorded.
I have never used an OVF for this, however using my unobstructed view before placing the camera to my eyes i find is the best way, how light and dark areas are does not require a OVF . How I process the image really boils down to where I what white 255,255,255 and 0,0,0 within the raw range of the file.
I decided a long time ago that metering is the job of the camera, and even if it's not perfect, well my photos anyway are not worth the time spent to tune histograms for ETTR. And for fast action anyway, as for AF, at some point you have no other choice than to rely on the automatic metering from the camera.
IMHO as an alternative to uniwb, if a camera provided both weighted highlights metering and a "maximize maximum brightness" program line, we would be close to an automatic ETTR.
Note: with K3III in weighted highlights metering mode, I never had a clipped RGB channel, even with flowers having intense reds yellows or blues. I'm pretty sure they protect each RGB channel separately, and not just pure white clipping. What's missing is to push exposure to the right when there's headroom (which is not done in any camera mode I know, so it's unrelated to uniwb). And in most of my photos (I didn't compute stats though), the channel that would clip is the green, so there's that solution too - expose green to the right, except when there are intense blues or reds in the photo. Most of the time, what I see with default processing are reds that are too saturated and "clip" in luminosity or saturation, but only with defaults. Changing exposure/saturation levels is enough to move the colors back in place, because they did not clip in the RAW content.
Hello again Ian Stuart Forsyth
but first, thank you for your interesting answers
about thisThe image was posted to show you how you would need to see your image as the way your raw file the medium is recording the light.
here is how it would look using the cameras default processing
This is as how the raw data was recorded
The exposure was set as not to clip the lightest area in the photo that was also important as not to clip to me.
and the final image
If there is such a variance in how we see, how the camera process and what is recorded in the raw file what is the important tools needed to judge the exposure of the image?
How does judging the image by how your eyes see it equate to judging exposure?
The image has a heavy green tint as that is how the image is being captured before any white balance is being applied, this is important to understand as there is no way for the user to see this without viewing the data
To really see as to how the image is going to be captured and where white point is going to be captured the only real way is by how the image is being captured within the raw file. The image was posted as to how you would really need to see the image in your OVF if you want to see how the image is being recorded. Sure looking thru the a nice clean OVF is nice but from the standpoint of one of the key needs it to judge exposure what does it tell you?
How does seeing into the shadow as how your eyes see it thru the OVF help you when the data being recorded is very different to hat you see and this includes the shadow information which its determined by the DR of camera and the shot noise of the light.
but first, thank you for your interesting answers
I know this, and your way is very good.
and about that:
Yes, also true. But in my posted scene I had an other situation. The look of a colour depends on your exposure. For example my green grass in the foreground can looks very saturated middle green, like in my PP picture and the last, or very pail and light green. Now the grass is new and it has the nice saturated middle green colour, but when I use a histogram and expose for no clipping, than this grass get, because it is in the direct sun a too pail and light green look. Therefore I must forget the histogram and have to meter on this grass for to get it's real and nice saturated look. On that way my left side of the histogram get filled very much and the areas in the shadow (the areas with the indirect illumination) get not the right exposure, they are underexposed. This underexposure I correct in PP. But, again, I can use the histogram and do ETR and than my indirect areas may be not so dark....but the green grass get to the right side of the histogram and get pail and light green. That's why I chose here an other way as you, but your way I do also.
best regards KPM2
Alex Sarbu
Forum Pro
I believe you just built a very strong case against the idea that EVFs are "WYSIWYG"
And indeed, short of displaying RAW histograms they can't meet these demands. The EVF image itself doesn't looks like it could properly display a JPEG.
OVFs? You'd rely on the metering system (perhaps taking control in more challenging situations) and on your experience. Since the K-5, I'd say it's mostly about not blowing up the (useful) highlights; precisely setting the exposure got way less critical than before.
Alex
Hello JeremieB
Only in my example here, this outdoor scene did needed to my mind an other way of metering.
You can use also different metering modes, the matrix metering or centre weight or spot, and for the last two you must know where you look with this meter areas of the camera for to get a good result.
I personally had to start to look at the metering very much when I did such pictures, where the scene was very difficult in it's illumination.
matrix metering....no chance,
centre weight metering...maybe but not when I have in the centre area a darker illuminated dancer and the dancer in the spotlight is at the outer side of the centre. Here the bright illuminated dancer is in the centre and it could work.
For the picture I used spot metering. Sounds complicate but was in true the easiest metering mode. I metered once with the spot on the perfect for that area, saved it via AE-L and could do a lot pictures, where the bright illuminated dancers was always at an different position in the picture but they got all the correct exposure, so that a later PP for the rest was not so complicate to do.
All in all, yes, the metering of the cameras are good, but I think I must use the right metering mode depending on the scene illumination for to get the best out of the good metering my cameras can do for me.
best regards KPM2
about this:JeremieB said:
I don't know how I can say it in a short way... in basically the camera meters good, depending on the scene. Mostly I do not think much about the metering like for normal outdoor pictures. There is one light source, the sun, and that's it. Even when you have the sun in your landscape picture and your would use the matrix metering with 'save the highlights', the camera expose for the scene and do not try to avoid to 'overexpose' the sun...where the resat of the scene is than pure blackMember said:
Only in my example here, this outdoor scene did needed to my mind an other way of metering.You can use also different metering modes, the matrix metering or centre weight or spot, and for the last two you must know where you look with this meter areas of the camera for to get a good result.
I personally had to start to look at the metering very much when I did such pictures, where the scene was very difficult in it's illumination.
matrix metering....no chance,
centre weight metering...maybe but not when I have in the centre area a darker illuminated dancer and the dancer in the spotlight is at the outer side of the centre. Here the bright illuminated dancer is in the centre and it could work.
For the picture I used spot metering. Sounds complicate but was in true the easiest metering mode. I metered once with the spot on the perfect for that area, saved it via AE-L and could do a lot pictures, where the bright illuminated dancers was always at an different position in the picture but they got all the correct exposure, so that a later PP for the rest was not so complicate to do.
All in all, yes, the metering of the cameras are good, but I think I must use the right metering mode depending on the scene illumination for to get the best out of the good metering my cameras can do for me.
and about thatMember said:
That's very interesting what you write about the K3 III and it's weighted highlights metering mode, thank you for write about it ! Maybe metering on such a scene I posted here is now much easier to meter with this weighted highlights metering mode of your K3 III !Member said:
best regards KPM2
Last edited:
JeremieB
Senior Member
With K3III weighted highlights metering, you mostly don't have to take care of this (not blowing highlights) if you don't want to. And it's smart enough (unless it's only linked to the resolution of the metering sensor, but I don't care :-D ) to let specular highlights burn just a little.I believe you just built a very strong case against the idea that EVFs are "WYSIWYG"
And indeed, short of displaying RAW histograms they can't meet these demands. The EVF image itself doesn't looks like it could properly display a JPEG.
OVFs? You'd rely on the metering system (perhaps taking control in more challenging situations) and on your experience. Since the K-5, I'd say it's mostly about not blowing up the (useful) highlights;
For example here:
Histogram shows that there might be some clipping though it's not noticeable in the image (with DT raw clipping alert).
Zooming in 100%, we see a small part of the highlights were clipped, which is quite ok in this case if you ask me. If not, -0.3EV is enough to get rid of it completely normally (photo was shot at 0EV compensation):
(burnt parts are the small green patches, and as they're green it means it's only the green channel that clipped which is normal)
Only cases where I can get burnt highlights in this mode, is for example while shooting a burst FPS sequence of a white BIF on a bright day, some photos might have blown highlights probably because metering didn't adjust fast enough to rapid and extreme changes in brightness. That's 1 over 10 or 20 (not sure) maybe, and it does not always happen at all.
What I just tested (and that's a bit sad), is that if you set for example +5EV exposure in P mode, and select "correct IL" option in menu, with weighted highlights metering, it doesn't protect your exposure by not giving respect to your +5EV. I was trying to find an "automatic ETTR" mode, but no that can't be used for that :-D (BTW this "correct IL" option, I have no idea about what it does precisely in the end and in which cases it does something). Also the ISO sensitivity advanced settings still are mostly a mystery for me ...
I think
that the type of camera you use does not define what sort of photographer you are.I see many walkabout casual enthusiasts with fuji, Olympus and even my sister who has won local camera club awards and loves photography like I do, uses an older Panasonic.
The term real photographer is a lose term used a few to try and explain what you have just explained eloquently about your passion.
I think your explanation is precise but your term is incorrect in that you narrow it down to even fewer that deserve it.
My sister is a real photographer like you but uses an older milc .... what does that make her then ?
I also believe that while milc will be selling in excess of dslr which took over from SLR, there are far more casual enthusiast photographers than professional ones and many professional still shoot older DSLR'S. it's irrelevant and anyone with any accounting knowledge will know it's far better for me to make money with my $100 AUD Pentax kx than a $5000 + other milc.
Therefore the real photographers shoot with whatever they choose and are not defined by type. Real photographers enjoy what they do unrestricted by mirror or not.
I like Pentax philosophy and I think you hit the nail on the head about ease of use. It's to do with ergonomics and features that make our style enjoyable.
Therefore we are photographers who enjoy Pentax ethos and system. We are photography enthusiasts who enjoy DSLR'S, the menu system, grip style, look, old school feel but with modern instruments. It's part of our DNA almost to wonder about finding relaxation and solace with a K3mkiii or a k100d strapped to our neck .......
Peace
Last edited:
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Any camera can be setup to shoot with a UniWB, figuring it out sometimes can be hard.While I agree on the theory of course, in practice I would consider it if cameras were providing RAW histograms and 111 WB settings, but to my knowledge even MILCs do not ?The image was posted to show you how you would need to see your image as the way your raw file the medium is recording the light.
here is how it would look using the cameras default processing
This is as how the raw data was recorded
The exposure was set as not to clip the lightest area in the photo that was also important as not to clip to me.
and the final image
If there is such a variance in how we see, how the camera process and what is recorded in the raw file what is the important tools needed to judge the exposure of the image?
How does judging the image by how your eyes see it equate to judging exposure?
The image has a heavy green tint as that is how the image is being captured before any white balance is being applied, this is important to understand as there is no way for the user to see this without viewing the data
To really see as to how the image is going to be captured and where white point is going to be captured the only real way is by how the image is being captured within the raw file. The image was posted as to how you would really need to see the image in your OVF if you want to see how the image is being recorded. Sure looking thru the a nice clean OVF is nice but from the standpoint of one of the key needs it to judge exposure what does it tell you?
How does seeing into the shadow as how your eyes see it thru the OVF help you when the data being recorded is very different to hat you see and this includes the shadow information which its determined by the DR of camera and the shot noise of the light.
To insure that you get the correct exposure with not color channels clipping you really need to see how the data is being recorded.
the histogram tells you what clipping is happening to the processed data and not what is happening to the raw unless you override whit balance and the headroom between raw and the cameras processing.
I don't use an EVF but I see how powerful a tool it can be setup correctly as a window into a much better understanding has to how the image will be record in the raw file
Every camera that I have own from the K20d I have setup to give me a playback of a more accurate representation of the raw file, Having this tool without real-time viewing would expand the situations that I can expose for raw I would not need the time to chimp
It really is not about uneven illuminated scene because regardless you are setting your white point, and for the best exposure for raw is very different from your cameras default metering settings.
Why is it important to see the scene like your eyes when judging exposure?
Your eyes do not see as to how your camera is recording. Seeing into the shadows do not tell as to your camera sees into those shadows,
how for you can process into those shadow can only controlled by how large the exposure is, the DR of your camera and the shot noise of the light ( the noise created by the very light you are photographing)
If the histogram was setup to give you a better raw representation this would be the best case scenario as an aid in setting your white point, You may not even have a white point found within the image you are photographing, using the histogram you could further increase your exposure and aid in how clean and far you can go into the shadows ( remember that it is the processing that determines how light or dark you images is )
Knowing how your white point and tonal range of a scene as his falls within your raw fill is always the best goal too
1. Increase the DR that you can record
2. Decease the amount of noise you are generating in your image
3. Lets you set best iso so you can generate the greatest DR of your camera and setting your cameras clipping point to far down in the tonal range of your scene.
Unless you see as to what data is being recorded there is no way to judge your exposure. Using your eyes and even the extent your cameras metering system don't tell how the data is being recorded. The optimum exposure is determined by the light source and this will determine what color channels clip first with relation to the 3 of them,. How much headroom the camera has, and how you want to place the tonal rang of the image into the raw file container. To know all of this you must first see as to how it is being recorded.
I have never used an OVF for this, however using my unobstructed view before placing the camera to my eyes i find is the best way, how light and dark areas are does not require a OVF . How I process the image really boils down to where I what white 255,255,255 and 0,0,0 within the raw range of the file.
With pentax it can be much easier because in the DNG file the WB settings are stored and just setting your cameras AB till it reads 1,1,1 and store it for recall later
Reds in most shooting conditions do not clip before we se it in other areas. If there is no clipping in a white target reds in most shooting conditions meaning natural light are 1 to 2 stops from clipping.
As it should happen this way, in most shooting conditions the greens are the very first to clip followed by the Blue and last the reds ( not the reds you would think of most start in the yellows first before the reds)
Here is an image where the camera was metered to clip the white by 2 stops but the red is still 1 stop from clipping in the raw file ( the box is the selected target shown in the raw histogram)
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release
Last edited:
Ian Stuart Forsyth
Senior Member
Color and how light or dark it is is a function of processing the raw dataHello again Ian Stuart Forsyth
about thisThe image was posted to show you how you would need to see your image as the way your raw file the medium is recording the light.
here is how it would look using the cameras default processing
This is as how the raw data was recorded
The exposure was set as not to clip the lightest area in the photo that was also important as not to clip to me.
and the final image
If there is such a variance in how we see, how the camera process and what is recorded in the raw file what is the important tools needed to judge the exposure of the image?
How does judging the image by how your eyes see it equate to judging exposure?
The image has a heavy green tint as that is how the image is being captured before any white balance is being applied, this is important to understand as there is no way for the user to see this without viewing the data
To really see as to how the image is going to be captured and where white point is going to be captured the only real way is by how the image is being captured within the raw file. The image was posted as to how you would really need to see the image in your OVF if you want to see how the image is being recorded. Sure looking thru the a nice clean OVF is nice but from the standpoint of one of the key needs it to judge exposure what does it tell you?
How does seeing into the shadow as how your eyes see it thru the OVF help you when the data being recorded is very different to hat you see and this includes the shadow information which its determined by the DR of camera and the shot noise of the light.
but first, thank you for your interesting answers
I know this, and your way is very good.
and about that:
Yes, also true. But in my posted scene I had an other situation. The look of a colour depends on your exposure. For example my green grass in the foreground can looks very saturated middle green, like in my PP picture and the last, or very pail and light green.
Your missing the point how the jpg in camera is produced and how you see the image is not how your camera really captures the raw data for processing of the image.
lets use an image that everyone is familiar with
This is how your camera metering system see the image, It looks this way because it is calibrated to produce an image in jpg format and the in camera processing and is not showing you how the image is being captured within the raw file
This is the reality as to how the images data was store within the raw file. The raw data is dark and green because
1 there is a highlight headroom that has been applied to the cameras metering system and how that data converted and how it is stored with in the raw container.
2 There is a very strong shift to the green as that is how the camera see the image it that light.
If you are trying to get the optimum exposure (to get the best DR and lower noise from your camera) what exactly are you going to use, as we can see in the above how you see the image in the OVF, how the camera meters, how the jpg is produced in camera and how the data raw data is stored vastly different.
Understand what the histogram is showing you is very important, This histogram is showing you the distribution of the colors within the color space not the raw file of the camera unless you have a raw histogram
Here is a histogram showing this yellow and here the Redsare pushed to the right side
the very same yellow but in this histogram the reds are not even touching the right. How can the histogram be so very different for the same yellow
answer 2 different color spaces, my question is how can you use the histogram to set your cameras red, green or blue clipping point if there is this much difference?
Now if you are using the histogram to judge your clipping of green in your photo will it tell you how close your green grass is to the right. IF you are using this histogram below what is it telling you ?
Should you be worried about the greens in your image and a matter of fact should you be worried about your reds and blues also?
This is the image this histogram is produced from
Wait what where are these greens or blue its just gray and a slight pink.so when you see greens far to the right in the histogram are you sure that data is a representation of the greens in your grass?
Here is an image composed of mainly green and you will notice that there is no count of pixels that fall within of the top 20% of the histogram
So we can have one histogram that most people would think of as being green falling close to no where to clipping and on the other hand we have an image that shows no greens with data in the histogram very close to clipping. So when you see in the greens far to the right are they the greens you are thinking of?
--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum