What is recorded in the Raw file.Pre-gain?
I'd also like to see the DPR studio comparison tool have an option for LibRaw conversions that don't play different demosaic/NR/sharpening games with different cameras, like ACR does.What is recorded in the Raw file.Pre-gain?
Iliah, I told you many years ago, but you probably forgot, that you should license RawDigger to the camera companies. Imagine a RawDigger setting for the Playback function... You'd be sipping Ouzo on a Greek island and watching the sunset with your harem...
Anybody remember Luijk's shot at that with 'UniWB'?
Agreed. LibRaw is cool, gets us much closer to what the sensor saw for the purposes of comparison ...I'd also like to see the DPR studio comparison tool have an option for LibRaw conversions that don't play different demosaic/NR/sharpening games with different cameras, like ACR does.What is recorded in the Raw file.Pre-gain?
Iliah, I told you many years ago, but you probably forgot, that you should license RawDigger to the camera companies. Imagine a RawDigger setting for the Playback function... You'd be sipping Ouzo on a Greek island and watching the sunset with your harem...
I don't think that's enough, because "ISO"What is recorded in the Raw file.Pre-gain?
There are people who actually believe that their cameras don't have chromatic noise, because of the conversions that they've seen.Agreed. LibRaw is cool, gets us much closer to what the sensor saw for the purposes of comparison ...I'd also like to see the DPR studio comparison tool have an option for LibRaw conversions that don't play different demosaic/NR/sharpening games with different cameras, like ACR does.What is recorded in the Raw file.Pre-gain?
Iliah, I told you many years ago, but you probably forgot, that you should license RawDigger to the camera companies. Imagine a RawDigger setting for the Playback function... You'd be sipping Ouzo on a Greek island and watching the sunset with your harem...
I have only shot UniWB Raw ever since I bought my Lumix G1, many years ago. The whole concept of "White Balance" never appealed to me, I don't want to worry about that when I am shooting, and I missed my darkroom... UniWB solves the primaries multiplier distortion, but JPEGs also have all that Gamma de-linearization... But I highly recommend it. Also, the green cast of the viewfinder encourages you to pay attention to composition, not color, which should come later. Here's someone who saw in UniWB green:
It couldn't be a 'scientific study' because the triangle is not a scientific thing. It's a graphic device, a diagram. For myself, I learned my photography before the triangle existed. None of the texts I used mentioned the triangle. I learned what exposure, shutter speed, aperture and film speed was . I learned how to set exposure in different situations with different films and processing and seeking different objectives.
I disagree with the presentation of the triangle. I prefer to see the sides labeled rather than the vertices:I had already the opportunity to say that I really like this illustration, not only it is funny but it really shows what the triangle is about.We all choose where we spend our time inside this triangle:
Sometimes, I would like to undertand this obsession against the exposure triange. But it would be more likely a sociologist study than a scientific study.
There is absolutely no place for nuance in many threads I read, the triangle is necessarily wrong, and nothing else can be written.
It would be much better if the debate could end by simply stating that we disagree, I can perfectly understand that some people may not like it. But no, it is not enough, you have to say it is wrong otherwise it continues with the same arguments again and again.... To be honest, the figure that comes to my mind in these cases is not really a triangle but a circle.
I hope we can end the debate next time by just saying that we disagree.
As people will tell you, the problem with the triangle is that it omits the fourth parameter. The fourth parameter is 'sharing photographs'. However, since the length of that side is usually close to zero it ends up looking like a triangle, even though it's a quadrilateral.I disagree with the presentation of the triangle. I prefer to see the sides labeled rather than the vertices:I had already the opportunity to say that I really like this illustration, not only it is funny but it really shows what the triangle is about.We all choose where we spend our time inside this triangle:
Sometimes, I would like to undertand this obsession against the exposure triange. But it would be more likely a sociologist study than a scientific study.
There is absolutely no place for nuance in many threads I read, the triangle is necessarily wrong, and nothing else can be written.
It would be much better if the debate could end by simply stating that we disagree, I can perfectly understand that some people may not like it. But no, it is not enough, you have to say it is wrong otherwise it continues with the same arguments again and again.... To be honest, the figure that comes to my mind in these cases is not really a triangle but a circle.
I hope we can end the debate next time by just saying that we disagree.
Furthermore, the triangle need not be equilateral, so my labeling method can provide better clarity. For example, with some of us it will look like this:
That is certainly a practical approach, but I would still like a manual override.
You are so literal, professor. The exposure triangle isn't a diagram or a teaching aid, and certainly wasn't dreamed up by an academician or an author, any more than evolution is a theory devised by Darwin. Both are simple facts of life that can be observed, and used, in a matter-of-fact way in everyday life.
The idea behind the original triangle is that you are at a point inside the triangle where your relative distance from each of the three vertices corresponds to your mix of these three activities.I disagree with the presentation of the triangle. I prefer to see the sides labeled rather than the vertices:I had already the opportunity to say that I really like this illustration, not only it is funny but it really shows what the triangle is about.We all choose where we spend our time inside this triangle:
Furthermore, the triangle need not be equilateral, so my labeling method can provide better clarity. For example, with some of us it will look like this:
It appears that the conclusions you have documented here about the exposure triangle from personal observations of the photographic world are as meaningful and accurate as the conclusions you have documented by personally observing the natural world before the writings of Darwin who died in 1882. You present a fair analogy.
Which is what? That it is possible to set the ISO value via a dial? I can certainly do that. It will go from Auto to 100 to 200 et cetera.
I think you have misunderstood my observation. I am not discussing the internal implementation(s) that may be in play when one turns the dial. I do not know what they are.
What false assumption? That many technical terms were mentioned without clearing anything up?
I may follow more than you realize. I am saying that many discussions of ISO on DPR do little to shed light on ISO or anything else.
You are quite correct about the triangle.
That your dial observation has any relevance to this subthread discussing internal implementations.
If you are not discussing internal implementations, why are you posting in a subthread that is?
So is this a failure on your part to follow the discussion of internal implementations or a successful troll?
If they are not trolling, people who are confident that they are following the conversation yet , like you, fail to follow what the topic being discussed really is can seldom see much light in these discussions.
ISO controls the relationship between exposure at the sensor and the lightness of the final image. The smaller the exposure the higher the ISO that will produce an image of normal tonal range.
Please do feel free to give some examples of the observation of the exposure triangle in everyday life.
