hmmm... that's not really much different than what Fred Miranda showed in his review and other examples on the web for the D800. You've continued to discount it as bad technique that is not really useful (as you'd get better results with ETTR) - but now that you might have a similar option for your 5DIII, it's pretty impressive? There's a good LOL (since you seem to like to inlcude lol's in your responses). I do think it's good, but then I've never discounted added capabilities - I embrace them, whether I personally need/use them or not.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Magic Lantern Improves 5D Mark III Dynamic Range to 14 Stops
- Thread starter XeroJay
- Start date
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I was thinking the same thing.....
Yap thru extreme shadow lifting. But let me remind you in Fred Miranda's test - a) mainly for a balance in his report otherwise 5DIII would be flawless in his usage and he did use 5D3 most at end of day; b) himself suggested ETTR; c) for his demo purpose so he didn't process further that could make difference.
It's not just only said by me. It's not a good technique in extreme ETTL in general with obvious side effect. So even this 5D3 ML works comparable as D800/D600 it would have similar side effect that is not brand specific.
I never said completely useless, so please don't twist my words such as to rescue an accidental unexposed photo otherwise would throw away.
It's AWAYS good has option. It's impressive if this is true. But that doesn't mean I'd use it in my shooting as it has obvious side effects. It's still the key to expose correctly and using better technique such as filters if possible.
My view is very clear. It's useful that I never deny but it doesn't mean I should use this technique in normal shooting. No, I'd still expose normally on mid-tone or even a bit of ETTR in contrast scenes and using better technique such as filters or fill-flash if possible.
--
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correctPlease not exaggerate as without it someone simply cannot take decent photos.
Nobody is twisting anything - you've maintained more DR is only obvious in extreme shadow pulling which you feel is bad technique and results in inferior images vs your technique - hence the contradiction I see in your statements. So if, for you, the only obvious difference is in extreme shadow pulling, how exactly do you think that more DR is then better? What would you do with it that would give you better/useful images?
So, again, then how is more DR better to you?
But you also maintain that that won't really provide good images - so what real benefit is this to you? Would these not then be throw away images as they would not meet your high IQ standards?
As presented, it appears it won't fully be able to match the D800/D600 in that specific area as the pdf document indicates the the ML technique for higher DR is "at the cost of vertical image resolution and aliasing, especially in highlights and shadows".
right... lol
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Wow, big turn around starting to happen. Predicted way back though, so understandable
OK.jjnik wrote:
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correct
Where contradition? I said extreme ETTL is not a good technique in general and I maintain my stand on this. However it's not useless such as to rescue a severe underexposed photo otherwise will end in garbage bin.
Two separate things - a) it's only obvious to see difference between Canon and Nikon cameras in extreme ETTL; b) more DR is ALWAYS better. a) and b) don't conflict each other.
As I said. How many time I need to repeat over and over agian?
Lesser of evil to rescue a severe underexposed photo. However a) Canon cameras metering are very accurate in genera; b) I tried to use expose bracket to have multiple exposures on a contrast scene and select the most ideal exposed one for further processing.
LOL we don't know details yet until some details side by side comparison come out. However after extreme shadow pulling D800/D600 also suffer IQ lost - excessive noise/grain, detail lost and possible damage of color tonality. It's NOT a free ride or free lunch.
LOL.
I never ever said it's useless but it's not a big deal if I expose normally or ETTR which I believe a better technique in general. My stand is very consistent and throughtout in posts and threads.
yeah, what's surprise?
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Your subtle changes in how you view the topic and your new found interest in it. Nothing wrong with that.
No I don't have any changes. Can you quote me when I ever said more DR is useless as someone suggested? I ONLY dispute in over-exaggerating it as a showstopper or unable to generate decent photos.
Contradiction is that you've maintained that such a rescued image is of poor IQ - so why keep it?qianp2k wrote:
OK.jjnik wrote:
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correct
Where contradition? I said extreme ETTL is not a good technique in general and I maintain my stand on this. However it's not useless such as to rescue a severe underexposed photo otherwise will end in garbage bin.
Not really true - the shadows are cleaner with more detail even in a properly exposed image that covers a scene with large DR - it might not be noticeable in web images or smaller/mid print sizes - but definitely noticeable in larger prints (for those that do that). It also can allow more latitude in manipulation of shadows and midtones - not just extreme movements.
How is it better if, by your definition, it only results in poor quality images derived from extreme shadow pulling - that's why I see contradiction in your statement.
hmmm... until you give a meaningful answer?
So again, how would higher DR be of any real use to you then? It won't give you the high IQ standard you've established you require in numerous threads?
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Sure you do. Very subtle. No longer amendment how little DR matters but now more of a "well it's useful sometimes" vs almost never. I think you're getting ready for the improvements to come.
You onced maintained that "Virtually all those samples after pulling look surreal and crappy". Now you point out... "One main advantage from my perspective is to rescue accidentally underexposed photos" A subtle embrace. A good thing. Tip of the hat to you.
How good of IQ could be from a rescued photo? LOL the difference is between still usable in small size and basically useless, just lesser of evil as I said. However I tried to expose as accurate as possible by using exposure bracket for example.jjnik wrote:
Contradiction is that you've maintained that such a rescued image is of poor IQ - so why keep it?qianp2k wrote:
OK.jjnik wrote:
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correct
Where contradition? I said extreme ETTL is not a good technique in general and I maintain my stand on this. However it's not useless such as to rescue a severe underexposed photo otherwise will end in garbage bin.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3514784
Hardly noticeable from above well-controlled test even after I upsampling 5D3 to match to D800's full size with one of the best prime lens Zeiss 35mm/f2.0 lens. I am sure you will not see noticeable difference even you print to 40x30". It's a vivid test to support what I claimed.
again they are two complete different concepts. More DR is always better but that is not directly related to shooting technique. Extreme ETTL method has severe consequence and obviously 14-stop DR doesn't help in that scenario.
Until you fully understand.
5% better is better although you'd have to pixel peeping to see the difference under normal exposure or even less under ETTR. It's a big difference in severe ETTL photo nevertheless in case to rescue a severely underexposed photo. So still useful.
You need to elaborate and not to twist what I said
Yes based on what we have seen, or don't mind to presnet another one
Lesser of evil so hope you can understand better. It's still not good after rescue effort but better than notihing neverthless. However I try not to have to rescue in correct exposure.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
and many others did not share your assessment...qianp2k wrote:
How good of IQ could be from a rescued photo? LOL the difference is between still usable in small size and basically useless, just lesser of evil as I said. However I tried to expose as accurate as possible by using exposure bracket for example.jjnik wrote:
Contradiction is that you've maintained that such a rescued image is of poor IQ - so why keep it?qianp2k wrote:
OK.jjnik wrote:
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correct
Where contradition? I said extreme ETTL is not a good technique in general and I maintain my stand on this. However it's not useless such as to rescue a severe underexposed photo otherwise will end in garbage bin.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3514784
Hardly noticeable from above well-controlled test even after I upsampling 5D3 to match to D800's full size with one of the best prime lens Zeiss 35mm/f2.0 lens. I am sure you will not see noticeable difference even you print to 40x30". It's a vivid test to support what I claimed.
who said it was? You still have not given a meaningful answer to exactly how DR in non-extreme shadow pulling is actually useful to better IQ?
Oh, I fully understand things that make sense...
So how exactly is that is that better? How can it improve IQ then? If it can't/doesn't (by your definition - not mine) then what use is it?
OK - so then according to you, higher DR does nothing to improve IQ or latitude in PP, it's really only useful to salvage a low IQ image: Got it - thanks for clarifying!
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Why? That was clear.
"5% better is better although" vs "never". subtle changes. You might actually soon realize the pluses to more DR includes overall increase in detail captured and can be used even when you ETTR slightly. You'll have more details on the left, in that case, should you decide to take advantage of it. You won't get stuck in the "only good for rescue" trap you have been in. A Good Thing
Yet still, the times when a large DR can be taken advantage of are not the norm. Most don't take advantage even when they can. Not a show stopper...just a little more HP in the engine.
--
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:
Honest people without agenda truly don't see much difference in above sample even after upsampling 5D3 file to match to D800 full size. But a few with mind setup don't want to see or still trying to exaggerate that is not a suprise.jjnik wrote:
and many others did not share your assessment...qianp2k wrote:
How good of IQ could be from a rescued photo? LOL the difference is between still usable in small size and basically useless, just lesser of evil as I said. However I tried to expose as accurate as possible by using exposure bracket for example.jjnik wrote:
Contradiction is that you've maintained that such a rescued image is of poor IQ - so why keep it?qianp2k wrote:
OK.jjnik wrote:
nopeqianp2k wrote:
so not a problem.jjnik wrote:
sure - it's a free internet - just establishing that I was not speaking to you in my original post?qianp2k wrote:
Can I replied your post as you did on me numerous times?jjnik wrote:
Who was talking to you?qianp2k wrote:
Nobody saying that directly if you can quote a link please.
Only obvious in extreme shadow pulling that is what I said and is correct
Where contradition? I said extreme ETTL is not a good technique in general and I maintain my stand on this. However it's not useless such as to rescue a severe underexposed photo otherwise will end in garbage bin.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3514784
Hardly noticeable from above well-controlled test even after I upsampling 5D3 to match to D800's full size with one of the best prime lens Zeiss 35mm/f2.0 lens. I am sure you will not see noticeable difference even you print to 40x30". It's a vivid test to support what I claimed.
I said what I said repeatedly that more DR is always better even only 5% or less better under normally exposed or ETTR photos.
But it's a difefrent story if you don't want to face reality so could neve make sense to you.
The diffrence is so small even at full size of D800 and even with one of the best prme lenses as we see in that thread that is very convincing to backup what I said.
Again that's your word or it's what you want to inject into my brain. Please not go to extreme. I said it's useful but its usage is very limited and still has consequence in extreme ETTL when it shows obvious advantage.
I never said 'NEVER' or 'USELESS', no changes here. I said the difference is very small or even negligible in normal or ETTR exposure. It's a big difference in extreme ETTL exposure but that itself has severe consequence, just lesser of evil.
As I said the difference is very small under normal/ETTR exposure. but even 5% or less difference under pixel peeping is still better than 0. Again I never said never or useless but meanwhile just warn overexaggeration or it's the only way to use ETTL method in contrast scene.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
That's not true at all but we can agree that the dif will not be notice except when outputting large. Only a few take advantage of that and fewer still do it well and obviously so. Lik, for example. His use of the 20%, or so, extra detail is very stunning to see in person. Defiantly not the norm here though. If it was, we'd all be rich as well.
--
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:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Yep, can certainly be a good thing to have....even in ETTR as you now point out, vs just extremes of shadow pulling for rescue. 5% can make a big dif in some circumstance. Often makes for a WOW factor. Rare though
Your last two statements conflict each other. Not true but difference is not noticeable? Nice. I know as a Nikon DX shooter you simply don't want to face this cruel fact. I know it's painful to some eyes unwilling to see, lol.
How you know how he shoot? No doubt given him a 5D3 he also can shoot that photo. How many Canon landscape photographers in the world? And some of them are truly top grade and generate photos no less than from Nikon. Again sensors alone don't take photos but must with lenses and Canon has some best lenses such as TS-E lenses that are fantastic in landscape.
Are you him? He told you everything? :-D If you search you can find a long list of Canon landscape photographers that generate WOW photos. Hans Kruse is one of them in this forum if you bother to check his photos.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum