What can and can't be done with m4/3 RAW files

[MiraShootsNikon]

No kidding. Here is a camera phone (one of many) from 2011, the image is from 2012; white snow highlights pushed down, deep forest shadows pulled up. E-3 was 10MP, Galaxy-2 is only 8MP, proves nothing, but at least it is realistic. Don't you agree?

--
- sergey

Hey, that's a nice image, Sergey.

The smartphones are coming for us all, boys. It's only a matter of time.

 

[OzRay]

It's from Capture One Pro 8.

 

[OzRay]

Oz, this thread is out of control.

I love your photograph(s), and your demonstration is useful. Call it Highlight Recovery 101 with pleasing landscape photographs. Great.

But now you've lost your way and you're sounding super word-salady. There's your last post, here, in which you've now pedantically accused someone else of being pedantic. Which was funny, but in that awkward-watching-someone-trainwreck-themselves sort of way.

And then there's your talk of big things--studying history and legacies and being doomed to repeating the past--and WTF are you even talking about?

If you post propositions, people are going to agree and disagree. That's how free and open discussions work. I hate to sound like your detractors, here, but you gotta work on handling constructive criticism a little better. A lot of the people who've commented on your proposition have had good, useful points.

And in this particular branch of the thread--your spat with TN Arg--you're prioritizing defensiveness over making sense. One corner of your mouth is saying that you never confused CCD and CMOS technologies while the other corner of your mouth insists of lumping them together for the good of history or . . . something? Word salad.

How 'bout you just say, "Hey TN, good catch. That's a great point. Thanks!" You don't have to be 100% right about everything all the time. DPReview forum isn't a "game" you're supposed to "win."

I think it might time for you to simmer down a little bit.

Did you give any consideration that you're basically doing what you accuse me of doing?

Far, far, too many people on this forum forget about photography and just see and talk technology. Technology is useful, essential even, but only if it aids in improving your photography.

If the technology dominates your vision, then photography comes last.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

Oz, this thread is out of control.

I love your photograph(s), and your demonstration is useful. Call it Highlight Recovery 101 with pleasing landscape photographs. Great.

But now you've lost your way and you're sounding super word-salady. There's your last post, here, in which you've now pedantically accused someone else of being pedantic. Which was funny, but in that awkward-watching-someone-trainwreck-themselves sort of way.

And then there's your talk of big things--studying history and legacies and being doomed to repeating the past--and WTF are you even talking about?

If you post propositions, people are going to agree and disagree. That's how free and open discussions work. I hate to sound like your detractors, here, but you gotta work on handling constructive criticism a little better. A lot of the people who've commented on your proposition have had good, useful points.

And in this particular branch of the thread--your spat with TN Arg--you're prioritizing defensiveness over making sense. One corner of your mouth is saying that you never confused CCD and CMOS technologies while the other corner of your mouth insists of lumping them together for the good of history or . . . something? Word salad.

How 'bout you just say, "Hey TN, good catch. That's a great point. Thanks!" You don't have to be 100% right about everything all the time. DPReview forum isn't a "game" you're supposed to "win."

I think it might time for you to simmer down a little bit.

Did you give any consideration that you're basically doing what you accuse me of doing?

Far, far, too many people on this forum forget about photography and just see and talk technology. Technology is useful, essential even, but only if it aids in improving your photography.

If the technology dominates your vision, then photography comes last.

But you're the one talking about technol . . .

Eh, I don't give a f__. I tried.

Enjoy it!

 

[OzRay]

But you're the one talking about technol . . .

Eh, I don't give a f__. I tried.

Enjoy it!

I pretty much knew that you'd latch on to that comment without even trying to understand the intent.

But how about rather than calling me a bad person and pointing out all the things wrong with me, why don't you contribute in a positive way so that others can benefit?

Why not contribute, not with lots of words, but actual deeds ie photographs that support or refute what I'm discussing. Show how you accomplish the best out of your m4/3 problem photographs.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

But you're the one talking about technol . . .

Eh, I don't give a f__. I tried.

Enjoy it!

But how about rather than calling me a bad person and pointing out all the things wrong with me, why don't you contribute in a positive way so that others can benefit?

God.

As Doge would say: Such drama. Wow.

I didn't "call you a bad person" or "point out all the things wrong with you." Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I did tell you that your defensiveness, here, didn't make as much sense as your original post, and that you may care to stop world-salading your original good, useful demonstration into needy oblivion.

But do what you want. Who cares?

 

[OzRay]

It's quite amusing to note that the majority of my most vocal critics seem to be a closed book, no one knows anything about them. My interests, background, reasons for and ventures in photography are pretty much an open book.

At least when I discuss, debate and argue about things photographic, I'm not just someone hiding behind an internet pseudonym that we have to take at (hidden) face value. And when confronted with logical debate, those who call me a drama queen seem to deliver a far better performance.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

It's quite amusing to note that the majority of my most vocal critics seem to be a closed book, no one knows anything about them. My interests, background, reasons for and ventures in photography are pretty much an open book.

At least when I discuss, debate and argue about things photographic, I'm not just someone hiding behind an internet pseudonym that we have to take at (hidden) face value. And when confronted with logical debate, those who call me a drama queen seem to deliver a far better performance.

None of your readers--critics or congratulators--need to be a "better" photographer than anyone else. That's just your preoccupation. (And no one gives a crap about your "open book," least of all me.)

Speaking of, I'm just too busy reading Bob Loblaw's Law Blog. Behind my evil musticio-twirling internet pseudonym, of course. Sorry.

>throws down smoke bomb amid maniacal laughter<

 

[OzRay]

And I think I'll resurrect this one, from an E-1, but it shows that you can recover dark areas without destroying, while possibly improving the bright areas.









Exposure is always going to be a compromise, so you have to make judgement calls on what area is most important if there is a huge difference in scene brightness. And you don't always have to take multiple shots and invoke HDR software.

Even the old technology can be made to look good.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland

http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

 

[Peter Del]

Ray,

Thank you very much for the detailed tutorial; the mention of layers sends a shudder down my spine! However, I've bookmarked it and will, at some point, download a free trial of the software and give it a go.

Peter Del

 

[OzRay]

Ray,

Thank you very much for the detailed tutorial; the mention of layers sends a shudder down my spine! However, I've bookmarked it and will, at some point, download a free trial of the software and give it a go.

Peter Del

Layers in Photoshop give me the shudders, but in Capture One, they are super easy. The one I've used here is the Gradient Mask in a separate layer. There are heaps of short videos available that show how easy it is to do.

 

[papillon_65]

The issue is that people can be very dismissive of what m4/3 can deliver, always citing things like lack of DR etc. And this is always demonstrated by using images from another format. There's no point in doing so unless one can produce the same scene, taken at the same time with both formats.

I'm attempting to demonstrate to m4/3 users, not to those who use other brands, what they can get from their cameras if their immediate results don't look all that good. Many new users especially, can have the perception that when a shot doesn't work out, it's the camera that's at fault, because people keep saying m4/3 isn't good enough.

Phone cameras as well can produce excellent results in the right conditions and they are getting better all the time. In fact, there's probably more effort going into camera phone technology than any other camera technology at the moment. But that's not the point.

 

[OzRay]

The problem is that you created this thread on a false premise. No-one attacked m4/3's in the other thread, in fact it was the complete opposite, with inaccurate statements made about another system. This was something I rightfully rebutted, using images. So if it's ok to demonstrate what m4/3's can do why isn't it ok to similarly prove otherwise for other cameras when people comment incorrectly? FWIW I use several different brands and will happily and truthfully point out the strengths and weaknesses of any of them.

Why don't you add value, rather than criticism? Maybe because it's easy to criticise, but a lot harder to teach.

 

[papillon_65]

The problem is that you created this thread on a false premise. No-one attacked m4/3's in the other thread, in fact it was the complete opposite, with inaccurate statements made about another system. This was something I rightfully rebutted, using images. So if it's ok to demonstrate what m4/3's can do why isn't it ok to similarly prove otherwise for other cameras when people comment incorrectly? FWIW I use several different brands and will happily and truthfully point out the strengths and weaknesses of any of them.

Why don't you add value, rather than criticism? Maybe because it's easy to criticise, but a lot harder to teach.

I was adding value, I was teaching people the inaccuracy of the comments made and demonstrating by examples what can be done with those particular cameras. There may well have been people reading that thread who had their eyes opened. Co-incidentally I did receive a PM enquiring about the Merrills and how I found them from someone who has seen some of my Merrill stuff and liked what they saw. Adding value was exactly what I was doing as opposed to other people who were bashing cameras they've never owned based on some pictures they selectively picked out, whilst ignoring some of the examples I posted. I could do that with any system you care to pick, including m4/3's.
What did I was no different to what you've just done, with the exception that it wasn't me who decided to make a big issue of it, I just corrected an ill judged comment in the best way possible, with a pictorial demonstration. If people had told me the the Merrills have poor battery life, are slow to operate and the files can (though not always) be difficult to process I would have agreed wholeheartedly, there's no blind fanboyism from me.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

--
"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act".
George Orwell.
http://bit.ly/1BIquIF

 

[Peter Del]

Thanks Ray, I'll look for the videos.

Peter Del

 

[Fri13]

Both bayonets (4/3 & m4/3) use same format 4/3" sensor and m4/3 is just using sensors with a newer technology as m4/3 bayonet and cameras are newer/modern as 4/3 isn't anymore developed.

So same 4/3 sensor in both 4/3 cameras and m4/3 cameras, with different technology. Doesn't change the format when bayonet changes.

So there isn't 4/3 sensor or m4/3 sensor, but 4/3 sensors manufactured with different technology to cameras using different bayonets.

The even more difficult part is that 4/3 doesn't really define sensor size but image circle, so camera using 4/3 or m4/3 bayonet can use multi-aspect sensor that isn't exactly 17,3x13mm or 4/3"

 

[third son]

There was a recent debate about what you can and can't extract from highlights with a m4/3 sensor in another thread and how 'other' sensors are much better and more forgiving. The discussion comparing sensor qualities really wasn't germane to that thread, but that's typical for most forums.

I was just working on another of my blog posts (I usually start with the photographs and then begin to compile the story), and one of the photos I'm going to use is a perfect example of highlight recovery. Now the photograph was taken with an E-3 in 2008, but in my view, 4/3 and m4/3 sensors are the same, simply different generations.

I've used this photograph years ago in another capacity, but using my current RAW software (which shall not be named lest it draws the ire of competitors' fanboys/girls) I discovered how much I could extract from the RAW file. Now this is not about RAW converters, so I hope that we don't decent into a rabid battle on that front. It's about what you can extract from a m4/3 RAW file.

So here are the two photographs, the first as it came out in the RAW processor without any processing and the second with adjustments:





I even surprised myself. And hopefully we don't start seeing the thread filled up with examples from other brands, but that's probably wishful thinking.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

I have nothing to say other than the second image is outstanding. The fact that you were able to get the subtle sun's rays out of the RAW file the way you did was pretty cool.




-Paul

Third Son’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[s_grins]

If nobody mentioned this before - this is not an M4/3

 

[OzRay]

I have nothing to say other than the second image is outstanding. The fact that you were able to get the subtle sun's rays out of the RAW file the way you did was pretty cool.

-Paul
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130322896@N05/sets/

Thanks. The more people try and expand on what they currently do with their photographs, the more surprises that may await them.

 

[OzRay]

For some, it appears that the visual image and its achievement is essentially irrelevant, for them it's simply about technical arguments about gear and debates about semantics.