Jos G

Joined on Aug 25, 2011


Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
In reply to:

Tonio Loewald: It seems to me that "shoot to the right" was more useful in the film era — film has ludicrous (almost infinite) over-exposure latitude (it's not practical to recover it without some kind of high tech enlarger, but I read somewhere it's in the neighborhood of 22-stops). These days, certainly at lower ISOs, it's often advisable to somewhat under-expose lest you accidentally blow out small highlights that aren't apparent in your histogram.

@Tonio Loewald: you are right, there is a lot of bull* in the comments to ETTR. The histogram and the over-exposure warning are sometimes inaccurate or inadequate. But: learning to read the display you have with you at the moment and comparing the readout to what your monitor says when you get home, is a lesson you should never skip!
Spend time learning when your camera display is still right (or wrong) and more important: using your camera's metering system and how accurate it is in telling you when your image will be overexposed, is rewarding. Especially the spot-meter, that is.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 02:19 UTC
In reply to:

Tonio Loewald: It seems to me that "shoot to the right" was more useful in the film era — film has ludicrous (almost infinite) over-exposure latitude (it's not practical to recover it without some kind of high tech enlarger, but I read somewhere it's in the neighborhood of 22-stops). These days, certainly at lower ISOs, it's often advisable to somewhat under-expose lest you accidentally blow out small highlights that aren't apparent in your histogram.

Indeed 'negative' film could endure a few stops of overexposure, but doing so with positive film, would have the same result as overexposing your sensor these days!
To prove the similarity or equality (to myself) between positive film and my DSLR's sensor, I examined my slides with dark shadows and found these also have more graininess in those areas.And don't think of slides as miracles: 22 stops is huge, even for the best slides. Not even human eye can capture that much information (slides can do 5-6 EV and the highest range belongs to the best developed best black-and-white negative films which cover about 13-14 EV, not even comparable to the Nikon D800 (14.4EV). If you would like the resolution of the Nikon, you would have to use a heavy Medium Format with an expensive lens and do not compare those to the modern medium format sensors... times have changed. In my opinion, the digital sensors have clearly won over film, but that's the technical quality of course!

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 02:03 UTC
In reply to:

Ron Poelman: ETTR ?
Well trolled, DPR.
Since when is noise the primary reason for selecting exposure level ?
Aesthetic considerations have nothing to do with exposure, right ?
Just get the noise right and it's a masterpiece every time.

Very right, mister Rishi Sanyal! In high contrast situations you have a huge difference between the highlights and the shadows... I hoped we all know that, but:
at the same time, mister SmilerGrogan, if you underexpose your image, your shadows may not have any information at all, just because the exposure was too short to capture any light coming from those areas. That was with film, that is with sensors.
If I expose TTR, then I give myself more freedom of experimenting with the resulting image, what I think is photographing, not taking pictures.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

riman: I do believe this is a true statement of what is happening as I have seen a huge amount of noise in underexposed shots at very low ISO

So can you just go to the answer section in the back of the book and tell us,,,if we want less noise in our shots should we shoot raw and add an additional F stop of exposure..half stop or what? or is this something we should do only in low light situations?

@riman: overexposing a sensor is never a good idea, just as it was! What is gone, is gone!
The trick to have as less noise as possible with your sensor, is to expose as bright as possible without clipping (overexposing) important parts in your image. Therefore you can use the histogram, but very useful is the overexposure warning of your DSLR: check for blinking parts and correct the settings by 1/3 (if possible and necessary). You will guess this method only applies when not shooting action or candid photo's!
I still might warn that setting your goal to the technical perfect photo, might ruin the pleasure of looking at a moment in time that will never ever return...

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

riman: I just tested this idea and it seems to work...Here are two shots both at 11,000 ISO one was overexposed two f stops and the other underexposed by two...and it really makes a difference!

I have done the test a few years ago with the Olympus XZ-1 (RAW) by applying the same exposure at ISO 100 as required to ISO 800 and compared the images while the ISO 100 shot was heavily tweaked and that one showed a much more acceptable image than the one at ISO 800.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

Wiscflank: I like the explanation of shot noise. Very interesting. However, the connection to the sensor size rather than the pixels size is not obvious. Everything holds together, but the conclusion. Smaller sensors are noisier, but if we agree on the fact that the pixels are independent from one another, meaning the light received by one photocell does no impact its neighbors, the logical conclusion is to state that the size of the pixels is important, not the size of the whole sensor.

I might be wrong about this, but cameras like the Nikon D800 with pixels the size of those found in the Olympus E-3, have less noise because the total number of pixels is larger and thus it captures more photons and the amount of random pixels is larger. If you would only use 1/4th of the sensor, than you 're right, but in the comparison to the rain an buckets, you just place more smaller buckets, so your chance to capture more raindrops is bigger. On the other hand, the sensor of the Nikon D700 has larger (the largest) pixels, comparable to wider buckets and has a very low noise ratio because even so the chance to capture light is bigger.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

mediasorcerer: My personal feeling is, that with some sensors,[the better quality ones] the noise can actually be pleasant and an artistic asset rather than a detraction depending on how why and where its used.

This really is a great article and just the sort of interesting and useful information many photographers may want and need, although im just some stranger, and already aware of the paradoxical iq juggling act between iso s/p and ap/, im going to politely insist you pat yourselves on the back for taking the time to explain and bring this concept to the readers attention.
I hope you produce more like it.

I fully agree and think that sometimes the argument for selling cameras with lower noise is comparable to the megapixel-race.
I still shoot a lot with the Olympus E-3 for the reason that it's noise at ISO 1600 (in b/w) has a similar effect as the good old Tri-X had: very contrasty, sharp black lines and an apparent but not distracting noise over the image. I love it. (as much as I dislike color-noise, but that's where the Nikon D700 and the likes come in action).

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 00:49 UTC
On article Nikon D750 real-world samples gallery posted (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

BikeSalon: Great photo! Do you recommend this camera to beginners?

If you never had a SLR / DSLR before, join a group to get to know as much as possible, because this machine deserves that. No playtoy this one.
If you DID own a DSLR before, get yourself a lens that is worthy of this camera. I would say something like the 24-70 f/2.8, not some kitlens.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2014 at 04:56 UTC
On article Mockups emerge of new Olympus OM-D 'OM-G' (334 comments in total)

"Despite the incredibly high quality of the Photoshopping in this story, "... the OM G.Zuiko looks very odd in the picture - but that could be a hint to the fish of course... (lol)

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2014 at 03:22 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

John Motts: Irrespective of brand, I actually believe that the days of the DSLR as a mainstream concept are beginning to look numbered.

@yabokkie: happy?

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2013 at 02:14 UTC
In reply to:

Swarbs: I owned the Olympus E-300 and E-3 and a number of lenses, flash unit, ect. The store where I purchased all of my equipment, Henry's, the major photographic retailer in Canada, stopped carrying any Olympus supplies, such as batteries or anything else. I felt betrayed by Olympus, so I brought back all of my equipment and traded them in for Canon (7D).
This is a shame as I really liked Olympus, but due to their lack of interest in the DSLR formate, I didn't want to wait till I couldn't have parts replaced or upgrade the equipment when new technologies are developed.
I can't understand why a company would throw it's customers under a truck like that!

Well, it's people who sell such fantastic equipment because they think a Canon or Nikon will make them better photographers, who make me happy:
I bought an E-3 (with only 6000 shots done) and a 14-54, plus a 50-200 for the price of a body... thanks!
This equipment gives me not only joy, to me it is a dream... go for it, you megapixel-junks. I love the quality and speed of this gear - even if it is 'out of date', it still delivers (who makes wallsized posters, You?)

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2013 at 01:48 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

SheikYerbouti: Excellent camera! Still, looks-wise I find the original OM and cameras like the 35 RC way more attractive than today's retro-styled designs. With the exception of Fuji's X100 there seems to be nothing that comes even close to 60s/70s/80s gems from Contax, Fuji, Nikon, Rollei etc. But, since I like to think of myself as a sane, sober, secular, rational and enlightened person, I accept that form should never come before function. Image quality, responsiveness, handling, reliability and longevity are far more important criteria than mere looks, and the OM-D seems to shine in all of these disciplines. So, a big thumbs-up for the OM-D!

Now, if I could only get rid of that still small voice telling me, how much better things were, when I first went out with my brand-new Nikon FM, when I had a b/w lab in the cellar and all that ... I'm getting old, it seems :-)

I remember holding my Yashica TL-Electro X for the first time. Yashinon 50mm F/1.7 on it... Still the pictures look great indeed, but that was 1976. What my E-420 does is better.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 06:27 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ed Gaillard: Couple of questions:

Does AEL/AFL remain locked until you hit the button again, or does it unlock if you press the play button, or (worse yet) does it unlock when an exposure is made?

Does the single-shot autofocus have the usual CDAF failure mode of grabbing the background instead of a smallish subject like a bird? (And then "sticking" to the background when you try to refocus.)

I gather from the AEL/AFL mode table that you can't assign AFL to one button and AEL to a different one?


When using AF on insects, birds ect. you can override with manual while focused, use manual focus instead or 'refocus' on the bird using manual and then AF again. The camera recognises that the focus is closer (works with macro too) and does not anymore focus to infinity. Done that for years now... using a very small focuspoint indeed.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 06:17 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

djec: "'5-axis' image stabilization system"?!

ffs i hope the rest of the science behind the camera is slightly more intelligent.

axis 1: left to right movements (vertical axis)
axis 2: up and down movements (horizontal axis)
axis 3: circular movements over the vertical axis
axis 4: circular movements over the horizontal axis
axis 5: circular movements (around the lens-axis)
... it also works when filming in HD... no need for a SteadyCam, no extra weight to carry.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 02:35 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jokica: Canon, wake up!


Link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 02:18 UTC
On article Just Posted: Olympus OM-D E-M5 review (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just Ed: Stunningly beautiful camera design, very sexy. Too bad it seems to need work in the focus and stability arena. Still, those are problems that hopefully can be corrected by Oly. Still, I keep my D90 for now....

I'm not sure you have had a E-M5 in your hands...
And I'm very sure that the E-M5 beats the D90 in many ways.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2012 at 02:07 UTC
In reply to:

Deleted-pending: WOW it looks like a computer from the 80's !!! :)

@FTH: you mean the Tandy TRS-series?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 06:03 UTC
In reply to:

Joesiv: Seems strange why would someone spending 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars on a camera (from what I gather these are priced in the market of arri and such) for a camera body just to put consumer grade lens' on it? Seems strange. C-mount, PL-mount, even EOS seem more in relavant.

While I welcome them to the fold, it just seems odd.

Oh well, hopefully panasonic's new x series lens' offer something worthy of thier cameras.

@Joesiv: I cannot agree to your comment as this is all about the camera, based on a micro 4/3 system. As many know, you can - now these days - mount a wide variety of lenses to that system, not only the 'focus-by-wire' lenses in the consumer-category.
The Zuiko's in the pro-series focus mechanically and so do the C-mount lenses of loads of manufacturers (cfr the fabulous Schneider-Kreuznach jewels).

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 06:02 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: I think the movie industry will start move to use Sony's 8K (not 4K) camera F65; The real professional cameras like Arri's Alexa and Panavision may also adopt Sony's 8K technology too. Since both Arri and Panavision are not using 4/3 format (they have their own formats and technologies); 4/3 is still not in the professional field.

It is also known that professional video makers tend to use higher speeds than the common 24/25/30 fps... to maintain a high frame quality these individual frames cannot be 24x36mm. That is not needed. Four Thirds resolution at 10 mp is by far enough for professionals to even use cropping by times and yield highest quality. The trend is to use RAW film quality as every pro knows that the possibilities are hugely extended. The time is not yet to use full frame. The time is not any more to use the 1/3". Those who speak of the actual professional cameras are running behind the crowd.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 02:53 UTC
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19