57even

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 538, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jjz2: Say what? "Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products. " ... kind of out of touch/condescending right? Plenty of pros are using them. Nikon is in denial.

To be fair, the professional Fuji market is confined to documentary, wedding and similar stuff, or landscape and studio with their MF sensor.

Compared to the number of pros using Nikon and Canon cameras for sport, it's a drop in the ocean, for. But Canon are beating Nikon there as well. It's just too much hassle to dump a stable of L lenses and switch.

If you took the sports market out of the equation, I suspect that Nikon's entire FF strategy would fall apart.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

@T3

Dedicated DX lenses can be useful in terms of wide-angle primes (eg. 10 - 16mm). There is no point in duplicating 20mm and upwards its true, as long as there are some decent but affordable options (eg f1.8).

A lot of the DX zooms I bought for my D90 were simply poorly made and had poor quality. A 55-200mm lens is very useful on APSC, and smaller than a typical 70-300. As Fuji proved, they don't have to have poor performance.

Nikon have the knock down bargain basement lenses, and the upmarket pro stuff, but there is a gap in between. They also made their APSC DSLRs too cheap, and the Nikon 1 far too expensive. They must have lost their bottle in terms of trying to charge boutique prices for small cameras, but APSC is not small. It's as good as 645 colour film any day.

Fuji and Olympus have proved that there is a market for premium, compact cameras but they need premium lenses, not cheap consumer rubbish.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

There is no reason not to have premium APSC lenses, but Nikon never bothered. It's why I didn't like my D90 and sold it. But the lenses for cameras like the A7 are mostly just as big as other FF lenses, so I am not tempted.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 03:28 UTC

Nikon cannot ignore the APSC market. Yes, they need a mount that works with both FF and APSC, and a full-function mount converter for G lenses, but APSC provides an opportunity to capture the not-inconsiderable consumer market that isn't interested in large, cumbersome camera/lens combinations, but still wants a premium experience.

If they want to dominate again, they have to do so in markets where Canon and Sony are selling well - which is professional FF and amateur APSC.

Which is not to say that ASPC is not perfectly useful for many professional uses, or that a few pros are not already using it.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 02:51 UTC as 113th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@Richard Butler: No problem Richard. Just asking.

@Anders Wanell: Depending on the ISO standard, it determines the average exposure of an output JPEG should be 18%. If the camera meters lower, the exposure is less, so the calibration is higher.

Of course, there is a lot of leeway.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

Hi Richard, just an assumption based on the fact that they usually are.

It's why I asked if the -3.5 EV figure was accurate, because that would make mid-tones 1 EV noisier than 18% saturation based SNR measurements.

That's a whole ISO level. The half stop seems more consistent with Nikon's usual metering (and ISO calibration) so has this changed?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@MrBrightSide: I only tried it to compare my camera with a Sekonic meter, then concluded the metering was not 18% in either case. I read about the Kodak instructions later, but I was only after a reference point.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

Hi Richard.

If a stated ISO 100 is really 73, then yes. It was just that the article said 3.5 based on a step chart measured in density, not EV. Bit confusing.

However, it might be 3 EV. That would be 2.5 + 0.5. Not possible to tell from that chart though.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 00:32 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@rhlpetrus: I am not entirely sure. I guess if an 18% card produces a JPEG with RGB 118, then it would be.

When I tried to calibrate using a grey card, it was overexposed. Turns out light meters (ANSI) use 13% reflectance.

If you take a shot where highlights are close to clipping, the linear data will place 18% 2.47 stops below that. It's basically using ETTR.

Where 18% ends up in the image (RGB) depends on the tone-curve, but it's hard to analyse the tone curve without some reference point, like RawDigger.

I suspect low read noise enables camera companies to get better OOC results using tone-maps with mid-tone brightening to allow more highlight headroom, but it's useful to know because the same defaults are often carried over to LR.

All of which makes it hard to use image preview or camera histograms as a good indicator of exposure.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 23:18 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@MrBrightSide

How many people do this? ACR/LR is well known for using default tone curves that boost mid-tones for certain cameras, but knowing this also changes the way you need to deal with it.

Using a default in-camera tone-curve affects the ISO calibration. Use a lower exposure, and your mid-tones are darker, so they are adjusted using a tone-curve. If your mid-tones are too bright, and you use negative EV comp, you make the noise in the mid-tones even worse. Better to lower them in post.

Knowing this is kind of important, even for JPEG shooters.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

@rhlpetrus yes I know, my question specifically is how is the default tone curve applied, because that affects metering and therefore ISO calibration. If (as implied) the mid-tone is -3.5EV from saturation, than that is a 1 stop underexposure, because 18% (the SOS standard) is always 2.47 stops below saturation - you can change that.

This also means that the default curve is applying 1 stop of mid-tone brightening to an underexposed mid-tone. Hence worse SNR.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 03:25 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

3.5 stops below saturation is the same either way, or should be. Its the lower stops that mostly get lost in JPEG compression.

The fact is, the step wedge is usually specified in density, not stops/EV. So mid grey in this case is not 3.5 EV below saturation, as stated.

It might be - these days, many cameras default to lower mid-tone metering and use a JPEG tone curve to adjust it, thus getting more default highlight range, but noisier mid-tone. Just didn't think it was as much as a whole stop.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 17:56 UTC

Wouldn't 18% saturation be 2.5 EV below saturation?

In which case, is Nikon using 9% saturation as the mid-tone to preserve highlights?

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 23:09 UTC as 25th comment | 19 replies
On article Nikon D850: First full-res sample images (362 comments in total)

Looks pretty good to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 08:48 UTC as 33rd comment

Is a goatee a prerequisite?

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 20:31 UTC as 37th comment
In reply to:

toomanycanons: I read where HC-B never did any work in the darkroom. His comment was "once I take the picture it's over for me" (or something to that effect). So if anyone here is impressed with the final print, well, that wasn't HC-B's processing.

He was far from unique in that regard. Until digital, I reckon 90% of professional photographers (and 99.9% of those that shot colour) paid expert printers to develop their film and make their prints. Some of those printers became household names within the business, but never got much 'exposure' outside it.

But yes, a few artists famously did all their own wet work, and regarded that as an integral part of their creative process.

Now, I would guess that the balance is largely reversed, although quite a few top-end fashion and commercial photographers will use professional retouchers, and most will use a professional printing service.

I know a few professional retouchers, and what they can do with a raw file is quite surprising. I doubt most people encounter more than 10% of what photoshop can really do, and when done well, you'd never know.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 11:45 UTC

This is a kind of backwards argument. Any subjectively good composition can (and has been) broken down into geometry, but the geometry is not the explanation for our perception, it is merely one way to describe it.

You can come up with similar formulae for kicking a football, or hitting a home run, but it's quite possible for someone with no math skills at all to do both with far more than average consistency through instinct, practice and timing alone.
Bresson, and many others, didn't measure what they saw, they just knew what would look 'right'. If it looks right, then by definition it falls into one of the many aesthetic geometries that have been defined to describe just that.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 20:32 UTC as 91st comment | 2 replies
On article Elliott Erwitt's lost photos of Pittsburgh (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: As far as I'm concerned he's still an unknown. Never heard of him

Says more about you than Mr Erwitt.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 07:31 UTC

I'd say these are pretty good when downsized to 16MP, with better DR than any smart phone. Somewhere between a 1" and 4/3" sensor maybe?

Of course, they are JPEGs, which means you can really get much more out of them by editing. You are kind of stuck with the cameras baked-in algorithms.

As a value proposition, it is way off. For around $400 and shrunk to the size of a smart-phone, it would be a lot more interesting.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies

Surely, the only 'proof' you need is the original raw file. Unless you are dumb enough to share the raw file on a download site, the infringer could not possibly have a copy.

If the raw file EXIF also contains your copyright data, then it is proof.

Anyone, even someone who steals an image, can apply for copyright. How does the registration office prove it was theirs?

Registration is a nonsense. Anyone can steal data and then claim copyright. It isn't proof. Having the original copies and drafts (unedited) should be ample proof if proof is required.

This is just another pointless irrelevant legal nonsense from people that have no clue about technology.

Do you have to register negatives as well? How does that work?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:24 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
Total: 538, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »