57even

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

Comments

Total: 572, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
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 27th comment | 19 replies
On article Nikon D850: First full-res sample images (345 comments in total)

Looks pretty good to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 08:48 UTC as 34th comment

Is a goatee a prerequisite?

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 20:31 UTC as 38th 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 92nd 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 46th 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 10th comment | 4 replies

Hardly a surprise. They have some good AF tech in the N1 cameras, so no problem with firmware. New lens mount a given, big enough for FF, with adapters.

I suspect they will go with a 'phone-camera generation' offering first, and offer more serious models if the market is there. They won't cannibalise sales of their FF cams until later, but a nice range of APSC lenses would be a new venture for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:54 UTC as 149th comment

The dog wanted him to buy the A9 :-D

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 17:53 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Greg7579: I have been traveling and shooting all over the world for the past 15 months with the Surface Pro 4 (the i7, 512 SSD, 16 GB Version which was very expensive at over 2100 USD). The big advantage is it is super light (2 pounds) and runs Photoshop and LightRoom super smoothly and fast. The screen is fabulous for RAW photo editing in LR, but small at 12.3 inches. The pen works amazingly well on the touch screen to move the LR sliders. It is the perfect travel machine for photographers and is surprisingly impressive in tablet mode while photo editing. Sure, I would love to have a powerful 4K 15 inch clamshell, but that is 3 times the weight and much bigger. This convertible tablet-laptop changes the game completely while aggressively traveling and doing post processing on the road.

I run LR on an SP2 i5 8MB. Apart from the initial opening of large raw files, the performance is fine. Perfectly adequate for a portable, and no worse than any laptop without a dedicated GPU.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 20:40 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

Sure, but the 'big sports' are not the only sports, and the argument is over TV rights. Sports that are not widely televised are a different matter. They still may have a large fanbase, just not in the US or worldwide.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

57even: Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

I guess that depends on the country, and the sport.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 17:21 UTC

Why switch? Migration is seldom an either-or scenario. It is quite possible to incorporate a new camera into an existing workflow, and keep the older gear on hand. Using two different cameras is not much of a burden when you get the hang of it. Its not like all Canons have the same control layout (1D vs 5D for instance).

I have seldom seen any photographers at sporting events carrying one body. It is more likely that they may incorporate A9s for some work, while keeping the old Canon and Nikon with the long prime until they either wear out, or Sony produces a replacement lens, or both. There are plenty of pros already using mixed equipment and turnover is fairly rapid.

The real issue is whether there is a job-related motive to use an A9 instead of a D5 or 1DX. Probably, for now, there isn't - but if they start shooting more video at sporting events, that could all change.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 146th comment | 5 replies
Total: 572, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »