Andrew53
Lives in
Bangkok, Thailand
Works as a
Oil Biz
Joined on
Dec 4, 2011
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Green peas by OBellini from Vegetables and Mushrooms | Canon workshop by Tamer Radwan from Fashion photography | Young Red tailed hawk by APenza from A big year - birds 2018 | Antigua, Guatemala by peter826 from -Buildings by the water and their reflections- (Full Colours Only) |
Andrew53: I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
Processing is a necessary procedure to convert the imperfect captured data into an imperfect representation on some media, such as screen or paper.
Post processing is an alternative that augments or bypasses what occurred in the camera, scanner, lab or film. The processing (post or otherwise) can be done to try and reproduce an objective reality or not.
My objective (most of the time) is to show what I saw. Not to change it into something that wasn't there. That may, or may not be your objective.
Andrew53: I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
So, spin (lying) is OK as long as there is buck to be made? I am not unaware of how the world works. I don't have to like it.
I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
Great, another 5 hours search for that stupid non-standard cable.
Michiel953: “Bringing iconic black & white photography to life.”. That’s where it all goes wrong.
Normally I would mostly be in agreement with the sentiments expressed.
However,....
B+W is an abstraction of the real world and in my view there is an argument that war should be seen in full color so we all know the horror of it. Art may be art, but violent death is not.
The colorized civil war photograph brings that war out of the quaint, nostalgic past and into a stark, horrible reality.
Since I'm not going to CC, it means I'm stuck with Lightroom 6. Probably means I won't upgrade my cameras. Probably means no point in coming to DP Review any more.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, DP Review et all should all take note. Maybe time to stop cooperating with Adobe. DP Review could start by switching RAW converters.
I took a similar shot with HDR. Posted in my gallery. I think mine is better.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5257930274/photos/3687355/2017-08-21-hdr_eclipse-0069
Of course, getting the aircraft in the photo was just luck. The HDR, however, I spent months planning.
I made a short time lapse of the HDR as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8twysjdzw
iae aa eia: Any ultra wide angle lens with an aperture above 2.8 can be a waste of money. I say that because the bokeh you get with that aperture in such a focal length is narrow and not that interesting or useful (except in macro shots). But, in a medium format, it would make much more of a difference, since its equivalence would produce the bokeh of a 21mm, and thus, a more useful (or impressive) bokeh for shots other than macro. I saw that they have an ƒ/4 version, but I don't know how if it is as good or how better it is. It has a 1:1 macro feature and shift capabilities.
Hmmm, weddings? Unique shots during the reception? No need to worry about high ISO or focus? Just wait, I think I talked myself into buying one.
ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.
This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)
6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.
If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.
Your right some people are clueless. I was complaining about pulling up the shadows too much.
ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.
This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)
6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.
If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.
Just because you can bring up the shadows, doesn't mean you should. Even the example photograph to show noise in the shadows, looks like poorly done HDR.
I'm not being an apologist for Canon's decision to place apparently old sensor technology in a new camera, but my in my experience, the emphasis on DR is misplaced and exaggerated. Good grief, 90% of the most famous photographs ever taken only used a DR of about 7EV.
bogdescu: ...came back here because I forgot to ask about one weird scenario.
Let's say someone gives you a file on an USB key.
I know it's a crazy scenario, but it might happen.
What do you do? Where do you stick an USB stick, Schiller?
<edit: wow, it must be Alzheimer's, I already asked this rhetorical question once in this very debate>
You put it in your MS Surface Pro. Dahhh.
desaint: Oh my freaking g#d...a lot of people complaining here..10 dollar a month three beers less and you are there.
I'ts a ver expensive product to make,you pay thousands of dollars on camera gear but you don't want to pay for your software??
Normal you have to buy it once in the three years and now you pay monthly,i think at the end it's about the same...
And for the illegal downloaders there is enough other software builders you can
use for"free"and then can complain about it:)
It isn't $10 a month, it's my photos being held hostage. The edits and database are part of my work and CC makes them hostage to the marketing whims of Adobe. They change the deal and all of a sudden 10 years of my work is useless.
ImagesToo: Quite well explained except for one major mistake. You talk about sensor size as being important. It is only part of the story. The real issue is pixel size. A FF sensor with 4 times as many pixels as a 4/3 sensor is identical in noise performance as each pixel is now only 1/4 the area so it captures the same amount of light.
The other thing which has been omitted is that because of shot noise a raw file only contains about 250 levels of brightness for a pixel which is what a jpg file has. Virtually all the extra information in a raw file is nothing more than digitised noise. You can do the calculations quite easily remembering that noise is the square root of the number of photons.
Shot noise is the amount of light per unit area. This applies to an individual pixel and an entire picture. For the same exposure (i.e. the same intensity and same time) the noise will be the same for a given area. While a single pixel may have more noise (because it is smaller) the overall signal-to-noise will depend on the area. So larger sensors produce lower noise because they collect more light - for the same exposure.
But...
For an equivalent DOF and equivalent focal length and the same shutter speed there is (in theory) no advantage to a larger sensor.
A m43 25mm using ISO 1600 produces the same (shot) noise as a FF 50mm f2.0 at ISO6400 using the same shutter speed. (in theory) and at the same time should produce the same field of view and the same DOF.
There is no free lunch however, because building f1.0 lenses is difficult, heavier and more expensive. Zoom lenses even more difficult and heavy - and expensive.
My view is that Canon took mirror seriously right from the start. The original EOS-M has outstanding build quality, the best touch screen in the business and very well made high quality lenses. You do not build a camera of that high of quality if you are not taking it seriously. Even the strap attachments, although non-standard, are very well thought out and an improvement over standard camera offerings.
Canon mis-read the market and didn't supply a viewfinder and Canon failed completely by letting the sub-standard AF slip though the testing cycle. Aside from that, the original EOS-M is just about all a mirror-less camera should be. The lack of lenses is only because of a lack of interest on the part of the consumer.
Joo Prates: The numbers are cold, but show the facts.
Let's go to DPR ratings. In interchangeable Lens Cameras, ordered by rating, in Gold Awards, we find in the 10 first best cameras:
- 1 Canon Camera (EOS-1D Mark IV- 89% / Feb 2010) ,
- 4 Nikon cameras (D3S - 89% / Feb 2010; D610 - 87% / Mar 2014; D600 - 87% / Nov 2012; D7100 85% / Apr 2013)
The new Canon 70D - 83% / Oct 2013 in 13 position Gold Award
The new 7D MarkII - 84% / Dec 2014 Silver Award
So, after 5 years...it's the best Canon achieves with their 7D Mark II? the same sensor...low DR...no Wi-fi? are you joking with us?
For instance in lens...how is it possible that Sigma makes a 50 mm 1,4 Art lens, for 950USD (price droping), and the top Canon L 50mm 1,2 that sells for 1600USD is worse in all levels, compared to the Sigma?
I've been a canonist all my life, but I'm disappointed with Canon Cameras and lenses, and I'm considering making the big move - changing to Nikon.
I have the Sigma 50mm Art, I have the Canon 50mm f1.2. My preference is the Canon. Not everything is about sharpness.
smafdy: I believe it was the sculptor, Rodin, who said (not verbatim), that if a work of art came out of his studio, created at the hands of a subordinate, it was still authored by him.
I would not be happy buying a "Rodin" and then finding out it was done by a subordinate. This statement sounds more like a pitch to increase sales volume.
QED
Canon 1Dx for comparison? Maybe it is too new?
Someone finds a way to migrate my LR work to different software and I'm gone.
jimkahnw: Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
It isn't the army of coders that annoys me. its the army of accountants, lawyers and MBAs.