gollywop

gollywop

DPReview Contributor
Lives in United States
Joined on Mar 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: So, as an additional way to phrase my last question, if it is correct that ISO in-camera has no effect on noise for an ISO-invariant camera, why is it said that we should choose base ISO?

My take is that in fact, answer c) in my post is correct, and therefore we are advised to use base ISO not due to noise as such, but more that the increase in ISO setting causes amplification that may cause loss to highlight data. Do I have that correct?

(continued from above)

Thus, with my E-M5 II, there is no advantage in lowered read noise beyond ISO 800. If, therefore, I cannot ETTR I will increase in-camera ISO up to 800 if warranted, but will not go further, preferring instead to do further brightening in the controlled environment of processing.

Be aware, however, that I have my camera settings (with UniWB) established via RawDigger so that I am quite confident when I need to increase in-camera ISO up to the 800 limit that there is little chance I have over-brightened. If you don't have your camera settings so calibrated, you may not enjoy this confidence. I don't go beyond ISO 800 because there is no reason to take unnecessary chances for no gain.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 17:36 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Easycass: So, as an additional way to phrase my last question, if it is correct that ISO in-camera has no effect on noise for an ISO-invariant camera, why is it said that we should choose base ISO?

My take is that in fact, answer c) in my post is correct, and therefore we are advised to use base ISO not due to noise as such, but more that the increase in ISO setting causes amplification that may cause loss to highlight data. Do I have that correct?

First, there are very few, if any, truly ISO-invariant cameras. Most benefit from lower read noise up to some point.

Second, one should choose base ISO only when ETTR is possible, i.e., you can place your brightest desired highlights near sensor saturation at base ISO. If, however, ETTR (at base ISO) is not possible, then the use of in-camera ISO, at least up to the ISO-variant limit of the camera, is beneficial. This is true for almost all cameras.

I would think c) is correct over the early ranges of ISO, but b) can be correct for some cameras after a certain point where ISO is effected strictly digitally.

But, no, if ETTR is not possible (at base ISO), then one indeed benefits from lower read noise (up to a point) using in-camera ISO rather than brightening during processing. However, one can reduce the chance of inadvertent highlight clipping by not using more in-camera ISO than necessary.

(continued below)

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 17:35 UTC
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Olympus OM-D E-M1 II (654 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankS009: 574 grams without the extra grip. We don't know what the GM5 weighs yet.

F.

With battery or w/o?

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 19:47 UTC

Well if that gold-plating isn't the dumbest – as if camera theft weren't already too much of a problem – and for something that has absolutely no real photographic value whatsoever. It ought to look great with your black and silver camera. But, yep, that isn't going to stop some people from buying it.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 02:02 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply

Once again, the new version of CC does not fix the issue with USM not toggling on and off when used in an Action. Shame on Adobe.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 23:08 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

barryhk: I think I understand this article.

Just thinking how is this related to the "exporsure" and "brightness" settings in Lightroom... I wonder in Lightroom, they are basically the same thing. i.e. increase exposure actually increase the amplification....

Am I wrong?

Canon 5D. I've been trying to change that, but since dpr put in the new Articles feature, they have not continued an editing facility. I feel very hamstrung.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 04:13 UTC

What ever won't they think of next?

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 02:56 UTC as 7th comment
On photo You alright down there in the Shadows in Nature challenge (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

gollywop: Delightful shot. Perhaps the grasshopper can be excused, but he/she might appreciate being informed that "all right" is two words.

Sorry, thought you were strong enough to take a joke. My bad. But, as I said at the outset, it's a delightful shot and deserving of praise. You've got mine.

Perhaps the question asked by the grasshopper takes on new meaning at this point.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2015 at 01:12 UTC
On photo You alright down there in the Shadows in Nature challenge (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

gollywop: Delightful shot. Perhaps the grasshopper can be excused, but he/she might appreciate being informed that "all right" is two words.

Well, you missed you're (your) too. ;-)

But Liz definitely uses the King's English - and the fact that her English is all right is all right with me.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 23:35 UTC
On photo You alright down there in the Shadows in Nature challenge (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

gollywop: Delightful shot. Perhaps the grasshopper can be excused, but he/she might appreciate being informed that "all right" is two words.

Can't say the grasshopper has that honor. It's my impression that grasshoppers, when they speak, speak the King's English. :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 22:53 UTC
On photo You alright down there in the Shadows in Nature challenge (12 comments in total)

Delightful shot. Perhaps the grasshopper can be excused, but he/she might appreciate being informed that "all right" is two words.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 15:59 UTC as 2nd comment | 6 replies
On article ETTR Exposed (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

LeeRay: I owned an OM-1 (or could have been OM-2, I forget) and remember that it is one of the few camera at that time that has Spot-metering. In spot-metering mode, there is a button called Highlight and another one called Shadow. The idea is, you "spot meter" the highlight point (brightest point you want to keep) and the camera immediately try to make it 18% grey which is wrong...so, pressing the HL button "up" exposure by 2 or 3 EVs (again I forget). Same is true for the shadow side.

Isn't this the same as ETTR (and ETTL for that matter)? OM-D owners (I'm a to-be-OM-D owner), can you check to see if Olympus still keeps this HL/SD buttons?

This feature appears to have been with the OM-4. The highlight button added 2 EV, and, yes, that is akin to ETTR, although it is somewhat imprecise and likely to be undernourished in many applications.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 03:03 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

barryhk: I think I understand this article.

Just thinking how is this related to the "exporsure" and "brightness" settings in Lightroom... I wonder in Lightroom, they are basically the same thing. i.e. increase exposure actually increase the amplification....

Am I wrong?

Given your shooting requirements, ETTR is not always possible. The rest of the issues you discuss are third-orders of small, if that. To continue, you would need to demonstrate results that would show any noticeable difference, and a meaningful one at that. Please do in a separate article if you wish (and can). My doubts are infinite.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 00:46 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

barryhk: I think I understand this article.

Just thinking how is this related to the "exporsure" and "brightness" settings in Lightroom... I wonder in Lightroom, they are basically the same thing. i.e. increase exposure actually increase the amplification....

Am I wrong?

I meant the issue is dealt with in the sixth end note, not the fifth.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 20:28 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

barryhk: I think I understand this article.

Just thinking how is this related to the "exporsure" and "brightness" settings in Lightroom... I wonder in Lightroom, they are basically the same thing. i.e. increase exposure actually increase the amplification....

Am I wrong?

If shooting ETTR, and therefore at base ISO, all brightening is done during raw processing, and your concern does not arise. If ETTR is not possible and the camera is ISO-invariant, it makes no difference where the brightening is done, in-camera with ISO or in the raw processor. Again your concern does not arise. If ETTR is not possible and the cameras has ISO-variance, then you are correct. An appropriate level of in-camera ISO is preferred to applying that level of brightening during raw processing (not post processing). This issue is dealt with in the article in the fifth end note.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 19:33 UTC
On article Exposure vs. Brightening (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

barryhk: I think I understand this article.

Just thinking how is this related to the "exporsure" and "brightness" settings in Lightroom... I wonder in Lightroom, they are basically the same thing. i.e. increase exposure actually increase the amplification....

Am I wrong?

No; you are right. LR and all raw processors are unable to change the exposure; that took place in the camera at shutter-down and is written in stone. All actions that subsequently take place in the raw processor that affect the image's brightness are part of brightening, even if the slider is (mis)called "exposure."

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

gollywop: Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.

Wouldn't it be a giggle if this were all a hoax? What if Slater actually took the photos and was simply trying to create something out of it? He could then get the copyright, but there'd be nothing special about the picture.

How do we, in fact, know things happened as reported?

You did too in your post above:

>> they could have been cropped

>> both look like, and are selfies..

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

gollywop: Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.

Wouldn't it be a giggle if this were all a hoax? What if Slater actually took the photos and was simply trying to create something out of it? He could then get the copyright, but there'd be nothing special about the picture.

How do we, in fact, know things happened as reported?

Hey! I know! Maybe the monkey used a remote – or perhaps he used the self-timer. And, if the later, who actually took the picture? :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

gollywop: Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.

Wouldn't it be a giggle if this were all a hoax? What if Slater actually took the photos and was simply trying to create something out of it? He could then get the copyright, but there'd be nothing special about the picture.

How do we, in fact, know things happened as reported?

To Tonkotsu Ramen: how in the heck could the perspective of the one to the left be head-on if the camera were being held to the side? Cropping isn't going to allow that to happen. Use your head, man.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

gollywop: Neither of the pictures shown above really looks like a selfie. The one to the left could not possibly be, since the only arm that could be holding the camera could not be holding it at an angle to produce the perspective shown. Likewise the one to the right does not appear to have shoulders raised to hold the camera.

Wouldn't it be a giggle if this were all a hoax? What if Slater actually took the photos and was simply trying to create something out of it? He could then get the copyright, but there'd be nothing special about the picture.

How do we, in fact, know things happened as reported?

The one to the left is clearly not a selfie. If that shot was supposed to be included in the so-called selfies, maybe good faith is hard to abide.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 02:28 UTC
Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »