Three Great Tips

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:48:44 +0100, Graham Holden
<look@bottom.of.post> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>>In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
>>"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Owamanga wrote:
>>
>>>> Shoot RAW,
>>>> Shoot RAW,
>>>> Shoot RAW.
>>
>>>Smart. Very Smart.
>>
>>>1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
>>
>>You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you talking
>>about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead of coding it
>>in such a way that you have to already know what it is to decipher it?
>
>At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
>completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment for
>Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated three point
>suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it takes a lot of
>practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be done; if a shot's not
>perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as not to be conceited!".

That's how I read it. The glass is half full, not half empty. But only
Frank knows what he meant ;-)

--
Owamanga!
http/www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:48:44 +0100, Graham Holden
> <look@bottom.of.post> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:43:41 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>> In message <35Odnf6dpcYcQDDfRVn-1g@giganews.com>,
>>> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Owamanga wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Shoot RAW,
>>>>> Shoot RAW,
>>>>> Shoot RAW.
>>>
>>>> Smart. Very Smart.
>>>
>>>> 1- You _can_ get it exactly right, perfect in fact
>>>
>>> You rely heavily on assumptions by the reader. What *are* you
>>> talking about? Do you think you could state your opinion instead
>>> of coding it in such a way that you have to already know what it
>>> is
>>> to decipher it?
>>
>> At the risk of putting words in Frank's mouth, I think there's two
>> completely different parts to his post. The first was a compliment
>> for Owamanga's three points; the second was an entirely unrelated
>> three point suggestion of his own, which can be summarised as: "it
>> takes a lot of practice to take the 'perfect' shot, but it can't be
>> done; if a shot's not perfect, claim you did it deliberately so as
>> not to be conceited!".
>
> That's how I read it. The glass is half full, not half empty. But
> only
> Frank knows what he meant ;-)


You rely heavily on assumptions ... ;-)


I always enjoy what little I understand of JPS's posts and admit to
carelessness in not


separating my "points" from the "smart" comment. Graham was right.


I will add:
Some may not see it as dangerous, but I believe there is a risk of
losing track of the purpose of photography as a human communicative
activity; technical performance-art is cool, too, but not prime.

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things that just plain don't yield to
thinking-plain or fancy-Dude".
-J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson



--
Frank ess

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfkta1l9aeo0cdnijapt8iaphivmqdcp1a@4ax.com...
>
> Okay, I was intending to rattle some cages. For the record, I shoot
> RAW and have done so ever since my second digital 'roll' (full-card).
>
> I've got some problems with Roxy's original suggestions, and his
> statements above. Firstly, in my books an Amateur is anybody who
> doesn't make a living from Photography. Therefore, I don't see any
> requirement to offer differing advice on how a Pro or Amateur should
> shoot when using digital cameras.
>
> I shot the first 300 or so pictures on my new D70 (my first digital
> camera) in JPEG, mainly for the reasons Roxy gives in that I didn't
> want to screw around with RAW files until I was happy with how to use
> the camera. However, one shot I took in that set quickly changed my
> mind.
>
> http/www.pbase.com/owamanga/image/40643539
>
> It's one of my favorite shots, but sadly suffers a blown highlight on
> the shoulder of the creature caused by the high dynamic range of the
> scene which was then set in stone by the on-camera JPEG encoding. I've
> taken similar shots since, using RAW, and have been able to avoid this
> issue recurring.
>

<snipped more well-said points in favor of RAW>

My experience pretty much echoes Owamanga's. I shot quite a bit of JPEG
when I first got my Digital Rebel but with encouragement from reading
r.p.d.s-s I started shooting RAW. I find that even if I use the defaults in
ACR or DPP my images look much better than camera processed JPGs. I sold my
Digital Rebel to my friend and recommended to him to not waste his first
card of shots on JPEGs. He's grateful for the advice because he can do
minimal processing to the RAW files now. If he ever wants to revisit his
favorites after he gets to know digital post-processing better he can go
back to unadulterated files and see the improvments in his technique.

Greg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
the following:

> [snip]

> ...The difference
> is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
> numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
> more.

How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
range of the camera? I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,
but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
range that requires representation when shooting in low light.

Stan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <ja8ta19mhkdjbus4m9e4gmaga5k7dqcrtq@4ax.com>,
G Winstanley <stan@orange.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
>the following:
>
>> [snip]
>
>> ...The difference
>> is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
>> numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
>> more.
>
>How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
>range of the camera?

Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
it's gain-based ISO).

>I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,

I wasn't talking about DR, per se, but about digitization data. If a
certain absolute exposure gives RAW data just short of clipping (4095)
at ISO 1600, then the highest RAW numbers will be just below 256 at ISO
100. Dark areas that average 160 at ISO 1600 will average 10 at ISO
100, becoming highly posterized.

>but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
>been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
>amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
>me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
>range that requires representation when shooting in low light.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here; I can think of
multiple things you might mean and none of them click.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

G Winstanley wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:52:16 GMT, the cup of JPS@no.komm overfloweth with
> the following:
>
>
>>[snip]
>
>
>> ...The difference
>>is, the lower the ISO setting on the camera is, the less RAW, digitized
>>numbers there are to represent the subject, therefore posterizing it
>>more.
>
>
> How does this work exactly? Why shoudl a lower ISO reduce the digitization
> range of the camera? I don't see that the dynamic range is changed at all,
> but that you are simply shifting the range to represent values that have
> been amplified from the shadow areas and therefore have a little noise
> amongst them. This isn't *reducing* the range though. The problem seems to
> me that you're simply more likely to have a greater contrast and/or dynamic
> range that requires representation when shooting in low light.


http/www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

<quote>

Why? Because CCD and CMOS chips are linear devices. And, of course, each
F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half
the remaining data space available. This little table tells the tale.

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones
2048 levels available

Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones
1024 levels available

Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones
512 levels available

Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones
256 levels available

Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones
128 levels available

</quote>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:55:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
> Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
> given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
> lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
> it's gain-based ISO).

I know you've addressed this in the past, but I can't remember how
this formulation differs practically from the "expose to the right"
dictum.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrndauo9f.s1q.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:55:56 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>>
>> Did you catch the context from which that was snipped. The context was,
>> given a fixed *absolute* exposure (same f-stop and shutter speed; same
>> lighting on subject), the higher ISO will digitize the data better (if
>> it's gain-based ISO).

>I know you've addressed this in the past, but I can't remember how
>this formulation differs practically from the "expose to the right"
>dictum.

Simply "exposing to the right" can result in blurry pictures, and/or
pictures with too little DOF.

What I am suggesting is to go to a higher ISO when exposing to the
right, to maintain the needed DOF and shutter speed.

This is an important distinction, because people tend to think that
along with boosting the signal, higher ISOs "sprinkle more noise into
the image", which is not true at all. The noise is mainly due to the
low signal level in the sensor, which is the cause of both the noise
*and* the need for a higher ISO. For any given noise level in the
sensor, the lower the ISO, the more visible it is, due to posterization
(which distorts the signal, as well).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:40:00 GMT, JPS@no.komm <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
> Simply "exposing to the right" can result in blurry pictures, and/or
> pictures with too little DOF.
>
> What I am suggesting is to go to a higher ISO when exposing to the
> right, to maintain the needed DOF and shutter speed.

In other words, expose to the right, with the shutter speed and
aperture you want, and if that means going to a higher ISO, don't
be shy.

Makes sense to me.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <slrndaus35.reh.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>In other words, expose to the right, with the shutter speed and
>aperture you want, and if that means going to a higher ISO, don't
>be shy.

>Makes sense to me.

Yes; what I like to stress is that it's not even a compromise to go to
the higher ISO; it is better, absolute exposure being equal. This is
counter-intuitive to people who have come to believe that noise is
proportional to ISO. When I first theorized this, I found it hard to
believe myself, but when I actually tried it, results were even better
than I theorized, but of course, the shadows are the most affected; you
don't see a significant difference in highlights, unless you expand
their contrast in PP.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Cheesehead]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

1. Brand loyalty & lots of hardware do not take good pictures. You
do. Practice & have fun.
2. Just shoot. Archive them multiple times. You don't have a neg,
and if they're at all important, save them with all your efford. DVD
writers cost a lot less than many cameras.
3. Make prints & keep them in an album, documented. Isn't memories
why you shoot?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> Yes; what I like to stress is that it's not even a compromise to go to
> the higher ISO; it is better, absolute exposure being equal. This is
> counter-intuitive to people who have come to believe that noise is
> proportional to ISO.

It's not really that counter-intuitive, since all it really boils down
to is that raising the ISO is better than underexposing, which seems
to make sense on its face.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11avhkcbv49n1fb@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>> Yes; what I like to stress is that it's not even a compromise to go to
>> the higher ISO; it is better, absolute exposure being equal. This is
>> counter-intuitive to people who have come to believe that noise is
>> proportional to ISO.

>It's not really that counter-intuitive, since all it really boils down
>to is that raising the ISO is better than underexposing, which seems
>to make sense on its face.

Yes and no. Lots of people think that underexposing is only bad
because the default render is dark; others think that only past a
certain threshold is there a problem. What most people would consider a
"nailed" exposure of a low-contrast subject might be better photographed
at 4x the ISO with +2 EC, or a low-contrast dark subject even more so.
The point is, there really is not a compromise when you do so; you don't
trade quality for speed; you gain it, as long as you don't clip.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> What most people would consider a
> "nailed" exposure of a low-contrast subject might be better photographed
> at 4x the ISO with +2 EC, [for] a low-contrast dark subject even more so.


Wait a minute, are you saying this works without RAW adjustment? Hmm,
no, it still needs that +2EC which means darkening in RAW. That's the
point that people might be missing.

It does seem like simply doing the +2EC and darkening in RAW would help
also. Boosting the ISO is even more of the same treatment of pushing the
exposure to the right where the numbers are more forgiving.

--
Paul Furman
http/www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:47:31 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:17:23 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> I shot the first 300 or so pictures on my new D70 (my first digital
>> camera) in JPEG, mainly for the reasons Roxy gives in that I didn't want
>> to screw around with RAW files until I was happy with how to use the
>> camera. However, one shot I took in that set quickly changed my mind.
>>
>> http/www.pbase.com/owamanga/image/40643539
>>
>> It's one of my favorite shots, but sadly suffers a blown highlight on the
>> shoulder of the creature caused by the high dynamic range of the scene
>> which was then set in stone by the on-camera JPEG encoding. I've taken
>> similar shots since, using RAW, and have been able to avoid this issue
>> recurring.
>
>Spot meter? Expose for the highlights, as others have mentioned here
>already.

While this is good advice in a perfect world, my preferred metering in
these situations (scrambling in undergrowth after green monsters) is
to allow matrix metering to do it's job. It's hard enough keeping
focus, maintaining balance and breathing quietly without having to
ah heck about trying to spot meter.

Better advice in this situation might be switch to motor drive and
bracket like crazy.

Still, since switching to RAW and yet maintaining my style of metering
for this type of picture I've not had this problem happen again.

BTW, if you look through the rest of my 'wildlife' images, they were
all shot RAW (with the exception of the lizard above). Although in
some of the jpegs here they have very slightly blown highlights, that
was done by me on purpose during post-production - my personal
preference for these images is a high contrast, fairly saturated
punchy look. The lizard image is 'too blown' for my liking.

>For me the joy of photography is getting out and taking the pictures.

I respect that point of view, and it's one lots of people share.

For me, the joy is shared between that, and looking at the pictures /
processing them afterwards. I don't *love* photoshopping stuff, and
prepping images for a on-line service to print is very boring, but I
think the difference in the quality of what you end up with is worth
it. 80% of the 'artwork' hanging in my house originated from my camera
- some slide, some film and now lots of digital. The newer stuff is
noticeably superior to the old, due in part to better lenses,
improving technique and of course, better post-processing.

Even now, I'm tempted to dig out the negatives from some of those old
pictures, scan them and re-print them. This time having done the
darkroom stuff myself in the digital domain.

As someone else pointed out, shooting RAW is a bit like keeping the
negatives. One day, you, or someone else may want to go back to that
image, make some tweaks and reprint it on whatever fantastic equipment
exists in the future.... JPEG/RAW longevity arguments aside, RAW has
the edge.

I'd also note that a good working environment is essential to being
able to put up with sitting in front of Photoshop for any significant
amount of time. A laptop on a rocking chair beside the pool in varying
lighting conditions is far from perfect. A PC in it's own room with
controlled lighting, full-size keyboard, mouse and a high quality
screen in a configuration that's physically comfortable for periods of
3 or 4 hours is a must-have.

--
Owamanga!
http/www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>> It's not really that counter-intuitive, since all it really boils down
>> to is that raising the ISO is better than underexposing, which seems
>> to make sense on its face.
>
> Yes and no. Lots of people think that underexposing is only bad
> because the default render is dark; others think that only past a
> certain threshold is there a problem. What most people would consider a
> "nailed" exposure of a low-contrast subject might be better photographed
> at 4x the ISO with +2 EC, or a low-contrast dark subject even more so.
> The point is, there really is not a compromise when you do so; you don't
> trade quality for speed; you gain it, as long as you don't clip.

There is indeed a compromise, because if +2 EC is warranted, you would
get better results still by doing +2 EC *without* boosting the ISO. So,
it's still the same thing -- not using +2 EC is underexposing, no matter
what ISO you're shooting at.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<snippety snip>
> Yes and no. Lots of people think that underexposing is only bad
> because the default render is dark; others think that only past a
> certain threshold is there a problem. What most people would consider a
> "nailed" exposure of a low-contrast subject might be better photographed
> at 4x the ISO with +2 EC, or a low-contrast dark subject even more so.
> The point is, there really is not a compromise when you do so; you don't
> trade quality for speed; you gain it, as long as you don't clip.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John,

Would you mind starting or continuing this "gone off at a tangent"
discussion as a fresh thread as it's getting quite big now?
I think others would benefit from this.
I am beginning to understand some of the reasoning by the way, but could you
give an example of subject and camera settings please? You see, I was a
believer of lower ISO for better quality and often use exposures of 30
seconds at 100 ISO...

Kind regards,

Craig.

 

[MarkH]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Cheesehead" <dplotusnotes@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1118839571.182699.94400
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> 2. Just shoot. Archive them multiple times. You don't have a neg,
> and if they're at all important, save them with all your efford. DVD
> writers cost a lot less than many cameras.

I have to agree with this, I have trouble finding any camera as cheap as a
Dual-Layer DVD writer that can write + and - R and RW disks. The blank
DVD-R disks also have cost well under a dollar each for a while now.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <DpGdnbHSSMkc2y3fRVn-1w@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Wait a minute, are you saying this works without RAW adjustment?

Of course not, that would make all low-contrast subjects white in the
final output.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11b0pcjgjtb6t82@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>There is indeed a compromise, because if +2 EC is warranted, you would
>get better results still by doing +2 EC *without* boosting the ISO. So,
>it's still the same thing -- not using +2 EC is underexposing, no matter
>what ISO you're shooting at.

That's true if you look at it that way (and that way is only possible
with ample light), but I look at it as f-stop and shutter speed first,
then ISO is just a scaling parameter for the RAW values.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><