DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In article 2007113008124016807%sh@ggydogstoriescouk, Will Ritson
wrote:

Which is part of the reason you are asked (challenged?) to post some
samples. Another aspect is the fact that hyperbole reigns here. I've
read everything from people who have cameras any reasonable person
would be astonished to see the claimed output from (no examples),
"pros" who not only have an inordinate amount of time to spend posting
in a newsgroup (no professional web site to share) and wildlife
photographers who are nothing short of St. Francus with a lens (still
no examples).

I've posted links to my digital images here many times. I don't have
anything from my studio days because I don't have a scanner and am not
selling anything.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:56:52 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

Scott W wrote:
John Navas wrote:

Specular highlights are actually easy to spot on a histogram as a far
brightness spike, whereas burned out highlights are a tail.

Ok, I don't understand the part of burned out highlights
being a tail, why not levels pushed up against the right
side of the histogram?

The spike of course happens if there is a significant
area of high and equal brightness, hence the larger the
area that is actually blown, the more apparent the
spike... but it is apparent *only* if there are no
significant bright areas at just below maximum. If
there are, there is no "spike", and it is impossible to
interpret the histogram (without reducing exposure to see
what the effect is). In other words, it requires time
consuming analysis and is not as good as a blink on over
exposure display for purposes of chimping.

A spike at the right edge of the live histogram graph from clipping of
highlights is an effective over exposure warning that's actually obvious
unless (a) there is too little clipping to matter and/or (b) the image
is so bright (washed out) that the amount of clipping is irrelevant.

That description indicates you don't understand
histograms, and can't analyze them.

(I suspect John has no experience with using this on
a DSLR, and is attempting to project his experience
either using PC software or on a live view display.
Each are a little bit of a different beastie.)

I could say I suspect you have no real experience with using live
histogram on an advanced compact camera like my FZ8, but that wouldn't
be nice either,

What would be wrong with saying that? I have *no*
experience with using something like an FZ8.
None. Zilch. And I don't claim to either.

and might even be as mistaken as you are. I don't lack
dSLR experience -- I just find the live histogram in my FZ8 to be more
useful than a crude warning that's otherwise unhelpful.

You lack appropriate perception of how the tools are
used as it applies to this discussion. If you, on the
other hand, want to discuss how to use "advanced"
compact cameras like your FZ8... go right ahead and I
won't comment at all.

But *that* is not what we are discussing, even if that
is the extent of your experience.

I lose far more
time trying to figure out what a crude warning means than adjusting from
a live histogram. A crude warning is better than nothing, but nowhere
near as useful as a live histogram. Of course, "When all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail."

You don't seem to have much idea what we are talking
about.

The tail happens *only* when there is _insignificant_
area blown *and* only when there are no significant near
maximum bright areas. That pattern does not mean there
are blown highlights, it means that if you do increase
exposure, some small area will be blown.

The tail is actually just a good way to distinguish unimportant specular
highlights (isolated spike) from important burned out highlight detail
(tail).

That is the sort of abjectly false statement about
histograms that causes people trying to learn something
to have problems.

The problem is that in many instances when a histogram
does look the way Navas describes, it is neither assured
that the pattern is produced by blown highlights, or
that blown highlights will produce that pattern. It is
sometimes impossible to know, and often it requires a
bit of study to determine, and of course neither would
be useful for someone wanting to "chimp".

When you learn how to use live histogram effectively, you find it does
very well indeed under a wide range of conditions. No tool is perfect,
of course, but it's far better than not having live histogram. Claiming
that something much more limited is actually better is (as Spock would
say) illogical.

Keep digging that hole for yourself John. Bluster won't
get it in this conversation, because at least a couple
of the people discussing this actually have signficant
understanding of the technical details that goes far
deeper than just this discussion. You aren't going to
fool anyone here with forceful statements of false
facts.

One quick glance at a blink on over exposure display
indicates that exact status. You can practically build
the memory for what to do into the muscles of your hand.
No brain required, it doesn't even get to the spinal
cord!

It actually doesn't tell you much in the way of useful information, so
you have to go through time-consuming gyrations to figure out if it
matters and what to do. Much easier and faster with live histogram.
Even better with zebra pattern.

You've obviously *never* used the type of display we are
talking about.

End of conversation.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:15:41 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:56:52 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

One quick glance at a blink on over exposure display
indicates that exact status. You can practically build
the memory for what to do into the muscles of your hand.
No brain required, it doesn't even get to the spinal
cord!

It actually doesn't tell you much in the way of useful information, so
you have to go through time-consuming gyrations to figure out if it
matters and what to do. Much easier and faster with live histogram.
Even better with zebra pattern.

John do you know what we are talking about with the blink on over
exposure? From what you are saying it would seem that perhaps you
don't, the blink on over exposure show what parts of the image are over
exposed by blinking them, one quick look and you can tell just what
highlights are lost.

Have been lost. The Nikon feature I assume you're talking about is in
*playback* only *after* an image has been taken, not something like live
histogram and zebra patterning on an EVF *before* taking a shot,
responding in near real time to changing light and/or settings.

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Fromhttp://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2005/nov/dh_extragear.shtml:

With digital, the histogram was added. This was a huge benefit for
me, as I could ensure that a scene was properly exposed. Blinking
overexposure warnings also helped, but the histogram gave such a
strong visual reference of under- and overexposure that I found it
invaluable.

Me too.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article , Scott W
wrote:

John do you know what we are talking about with the blink on over
exposure? From what you are saying it would seem that perhaps you
don't, the blink on over exposure show what parts of the image are over
exposed by blinking them, one quick look and you can tell just what
highlights are lost.

We're still trying to figure out just what it is that Navas does know.
So far, the list seems pretty short.

In article , Scott W
wrote:

So when you give statements that your years of experience allow you to
get it right we of course wonder if this is true, or are you another
D-Mac. I simply have not read enough content from you to be able to
tell, hopefully you are not another D-Mac, one is more then enough.

No. Although I'm retired from professional photography, I've done my
best to keep up the skills.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:38:47 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

A spike at the right edge of the live histogram graph from clipping of
highlights is an effective over exposure warning that's actually obvious
unless (a) there is too little clipping to matter and/or (b) the image
is so bright (washed out) that the amount of clipping is irrelevant.

That description indicates you don't understand
histograms, and can't analyze them.

I could say the same of you, but I'm not going to stoop to that level.

I could say I suspect you have no real experience with using live
histogram on an advanced compact camera like my FZ8, but that wouldn't
be nice either,

What would be wrong with saying that? I have *no*
experience with using something like an FZ8.
None. Zilch. And I don't claim to either.

Yet you presume to critique how it works.

and might even be as mistaken as you are. I don't lack
dSLR experience -- I just find the live histogram in my FZ8 to be more
useful than a crude warning that's otherwise unhelpful.

You lack appropriate perception of how the tools are
used as it applies to this discussion. ...

2nd insult. I'm done with this message.

End of conversation.

Amen.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:51:29 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:

On Nov 30, 9:43 am, John Navas wrote:

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Since I am the one who owns both a compact camear, with a live
histogram, and a DSLR, I have both a hammer and a wrench, whereas you
have only a hammer and want to tell us that this does not limit you at
all.

Then why are you defending the hammer when the job calls for a wrench?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:05:28 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:

On Nov 30, 10:00 am, John Navas wrote:

Then why are you defending the hammer when the job calls for a wrench?

Seems to me you have that backwards.

No matter how hard you try to profess superiority, we simply have
different opinions that aren't going to be resolved here by any amount
of back and forth. We should just be able to respectfully disagree, but
you seem unable to afford me the same respect I afford you.
rhetorical Why is that? /rhetorical

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:55:54 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

acl wrote:

On Nov 30, 7:15 pm, Scott W wrote:

I found this line from Navas' post brilliant:
Claiming
that something much more limited is actually better is (as Spock would
say) illogical.

Navas, you are a godsend! You make my short breaks from work much more
enjoyable. Thank you!

Someday John is going to study a bit of photography and look back at
what he has been posting and be shocked.

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become great." -Mark Twain

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:51:29 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:

On Nov 30, 9:43 am, John Navas wrote:

"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Since I am the one who owns both a compact camear, with a live
histogram, and a DSLR, I have both a hammer and a wrench, whereas you
have only a hammer and want to tell us that this does not limit you at
all.

Then why are you defending the hammer when the job calls for a wrench?

The job is calling for a marlin spike!

Peace, out.

--
john mcwilliams