A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Put away wet - Why?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 20th 08, 12:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Doug Jewell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Put away wet - Why?

Jurgen wrote:

High ISO most definitely compresses dynamic range. Setting your in
camera contrast high (or even normal with a Nikon) will do it too. Nikon
were so concerned about the effect on their CCD cameras (like the D60)
they included a "D lighting" feature to overcome it.

I believe Canon also introduced a Highlight preservation feature with
the 40D but that one is sort of self defeating because it forces the
camera to 200 ISO which itself compresses the dynamic range.

Not quite. The highlight preservation mode on the 40D and
some other canon cameras doesn't quite work that way. Even
though the minimum ISO is 200, it still applies the same
sensor gain that they have at ISO 100 in normal mode. What
they do is then underexpose by 1 stop (hence ISO 200 - it is
using the same exposure that ISO 200 would). They then apply
a different curve to the JPG conversion that compresses the
extra stop of highlight detail that is recorded, and lifts
the shadows. The net result is that the image has the same
dynamic range as a normal mode ISO100 shot, but more of that
range is above neutral grey than would be without the
highlight priority.

With the Nikon cameras, you can get a very similar effect by
underexposing by 1 stop and then applying the D-Lighting
function. Prior to getting my Canon 450, I did a similar
thing with my GX10 - nearly every shot I took with it I had
-1 exposure dialled in, and then put a custom curve on them
in photoshop.

I find I almost always use highlight priority mode - the
extra highlight rangeis very useful when shooting outdoors,
where in normal mode you'd get blown highlights with clouds,
people in white clothing, white animals/birds etc.



You might try flattening the in camera contrast and pulling the exposure
half a stop. I suspect a decent circular polariser will help too. You
can put back the contrast in post processing after you do something
about the highlights.

Yep - and pulling the exposure is exactly what the Canon
highlight priority mode does, although it hides the
complexity. I think highlight priority is really where the
exposure level should be for a digital sensor. I have used a
fair variety of Canon, Nikon & Pentax/Samsung cameras and
every one of them has clipped the highlights excessively in
any scene with moderate contrast. I found that for almost
all outdoors shots, -1 compensation needed to be dialled in
to get acceptable results (with subsequent ajudstment to
lift the mid's and shadows). With the highlight priority
mode that is no longer necessary - I can now shoot a scene
with only occasional adjustments to the in-camera metering,
and without need to tweak the shadows/mids afterwards.

  #22  
Old December 20th 08, 01:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Jurgen[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default Put away wet - Why?

Doug Jewell wrote:


With the
highlight priority mode that is no longer necessary - I can now shoot a
scene with only occasional adjustments to the in-camera metering, and
without need to tweak the shadows/mids afterwards.


To me it seems like all these patches trying to tame highlights are
circling the issue of poor sensor design. One of my cameras (Fujifilm s5
Pro) uses dual sensors to address the problem. Not many scenes I come
across that can't be captured cleanly with this camera. Pity is has
other shortcomings!
  #23  
Old December 20th 08, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Doug Jewell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Highlight Priority Modes (was Put away wet - Why?)

Jurgen wrote:
Doug Jewell wrote:


With the
highlight priority mode that is no longer necessary - I can now shoot
a scene with only occasional adjustments to the in-camera metering,
and without need to tweak the shadows/mids afterwards.


To me it seems like all these patches trying to tame highlights are
circling the issue of poor sensor design.


Yes and no. I firmly believe that pre-40D, DSLRs (and
compacts too), put the wrong curve on the images. As we all
know, compared to film, digital has less highlight range,
but much more shadow range. Even traditionally tough films
like Velvia could hold highlights better than digital
cameras. Added to that, when film does roll over into blown
highlights, it does so with far more grace than your typical
digital.
Before highlight priority mode, I found the only way I could
get acceptible scenics was to underexpose and then apply a
different curve. This compressing of highlights resulted in
a more film-like image, and dare I say it, a more
human-eye-like response, than what the standard
auto-exposure image would. Because of the very good shadow
depth of digital, lifting the shadows in this way doesn't
significantly hurt the image - yes they become a little
noisier, but again, that is more film-like, and again in a
bright scene the human eye doesn't do a wonderful job of
picking up shadows anyway.

Since the 40D, more and more cameras have started doing
things like highlight priority mode - the Pentax/Samsung 20D
does it now as well. I think ultimately, time will prove
that applying this type of curve to an image is a better way
of generating images than the previous system.

I know Sony and Nikon have had Dynamic-Range-Optimiser and
D-Lighting since before the 40D - although to get these
functions to deliver similar results to highlight-priority
does require a negative exposure compensation at time of
shooting.

One of my cameras (Fujifilm s5
Pro) uses dual sensors to address the problem. Not many

scenes I come
across that can't be captured cleanly with this camera.

Pity is has
other shortcomings!

The main shortcoming I noticed with the S5 was it's speed,
or complete lack of, whenever the extended range function
was turned on. The concept of variable-sized photo-sites is
an interesting one, and one I'm surprised more sensor
manufacturers haven't explored. An S5 sensor, backed up with
a decent processor such as Digic, would really make for a
good camera - as long as they put an EOS mount on it :-P
  #24  
Old December 20th 08, 11:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Highlight Priority Modes (was Put away wet - Why?)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:07:08 +1000, Doug Jewell wrote:

The main shortcoming I noticed with the S5 was it's speed,
or complete lack of, whenever the extended range function
was turned on. The concept of variable-sized photo-sites is
an interesting one, and one I'm surprised more sensor
manufacturers haven't explored. An S5 sensor, backed up with
a decent processor such as Digic, would really make for a
good camera - as long as they put an EOS mount on it :-P


An EOS mount wouldn't be needed, since if it was put in a new
Nikon DSLR (which uses the same F mount as the S# Pro bodies) it
would also make for a good, speedy camera, and which could be at
least as fast as Canon's fastest, and wouldn't require S5 Pro owners
to have to buy a new set of lenses. By your reply can we assume
that you own a Canon DSLR and would like to have a new Canon body
using Fuji's sensor technology, and don't want to have to start
purchasing Nikkor lenses? There's nothing wrong with Fuji
licensing that technology to any other manufacturer that want to use
it, but my guess is that either Fuji would be unwilling or that the
other manufacturers wouldn't have much interest in developing
something that wasn't proprietary.

  #25  
Old December 21st 08, 08:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Doug Jewell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default Highlight Priority Modes (was Put away wet - Why?)

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:07:08 +1000, Doug Jewell wrote:

The main shortcoming I noticed with the S5 was it's speed,
or complete lack of, whenever the extended range function
was turned on. The concept of variable-sized photo-sites is
an interesting one, and one I'm surprised more sensor
manufacturers haven't explored. An S5 sensor, backed up with
a decent processor such as Digic, would really make for a
good camera - as long as they put an EOS mount on it :-P


An EOS mount wouldn't be needed, since if it was put in a new
Nikon DSLR (which uses the same F mount as the S# Pro bodies) it
would also make for a good, speedy camera, and which could be at
least as fast as Canon's fastest, and wouldn't require S5 Pro owners
to have to buy a new set of lenses. By your reply can we assume
that you own a Canon DSLR and would like to have a new Canon body
using Fuji's sensor technology, and don't want to have to start
purchasing Nikkor lenses? There's nothing wrong with Fuji
licensing that technology to any other manufacturer that want to use
it, but my guess is that either Fuji would be unwilling or that the
other manufacturers wouldn't have much interest in developing
something that wasn't proprietary.

Well yes I'm an EOS user, but my comment about EOS mount was
more tongue in cheek than anything.
Although I'm sure it would open up their potential sales
quite a lot more if it was built on a Canon body rather than
Nikon (or better yet, a version for each). Not sure about
your part of the world, but around these parts the vast
majority of the S5's target audience (wedding photogs) are
Canon based.
Supposedly Nikon hold about 40% market share - they must be
all tucked away safe and sound in studios or schools
somewhere, because I hardly ever see them in the wild. See
as much (if not more) Pentax in the wild than Nikon. Canon
are by far the more common cameras to see in the wild.

  #26  
Old December 21st 08, 06:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Put away wet - Why?

Mark Thomas wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Jurgen wrote:

Is that not the same as a lens reflecting light brighter (more heat)
than that which enters it? Make each hair a micro lens and light gets
reflected at a higher rate than the light being absorbed by darker
areas.


Each hair and water droplet is convex and would scatter reflected
light, not focus it. Microlenses focus light passing through them and
out their convex or flat side, not reflecting off of them.

In fact what is happening is that the wet hair produces a fairly even
surface (surface tension) that acts like a mirror and produces the
specular reflection.

In sum, there is certainly less light reflected off of the horsehair
than light arriving on the horsehair - so your "" reflecting light
brighter (heat) than that which enters it "" is certainly not holding
water.

Indeed. And the specularity (?) of the reflections is backed up by the
relatively small areas that have the 'problem' - the water is obviously
sheeting off the fur and providing a mirror like surface that only
causes a problem where the angle of the sun is just right, just like
sunlight reflecting off the sea. You can't really 'control' such
highlights in a typical scene.

I think a lot more is being made of the problem than needs to be


You get 100 points for that line.

- it's
a scene with a huge dynamic range, well in excess of what the sensor
(any sensor) could handle. So you have only got two options, given that
hdr isn't really applicable:

1. Reduce the problem - a polariser might have helped a *little*, but
these are *very* strong reflections of the sun! *It would probably have
helped other parts of the image however*. If you haven't used one much,
do so! I'm a polariser fan, and believe they should be on for all
sunlit shots between 10am and 2pm for latitudes 45°!! This one might
be just outside that range, but I'd consider an exception... (O:


Hard to say how it could help or hinder.

2. Bring the exposure down. But you would likely have just blocked up
the shadows and the highlights would look similar anyway - the edges
might have looked a tad better. Being *hyper*critical and just judging
from the crop I would guess that maybe 2/3-1 stop less exposure would
have kept most shadow detail and given a slightly better result, but
frankly I think you (or the camera) did quite well with that compromise,
and the shot looks quite good to me, given the circumstances.


This is yet another reason why pros shoot in outdoor direct sunlight
with scrims to reduce the DR on the subject. And why movies are mainly
shot on negative film.

As for "Jurgen" (O:, I would love to see a link for his assertion that
the water on fur will 'microlense' in some way that refocuses the light
to increase its intensity. I'm sure there is an article on this
somewhere, "Jurgen"???


I think once made clear to him that you can't microlense in reflection
off of convex surfaces he sorta figured it out.

Like Alan says, it is just specular reflection.


Neither alone nor first in that opinion.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.