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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
|
#527
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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 |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |