 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / December 2007D300 lightning
Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all pictures I took with sky in it, specially against the sun, were much too dark. I used Matrix metering and 14 bit RAW lossless compressed. The sky and clouds were OK, but shouldn't it be more "balanced"? Or do you have to use Active D-Lightning all the time with a sky? Maybe it's because of the new 14 bit RAW? This is without modification: http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but maybe I'm doing something wrong?  SignatureSosumi That's pretty good Sosumi. I cannot see any blown or clipped highlights. All things considered I think the camera did an excellent shot. I think active D-lighting would have done better, but I think photoshop would do a better and more controlled output than D-lighting. Cheers Ron > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing > went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? What the camera is doing is adjusting for what would have been blown highlights in the sky, that's what matrix metering does it gives you an average over the entire image. If you want to expose for boats or seagulls or whatever was in front of the sky, you need to spot meter on those things, but then you will blow out the sky. The camera has enough dynamic range to pull up the darker areas then you are better to get it how you did, then pull the darks back up in photoshop or capture or whatever. Remember: You can usually get something out of an underexposed image, but there is nothing in a blown highlight. Even better yet, try to shoot with the sun to your back, it will reduce the blown sunlit areas Keep shooting. Mick Brown On 10/12/07 10:19 PM, in article QuudnehqV71HvcDaRVnygQA@novis.pt, "Sosumi" <sosumi@home.nl> wrote: > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went > pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went > pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? Download Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) and run the original RAW file through it. >Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went >pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but >maybe I'm doing something wrong? Fascinating image. And great for all sorts of things to learn too! I would (with a D2x, before the D300/D3 models) have used manual exposure, and I'd probably have purposely allowed the sky to blow out a little in the upper right of the image. As it is, you've just about nailed the exposure perfectly to give maximum dynamic range. That is, there are only a couple of spots, right up on the top edge, that are right at maximum brightness, and everything else is less. The significance is that before the D300 and D3 models, we perhaps didn't quite have the same dynamic range (this is still open to debate as we see how well the 14 bit mode works). So while with a D2x I probably would have sacrificed a little more of the sky to blown highlights in order to get more out of the darker areas, with a D300 and even more so with a D3 it is perhaps best to shoot it *exactly* as you did. Eveyone has a different work flow for processing images, and I'm not really familiar with the software that you use. The trick, whether you do it with the RAW converter or with an editor afterwards, is to adjust the gamma curve for both slope and linearity. With your image (and this would probably be *much* better if not being done with a JPEG intermediate file the way I looked at it) can be adjusted to look very nice. But let me suggest something you may not have considered doing. I was trying to mask off different brightness levels so that I could tell how much of the sky was blown, and in the process noticed how nice that image takes to such things as transforming it to a very high contrast black and white image. If the threshold is set just right, the waves on the water in the distance come out, and it just simply looks neat! Try posterizing it in color too. Perhaps different software will make it look different, but with even numbers of levels (4, 6, 8, 10) it really looked interesting! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing >>went [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Active D-Lightning all the time with a sky? >>Maybe it's because of the new 14 bit RAW? Both you and the camera did the right thing, producing a RAW image capturing all the information needed to achieve the optimum final result with what you shot. RAW is exactly that - a raw starting point, so don't expect it to be perfect without further input on your part later. I've taken to shooting with the RAW + JPEG option, which provides a useful visual reference (i.e. the JPEG) to how the scene looked. IMHO letting any highlights blow out defeats the whole point of shooting in RAW - but others are welcome to feel differently, of course. RM >>>Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing >>>went [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >IMHO letting any highlights blow out defeats the whole point of shooting in >RAW - but others are welcome to feel differently, of course. If the camera can record a 10.5 fstop dynamic range, and a scene has a 14 fstop dynamic range (some times a bright sunny outdoor scene can have 20 fstops), you can take your pick of which end to lose, but the fact is you *will* lose it. It is of course often most useful to lose an fstop or so in the highlights. That is very common with bright cloudy skies, any light source such as an electric light or a reflection. By the same token there are times when the shadows simply do not have information that contributes to a good photograph, and the highlights do. Sunsets are the most common example of that. Another place where the dynamic range is so obviously beyond that of a camera is either outside looking into a house (where everything will be too dark), or inside looking outside (where everything will be too bright). The point of shooting in RAW is that you do have all of the range the camera was able to record, whatever it was and whichever way (up or down) it was biased. The JPEG conversion process loses some of that range, but it does *not* shift it up or down as such. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went >pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but >maybe I'm doing something wrong? This is where learning to become a real photographer and taking control of your camera becomes more important than raving about being a good snap-shooter and buying cameras based on all their automatic POINT & SHOOT features. You'll figure it out. Someday. Or not. Your kind, the kind that buys a fully automated DSLR so you can brag about being a good snap-shooter with an expensive P&S camera, rarely do figure it out. I suggest you sign up for some community-education classes in basic photography skills. Or switch to a better P&S camera with more capable automatic features than that DSLR of yours. Since you don't know the first thing about photography you clearly need help of some kind. You most certainly didn't get what you paid for, that's clear. >>http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > paid > for, that's clear. I really don't think he deserved this kind of abusive response; he was simply asking for help and guidance in what ought to be the right place. Others have been more generous in their reactions, and at least he asked... Don't rise to him, Sosumi ;-) RM >>>http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >RM Great, so you're all going to teach him how to become dependent on his automatic P&S features of his overpriced POS camera instead of teaching him how to become a real photographer one day. It is YOU and all just like you that are disrespecting him and doing him a grave disservice. Just teach him how to be a happy auto-snapshooter! That's all he'll ever need if he buys a camera that can do it all for him! Right? You people are total morons, without even a glimmer of knowing what it takes to be a real photographer someday. > You people are total morons, without even a glimmer of knowing what it takes to > be a real photographer someday. Think again, fucktard. : >Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing went : >pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that practically all [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] : you clearly need help of some kind. You most certainly didn't get what you paid : for, that's clear. I don't know where you came from, but this newsgroup already has enough pompous a.ses. Why don't you just mosey on down the road? Bob > Your kind, the kind that buys a fully automated DSLR so you can brag about being > a good snap-shooter with an expensive P&S camera, rarely do figure it out. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you clearly need help of some kind. You most certainly didn't get what you paid > for, that's clear. There is a difference between being a technical geek and a photographer. You can capture great images without knowing much more than how to press the shutter button, if you have a good eye for a picture. You can know everything ever written about the theory and practice of photography, but you will never take a good picture unless you have that eye for the picture. So up yours too! In article <517a62cf-5740-4c32-bab8-a0528d0dfa27@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Your kind, the kind that buys a fully automated DSLR so you can brag about > > being [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > practice of photography, but you will never take a good picture unless > you have that eye for the picture. So up yours too! There's another 'type' that grates on me. I often encounter people who want to engage in conversation after spotting me with a Nikon. This goes back to Nikon F days, and continues today. I usually don't want to chat when I'm thinking about shooting, but I'm not antisocial and try to be polite. It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after having "known" me for ninety seconds, and without any inquiry about what KIND of photography I like to do. Even worse are the geeks who only seem interested in the dollar value of equipment. "Oooh, a Nikon! Those are expensive, huh!" That happened a few times when my wife and I were doing street photography, nobody paying attention to her classic M3 which was worth a lot more, just discreetly so. But the worst, THE worst, are people who get on a soapbox about the evils of Photoshop. Kidding. Signature"It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) > But the worst, THE worst, are people who get on a soapbox about the > evils of Photoshop. Only if they try to pass their garbage and excrement off as photographs. Rita >> But the worst, THE worst, are people who get on a soapbox about the >> evils of Photoshop. > > Only if they try to pass their garbage and excrement off as photographs. The worst are the four-flushers, who spew daily both the above, and put forward crackpot theories with nothing but book learning to rely on. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why > they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Kidding. Yeah... I know the type. Just the other day I was sitting quietly with my laptop while I waited for the tide to come in and this guy came up and started lecturing me about using Photoshop and the evils of digital cameras. Probably because I had a camera on a tripod that was tethered to the laptop... Shooting RAW would not have got the shots I need to finish that particular assignment! (Kidding too!) The tide came in, I missed the pelicans and told him in no uncertain terms he'd stuffed my day and he got the sh.ts! Douglas >> It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why >> they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Douglas your a real "People Person" aren't you Douggie :-) Its a wonder you haven't ended up on the bottom of the nearest stretch of deep water with chains around your ankles, with your l33t social skills SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? >>> It's a huge turnoff to me when gadget freaks want to lecture me on why >>> they think their 50/1.4 is really a better choice than my 50/1.8 after [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Its a wonder you haven't ended up on the bottom of the nearest stretch > of deep water with chains around your ankles, with your l33t social skills Hahaha Missed the pelicans. Poor Dogless can't do two things as once. What you want me to talk and take photos at the same time. hahahaha I think Dog's day was stuff when his eyes opened and he realised he was still alive. > There is a difference between being a technical geek and a > photographer. You can capture great images without knowing much more > than how to press the shutter button, if you have a good eye for a > picture. You can know everything ever written about the theory and > practice of photography, but you will never take a good picture unless > you have that eye for the picture. So up yours too! BRAVO! Or a person that can't take an image worth sh.t and create an animation is PS. Rita >> There is a difference between being a technical geek and a >> photographer. You can capture great images without knowing much more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rita There are some people born with an ability to see a correctly composed scene almost from birth. My grand daughter (11yo) hasn't a clue what the rule of thirds is yet the pictures she takes with her cell phone all contain essential elements like that rule. Technically the shots are crap but they sure are interesting pictures of everyday subjects seen differently. Douglas >> BRAVO! Or a person that can't take an image worth sh.t and create an >> animation is PS. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the shots are crap but they sure are interesting pictures of everyday > subjects seen differently. Rules are meant to be broken! If she's happy with the final image that's all that matters. You should have her post some images so she can show some of these misfits and wannabes how it is done. Just keep her away from Photoshop since I don't want your favorite troll having a nervous breakdown from being shown up by an 11-year old. Rita >>> BRAVO! Or a person that can't take an image worth sh.t and create an >>> animation is PS. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita It seems Rita, my #1 favourite troll is taking a break from teaching our kids (thank heaven) and gone on holidays. Bret's not my troll, he's my bitch! Douglas > This is without modification: > > http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG > > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? I take it that you did not use D-Lighting with this picture? D-Lighting is supposed to preserve highlights and brighten shadows in high contrast situations like this. If it was on, the boats should appear to be exposed normally and there should be few, if any, blown highlights in the sky. Capture NX also uses D-Lighting, which is why the picture appears fine there -- the D-Lighting brings up the shadow details while maintaining the highlights. I don't think you can make a blanket statement and say that D-Lighting should be used whenever there is a lot of sky in the picture. Sometimes you want silhouettes or rim lighting on your subject and D-Lighting would defeat those. D-Lighting is just one more tool for you to use as you see fit. Since you are the one with the D300, perhaps you could conduct some experiments in similar situations, with the D-Lighting on and with it off, so that you can what the difference was, and also post the results so that we can see in what way it is different than the D-Lighting in Capture NX. When D-Lighting was first introduced in Capture it was not well-received, as it tended to reduce contrast far too much. Besides, D-Lighting did nothing that you could not replicate using Curves in Photoshop and the whole concept reminded Photoshop users of the rather heavy-handed shadow/highlights tools which were so universally panned until the advent of CS3. However, later versions D-Lighting (and CS3's shadow/highlight) are not so heavy-handed and I find that I actually use it once in awhile and like the results. Some have questioned whether it was necessary to build D-Lighting into the camera; I think it is mostly useful for people who want D-Lighting but who do not want to include Capture NX in their work flow. I probably would not use D-Lighting both in-camera and in Capture NX. Doubling the correction that way would probably reduce contrast unacceptably. You might still want to make some tweaks with curves after applying D-Lighting. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor What I really find interesting is all the software available to make our "SNAPS" look better. What ever happened to the knowledge behind the camera and the camera itself.......any comments?????? > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing > went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? : What I really find interesting is all the software available to make our : "SNAPS" look better. What ever happened to the knowledge behind the camera : and the camera itself.......any comments?????? Since you ask, yeah: Your question looks like a troll, and I don't find it interesting. Bob > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing > went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? Sorry to not answer everyone personally, but thank you all for your nice comments and advice. I went out shooting today, this time a perfectly white church with crooked walls. Now I understand, that the pictures are taken very good and when I look in at the screen, all looks perfect (I had my glasses on). But when I download them to the computer, all of them are much to dark. The white has turned to dark beige and the blue sky has turned to nighttime !! I've had the D40, D40x and the D80, but none had this problem. I called the tech boys from Nikon UK and they were as much surprised as I was. So now I'm going to upload a file or 2 so they can see what is right or wrong. I also tried to download the pictures different with explorer and Adobe Downloader, but nothing changes. Even JPG's are too dark. So I'll keep you posted what happens. Thanks again. SignatureSosumi Sosumi, if you are interested, and post a raw image somewhere I would like to see it and try processing it. You can email me a link at my GMail address. ~Ray >> Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. >> Focusing went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > So I'll keep you posted what happens. > Thanks again. >Sosumi, if you are interested, and post a raw image somewhere I would >like to see it and try processing it. You can email me a link at my >GMail address. ~Ray Heavens, post it publicly where others can play with it too! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >Sosumi, if you are interested, and post a raw image somewhere I would > >like to see it and try processing it. You can email me a link at my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com I just went to the original jpg and put it into my MS DIP 10 Pro image editor and selected all below the skyline and lightened that area and then did a bit of burning to the upper RH corner and some in the lightened areas of the water and thus got a bit more contrasty image whereas I felt the original lacked a bit of snap to the image and gave amore dull effect than perhaps was needed. The gloomy dull effect was not lost but it did have more detail in the shadows and the color portions of the image appeared better to my eye. you guys that work with RAW images and layers will likely make better an more exciting results. > pictures with sky in it were much too dark --- Sosumi, When I look at that picture, I see almost perfect 18% gray exposure. It will look dark until you open it up and work with the controls of your raw converter. And then you will start to see it come to life. I have made similar photographs with 10 to 12 f/stops. I opened the pictures several times with different settings in the raw converter and made layered images. Then I selected out the properly exposed parts from each layyer to mmake the final images. The results can be stunning - a gorgeous sunset against a beautiful and active foreground, for example. We would never have gotten these with film - there's just no way to create a custom neutral density filter in real time. You will be delighted with the camera. BTW, I am shooting RAW + small-fine-JPG settings now. I can give clients the JPG for preview or FPO and tune the RAW image to perfection once they have chosen their favorite picture. Happy Shooting, ~Ray > This is without modification: > > http://houses-in-portugal.com/Under1.JPG > > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? Getting proper exposure with a bright overcast sky is always a challenge. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/81330919 BTW, what is this D-Lightning? Does the Lightning work in sunshine or only on stormy days? > Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing > went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course, after using NX Capture, you get beautiful pictures anyway, but > maybe I'm doing something wrong? Active matrix metering is the reason for the dark scene. The sensor does not have enough dynamic range to capture a scene like this so when you meter for it, you need to meter so the highlights are not blown away and post process to lift the shadows. This is what Matrix metering does -- meters for the highlights The only issue with doing this is that as you "lift the shadows" you are effectively increasing the ISO in dark areas and if you have to lift them far enough, noise will be a serious issue and you'll damage the picture with it. It is an Ultra simple procedure in Photoshop afterwards to use the "shadow/highlights" tool to fix that image. Even Photoshop elements 2.0 can fix that scene with 3 mouse clicks using auto levels. No RAW capture needed. In fact RAW capture is for those who can't use a camera properly. In the "good old days" if you didn't get it right in the camera, you'd lost it, Photographer's didn't need RAW. They instinctively knew what was needed to capture a scene or learnt real quick. RAW capture when high quality JPEG is available only allows you to get slack and use hit-and-miss methods of photography that you may or may not be able to patch up later with software. If you were to use "area average" metering the whole scene would be metered. Some highlights might be blown and some shadows blocked but the average of the scene would be reproduced and it would look OK (average). This sort of scene is crying out for HDR (hi dynamic range) where three photos are blended to get a correctly exposed scene. I might suggest for those interested that a Fuji s5 (D200 with HDR sensor) can capture the whole scene without the need for post processing. It must piss Adobe right off that 90% of the use for Photoshop is done away with when you build a camera with dual sensor sites! The D300 is a very nice camera but it has a CCD sensor with only single sensor sites and these are limited by the laws of physics in the range of contrast they can read. As you become more familiar with your camera you will discover the value of a histogram and possibly graduated neutral density filters for such scenes. Or maybe you'll be like 95% of the other DSLR users on the planet and forget about photography in the belief Photoshop will always be there to catch you when you fall. Douglas >> Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing >> went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >"shadow/highlights" tool to fix that image. Even Photoshop elements 2.0 can >fix that scene with 3 mouse clicks using auto levels. Mostly good up until this point... (not sure that matrix metering meters for highlights though, I thought it meters from many points evenly across an entire scene, 1,005 R, G and B ones in a D300 to be precise, and uses preset algorithms to try and determine exposure). >No RAW capture needed. >In fact RAW capture is for those who can't use a camera properly. This is where I'll bite. Disagree strongly. Film photography relied on balanced exposure to ensure that the right number of photons hit the film at the back of the camera, how you processed it determined the final output. RAW is no different and opens up all kinds of "what if..." possibilities in PP that were not accessible to film photographers who didn't happen to possess their own darkroom equipment. You still need to get the basics right to avoid screwing up the RAW data in the first place. GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out - is true. Anyway - "No RAW capture needed"? What's the camera doing before it interprets the RAW data and writes a JPEG file? All RAW capture does is intercepts the data flow at an earlier point in the process, the camera's going to capture RAW milliseconds after the shutter closes whether you like it or not. In fact it could be argued that saving RAW and working with it later on is a more pure form of photography because you're working with the unadulterated information that the sensor "saw" rather than the camera firmware's interpretation of it! >In the "good old days" if you didn't get it right in the camera, you'd lost >it, Photographer's didn't need RAW. They instinctively knew what was needed >to capture a scene or learnt real quick. Instincively knew? Or years of experience and $$$ down the drain on the stuff that didn't work out? Anyway, anybody with a camera is a photographer, like anybody at the wheel of a car is a driver. They just have different levels of skill and experience. >RAW capture when high quality JPEG >is available only allows you to get slack and use hit-and-miss methods of >photography that you may or may not be able to patch up later with software. The JPEG output from any digital camera is only one combination of post-capture parameters from myriad possibilities. Are you saying that if I told my camera to totally oversaturate when converting to JPEG that it must be right because it's not RAW, despite the fact that the reds and greens look like they're straight out of 1970s wallpaper catalogue? >If you were to use "area average" metering the whole scene would be metered. >Some highlights might be blown and some shadows blocked but the average of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >off that 90% of the use for Photoshop is done away with when you build a >camera with dual sensor sites! That camera certainly looks interesting, but I don't think Adobe are sweating just yet. The one review/test I read didn't rate it highly but I admit I haven't actually read any others or seen sample images for myself. >The D300 is a very nice camera but it has a CCD sensor CMOS, but that's splitting hairs. >with only single >sensor sites and these are limited by the laws of physics in the range of >contrast they can read. As you become more familiar with your camera you >will discover the value of a histogram and possibly graduated neutral >density filters for such scenes. I'd rather shoot RAW, convert twice, mask the (often uneven) areas I want to adjust and choose my own gradation than be limited by a straight line and fixed gradation. But horses for courses. >Or maybe you'll be like 95% of the other DSLR users on the planet and forget >about photography in the belief Photoshop will always be there to catch you >when you fall. That's a very sweeping generalisation! As a relative noob to DSLRs myself I read that as a very snobbish comment, even if that isn't how it's intended. 100% of the DSLR noobs I know (5 close friends, 5 work colleagues) are intent on shooting, learning, shooting some more, learning some more, and so on. I'll get off my soapbox now and get back to lurking :) Jake SignatureAddress munged but valid - remove mungbeans. >>> Yesterday I was shooting some seagulls and boats in a harbor. Focusing >>> went pretty good, although I'm still learning. But I noticed that [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > Jake Basically Jake... I don't have a problem with your opinion ...It'll work right up until I come to the wall. Which wall? The one where I need to process 1200 images from 2 weddings each and every week for 8 months of the year. Then I get super peeved when my shooters defy my instructions and shoots RAW because "I can do it better this way" or some similar excuse. For those who want a dozen or so photos from a hundred or so they took on an outing and have no time restraints, the use of Photoshop to fiddle around with their images is fine. When I go off to do landscapes or seascapes or decide to get imaginative in the studio, I too shoot RAW and fiddle in Photoshop. Olympus seem to have figured out the JPEG thing way better than any other camera maker thus far. Their "RAW" images are basically TIFF files and high quality JPEG capture is as close to lossless jpeg as you'll get. From my experience with Nikon DSLRs used at Rural Press (Australia's regional newspapers) who have used Nikon DSLR ever since they moved to digital... Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition of colours than doing the post process thing. I have regularly made enlargements of 24" x 36" from D70 and D100 images captured in JPEG and saved at 60% by the camera with better results than similar images taken with the other brand. Since the RAW option became available and software tools for manipulation of images targeted this method of capture, there has been some controversy in the newspaper industry as to what constitutes a fraudulent image. In fact in some quarters, the recording of RAW images is forbidden, as is post processing in Photoshop by the photographer. Camera originals have to match the published version. I don't detect any less quality in the magazine images I know come from publishers who forbid the use of RAW than those who don't care. A small point perhaps but it avoids fraud in reportage. As for the s5? It is a wedding photographer's camera. It really isn't my camera of choice for anything else because it has a fairly narrow usefulness. It excels at what I need it for - Dynamic range. Getting max detail in a white dress AND a black suit in blazing sunlight. No other camera I have used is this good at this task. Nice to read an opinion (yours) without condemnation of someone else's. Douglas > Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition > of colours than doing the post process thing. This is of course totally false and I hope someone looking for real information ignores this. Regardless of shooting JPEG or RAW, the camera records the image as RAW data. For JPEG, "in-camera" processing is then applied to this RAW data and the RAW data is then discarded and the JPEG image saved. For RAW, no processing is applied in-camera and the RAW data is stored for later processing by stand alone software. The manufacturer's RAW processing software is capable of producing identical results to that achieved in-camera, by applying the very same algorithms. Third party software is also capable of producing the same results and often these can even be better than the manufacturer's, thanks to improved algorithms or more advanced conversion features. The above statement could only be made by one who is incapable of applying the RAW conversion process successfully. >> Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful >> rendition of colours than doing the post process thing. > > This is of course totally false and I hope someone looking for real > information ignores this. Regardless of shooting JPEG or RAW, the > camera records the image as RAW data. Utter and clueless bullshit at best! Who cares about meaningless semantics? Get it right in camera and it's not an issue for your targeted audience. As Doug said he's trying to deliver 1,200 images and run a fucken business, not play dicking around in Photoshop for three days correcting an image that could have been shot right in camera.. > For JPEG, "in-camera" processing is then applied to this RAW data and > the RAW data is then discarded and the JPEG image saved. Again semantics and doesn't mean sh.t to the baboon with a boil on its a.s. > For RAW, no processing is applied in-camera and the RAW data is stored > for later processing by stand alone software. The manufacturer's RAW [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can even be better than the manufacturer's, thanks to improved > algorithms or more advanced conversion features. Again semantics and doesn't mean sh.t to the kangaroo with a genital wart on its nutsack. > The above statement could only be made by one who is incapable of > applying the RAW conversion process successfully. Nope, target audience. Some people find it necessary to spend endless hours in Photoshop for the sake impressing newsgroup idiots while trying to correct crap that should have been scrapped. That's why you buy a 40D and use a keygen for CS3 to correct the excrement it produces. Rita > >> Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful > >> rendition of colours than doing the post process thing. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > play dicking around in Photoshop for three days correcting an image that > could have been shot right in camera.. > > For JPEG, "in-camera" processing is then applied to this RAW data and > > the RAW data is then discarded and the JPEG image saved. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Rita A lovely response full of useful information about baboons and nutsacks... that will certainly come in handy thankyou. But if you bother to READ THE f.cking COMMENT that I posted, you will see that I was referring to the statement "Shooting in High Quality JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition of colours than doing the post process thing." What's the matter are the Nikon lenses fogged today and you can't see the text, or did you just forget to clean them after you last removed them from "downstairs"? > But if you bother to READ THE f.cking COMMENT that I posted, you will > see that I was referring to the statement "Shooting in High Quality > JPEG is more likely to record a faithful rendition of colours than > doing the post process thing." I did and all that you presented was a weak attempt to split a hair that wasn't there and argue with Doug for the sake of arguing. What's the matter can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with the JPG statement is you are getting a more accurate rendition of what the camera sees as being actually there and not what you perceive to see and piss it away in post. His point is valid. Rita > > But if you bother to READ THE f.cking COMMENT that I posted, you will > > see that I was referring to the statement "Shooting in High Quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I did and all that you presented was a weak attempt to split a hair that > wasn't there and argue with Doug for the sake of arguing. > What's the matter > can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with the JPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita Must have those Nikons lenses clean now, cause you are reading between the lines! lol Again, read my comment.... I did say that the RAW app can do exactly what the camera does, so your "perception" argument is mute. >> What's the matter >> can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Must have those Nikons lenses clean now, cause you are reading between > the lines! lol They're shining like new money! > Again, read my comment.... I did say that the RAW app can do exactly > what the camera does, so your "perception" argument is mute. Not mute at all. You're adding another step in the chain that is unnecessary. If you can't get it right in-camera than you should hang it up. Then again, you might like to waste time in Photoshop correcting mistakes that could have been avoided before clicking the shutter. Rita > >> What's the matter > >> can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Rita Is it that hard to understand that it is possible to get it right in camera regardless of if you are shooting RAW or JPEG, and that there is no need to waste time in PS if one elects not to?? Having said that, regardless of what I shoot, I am not going to let ANY image out the door without first inspecting it in PS to ensure that ALL aspects of the image are up to standard..... regardless if I am supplying one or one thousand images! .....perhaps it's as simple as the fact that some of us set the bar a bit higher than others. >>> Again, read my comment.... I did say that the RAW app can do exactly >>> what the camera does, so your "perception" argument is mute. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > camera regardless of if you are shooting RAW or JPEG, and that there > is no need to waste time in PS if one elects not to?? I have no problem understanding this. It seems you are having a problem with the concept when it applies to JPG. > Having said that, regardless of what I shoot, I am not going to let > ANY image out the door without first inspecting it in PS to ensure > that ALL aspects of the image are up to standard..... regardless if I > am supplying one or one thousand images! .....perhaps it's as simple > as the fact that some of us set the bar a bit higher than others. Than what is your problem? Why are you claiming you can't do this in JPG? Rita > >>> Again, read my comment.... I did say that the RAW app can do exactly > >>> what the camera does, so your "perception" argument is mute. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Rita How about you reread the thread and try to comprehend the responses in context with what has actually been said..... not what you choose to read into them, but has actually been said! > What's the matter > can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with the JPG > statement is you are getting a more accurate rendition of what the camera > sees as being actually there and not what you perceive to see and piss it > away in post. His point is valid. No it isn't. What you said is totally wrong. All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets. If the presets are wrong, you're screwed. It has nothing to do with accuracy or reality .... kinda like you and D-Mac. If you don't believe me, try changing the WB settings on your camera and see what happens. Here are a couple of examples that show what you'd get if shooting JPG at the incorrect settings and what you can do to fix it if you shoot RAW. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/68115976 Rita, you claim to own all this expensive gear and you don't know jack sh.t. Next time you rent a 1Ds3 for the weekend, see if they'll toss in the fuckin owner's manual. >> What's the matter >> can't get it right in-camera? And what Doug was pointing out with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets. > If the presets are wrong, you're screwed. Then get it right in camera. It's not that hard. Oh, wait, you can't. > It has nothing to do with accuracy or reality .... kinda like you and > D-Mac. Trouble is you are so jealous of D-Mac that it eats at you. Seems D-Mac and many others can get a decent JPG straight out of the camera. > If you don't believe me, try changing the WB settings on your camera > and see what happens. Yep. And if you properly set your WB before pulling the trigger you can avoid a lot of headaches. > Rita, you claim to own all this expensive gear and you don't know jack > sh.t. Next time you rent a 1Ds3 for the weekend, see if they'll toss > in the fuckin owner's manual. You're right, no matter how hard I tried to get the old Mk III to sh.t out those plastic animated water colored turds you produce in Photoshop it just wouldn't do it. Try shooting JPG and learn a little about photography. Rita > What you said is totally wrong. > > All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets. > > If the presets are wrong, you're screwed. > > Then get it right in camera. It's not that hard. Oh, wait, you can't. What is "right?" Suppose the scene requires more contrast or less? Are you gonna spend all day fiddling with the controls on your camera making sure all the JPG settings are correct or shooting? > Seems D-Mac and many others can get a decent JPG straight out of the camera. Really? I see lotsa blown highlights and other anomalies in many of his pics. Michael Reichmann has a nice review of the new book, "Real World Camera RAW." Maybe if you're nice I'll buy you a copy so you don't have to check one out of the library. Anyway, here's what MR writes (this is especially applicable to you and D-Mac): ====================== "Like any other skill learning how to processes your images has a learning curve. Of course you can shoot in-camera JPGs and have Walmart make your prints. But if your hobby or profession requires that you produce high quality images then you're likely going to want to shoot in raw mode and process the image files yourself." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/rwcrcs3.shtml >> What you said is totally wrong. >>> All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are you gonna spend all day fiddling with the controls on your camera > making sure all the JPG settings are correct or shooting? If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you to RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch process RAW than there's no reason you can't set your camera up to take decent JPGs. >> Seems D-Mac and many others can get a decent JPG straight out of >> the camera. > > Really? I see lotsa blown highlights and other anomalies in many of > his pics. I've noticed a lot of that in yours as well. Maybe you need to spend another hour or two in Photoshop. > Michael Reichmann has a nice review of the new book, "Real World > Camera RAW." Maybe if you're nice I'll buy you a copy so you don't > have to check one out of the library. Anyway, here's what MR writes > (this is especially applicable to you and D-Mac): No thanks. Apply the money towards a legitimate copy of CS3. I have no problem with RAW. In fact, I love RAW just as much as the next person. One neat feature the old Mk III had was it allowed you to write RAW to one card and JPG to the other. Funny thing is the old Mk III made some really sweet JPGs. Never an animated plastic one in the bunch. I'm sure the old 40D has a function that allows you to save RAW + JPG to a single card. > "Like any other skill learning how to processes your images has a > learning curve. Of course you can shoot in-camera JPGs and have > Walmart make your prints. But if your hobby or profession requires > that you produce high quality images then you're likely going to want > to shoot in raw mode and process the image files yourself." Nobody is arguing that point. It all comes back to targeted audience. Lets see you post process 1200. Maybe MR's targeted audience is difference where he can blast off 10,000 rounds and pick a single keeper and massage the hell out of it in Photoshop? Rita > > Really? I see lotsa blown highlights and other anomalies in many of > > his pics. > > I've noticed a lot of that in yours as well. I kinda doubt it. > > Michael Reichmann has a nice review of the new book, "Real World > > Camera RAW." Maybe if you're nice I'll buy you a copy so you don't > > have to check one out of the library. > > No thanks. Apply the money towards a legitimate copy of CS3. Now look who's jealous. How much did you pay for your copy? Besides, I just like the keygens for the music. > > "Like any other skill learning how to processes your images has a > > learning curve. Of course you can shoot in-camera JPGs and have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nobody is arguing that point. Besides you and D-Mac, you mean? > It all comes back to targeted audience. Lets > see you post process 1200. Really simple. Batch convert. The disadvantage of doing this is the time it takes. Big deal ... you set it and go eat dinner. Come back and it's done. The advantage is that you still have the RAW file ... the Digital negative ... to work with in the unlikely event that you ever took a decent shot worth printing. Also, the settings you choose for the batch conversion are done AFTER the fact so you can make adjustments as neccessary instead of guessing beforehand. And don't give me that "get it right in camera" bullshit. Every pic can be made better with a little post-processing. That's why film shooters used darkrooms. >> It all comes back to targeted audience. Lets >> see you post process 1200. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and it's done. The advantage is that you still have the RAW file ... > the Digital negative ... No wonder you waste so much time in PS, you would rather tie the old 40D on the end of a rope and spin it around hoping you can catch a pic. Like I said, shoot both RAW and JPG and the JPGs will quickly tell you how poor your photographic skills are. Rita "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message > No wonder you waste so much time in PS, you would rather tie the old 40D > on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita He knows that already Rita... I've been telling him for years! > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He knows that already Rita... I've been telling him for years! Shooting JPG or RAW+JPG might benefit you guys who pop your cards into the little kiosks at the WalMart, but it ain't for me. Shooting RAW +JPG simply wastes storage space. Pro Sportsshooters like it because it allows them to quickly preview their images, but I am under no such time restraints. I'm more about quality, not speed. I think D-Mac and Rita like shooting in "Green Box" mode (aka "idiot mode") which only allows JPGs to be shot. Things like correct White Balance are less important to them than getting those 4x6s printed fast and cheap. >>> No wonder you waste so much time in PS, you would rather tie the >>> old 40D on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it allows them to quickly preview their images, but I am under no such > time restraints. I'm more about quality, not speed. So, in affect, you are admitting you don't know how to properly setup and use your camera to produce a decent JPG? No wonder your images are so plastic looking, you have to overcorrect things like poor exposure and WB. Get it right and the 40D won't be so damn noisy. A D70 produces less noise than what you are doing with a 40D. Rita > > Shooting JPG or RAW+JPG might benefit you guys who pop your cards into > > the little kiosks at the WalMart, but it ain't for me. Shooting RAW > > +JPG simply wastes storage space. Pro Sportsshooters like it because > > it allows them to quickly preview their images, but I am under no such > > time restraints. I'm more about quality, not speed. > So, in affect, you are admitting you don't know how to properly setup and > use your camera to produce a decent JPG? Wrong again, Buttmunch! I am asserting that any photo can be improved with some post- processing, and since I care about the final output I shoot RAW mode to get the most out of my pics. Only a major retard would spend +$1K for a camera body to shoot JPGs. My wife had to take the 20D to school today to photograph her class for a project. Quality wasn't paramount in this case and since Mrs. Annika knows squat about cameras I slapped the 50mm f/1.8 on it and put it in Green Box mode. That produced JPGs that I simply cropped and printed. However, the WB looks like crap (flash shot indoors) even after running a Color Temperature filter on it. I should have sent the WhiBal with her, even though its usefulness would have been reduced shooting JPG. >> No wonder you waste so much time in PS, you would rather tie the old >> 40D on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > He knows that already Rita... I've been telling him for years! Sometimes you can teach old dogs new tricks...... Rita In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> What you said is totally wrong. >>>> All you get with the JPG is an image based on the camera presets. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Are you gonna spend all day fiddling with the controls on your camera >> making sure all the JPG settings are correct or shooting? > If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you to > RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch process RAW than > there's no reason you can't set your camera up to take decent JPGs. Except for the fact that the RAW-2-JPEG conversion in at least most cameras is at least not quite as good as the conversions now available in many editors. In some cases the in-camera conversion loses some detail. In many more cases it loses at least a stop of available dynamic range. Of course many photographs simply don't need the extra that can be got from the RAW image. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >> If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or >> you to RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > detail. In many more cases it loses at least a stop of available > dynamic range. True. Most modern dSLRs have so much resolving power and dynamic range that the final out of the camera JPG results can be stunning for most situations. > Of course many photographs simply don't need the extra that can be got > from the RAW image. True. Again, targeted audience. Rita > >> If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or > >> you to RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > True. Most modern dSLRs have so much resolving power and dynamic range that > the final out of the camera JPG results can be stunning for most situations. It is not just about having enough dynamic range, it is also about how you use it. I find that I will convert an image differently if I am making a print vs. displaying it on the web. If I am shooting jpeg which should I shoot for, for the web or for a print, I can't really do both at once. I can go back and edit the jpeg when I make a print, but then I is far easier to just reconvert from the raw image. And if I want to work in a larger color space then what. Does any one really shoot jpegs in Adobe 1998 RGB? If I shoot jpeg in sRGB and go out of gamut there in very little I can do. There are cases where shooting raw + jpeg makes sense, this is the work flow that Sports Illustrated uses. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821 They use the jpegs to quickly tell which images that might want to use, but then they use the raw for the publication. But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes sense. Scott > But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes > sense. I think I said that. It's all about the targeted audience. I have no problems shooting RAW + JPG. If the JPG is good enough to satisfy the targeted audiences requirements than the RAW will probably never get used and sit there for backup. This just means one has to spend a couple extra minutes setting their camera. Rita > > But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes > > sense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and sit there for backup. This just means one has to spend a couple extra > minutes setting their camera. I don' t shot raw+jpeg, for me there really no point in it since it is so easy to convert the raw image to the exact same jpegs that I would have gotten if I had shot raw + jpeg. Canon cameras come with a raw converter that is pretty much limited to what the camera could have don't with its image setting, things like saturation and contrast. Using this converter and comparing it to others gives a pretty good feel for just how limited doing this stuff in camera is. The jpeg out of the camera can be handy if you want a very quick way to review the shots you took, but it is really not worth much beyond that. Scott And if I want to work in a larger color space then what. Does any one really shoot jpegs in Adobe 1998 RGB? If I shoot jpeg in sRGB and go out of gamut there in very little I can do. But there is really very few cases where shooting jpeg only makes sense. Scott The notion of using sRGB is valid if you intend to print on the spot (our Santa shoots for example) otherwise Adobe RGB with JPEG allows you to avoid losing that 1 stop of DR, another poster claimed happens with JPEGs whilst producing an image I believe is as "editable" as most RAW images. I suppose you know, Scott that you can use Adobe Camera Raw, DxO optix pro and Adobe Lightroom to open and edit JPEG images as if they were RAW images? The only difference is that compressing a JPEG wrongly as way to many camera makers do, can be the fly in the ointment. If you intend to anchor a camera to a PC, you do that only so you can embellish the image or send it to a printer so using Adobe RGB may be OK in that situation because in sending it to the printer, you can convert it to sRGB. If you anchor your camera to a printer (Sony Dye Sub in my case) then sRGB is the language of the printer so you have to use it in the camera. That's fine indoors because I can control the lighting and that controls the dynamic range. It's all about getting it right in the camera. For 30 years I've seen Video operators use a disc to get white balance before starting to shoot. What's wrong with doing that with your DSLR? They are both video cameras. If you know your camera's limitations you can avoid them. I don't mind shooting RAW but I'll do anything to avoid a week in front of a computer screen just because someone thought the camera knew best! Douglas > And if I want to work in a larger color space then what. Does any one > really shoot jpegs in Adobe 1998 RGB? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I don't mind shooting RAW but I'll do anything to avoid a week in front of a > computer screen just because someone thought the camera knew best! It is not just about dynamic range, sRGB simply does not have as large a gamut as many printers do, and new monitors that are coming out will have much more range then sRGB. Once the image is in sRGB the out of gamut colors are lost and there is no getting them back. If you shoot in jpg Adobe 1998 RGB you then need to convert any images that will be displayed on the internet to sRGB, or they will lack contrast and saturation when viewd. If you are going to this extra step then why not just shoot raw to begin with? Scott > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Of course many photographs simply don't need the extra that can be got > from the RAW image. Chris, you have no right to say that. Please note that this thread has been about hyperbole, slams and outer space claims. Your coming in here and posting a few paragraphs that are sensible, low key /and/ correct, is just, well, plain wrong, mate! :) May the sun always be at your back, unless you *want* lens flare... Signaturejohn mcwilliams > If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you to > RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch process RAW than > there's no reason you can't set your camera up to take decent JPGs. Oh really? OK, here's a simple question for ya. How do you set up your JPG-shootin camera to combat purple fringing (aka "chromatic aberration")? I know how to fix it using the RAW file in Photoshop. I'm just wondering what settings to use to prevent it when shooting JPG? I'll wait for your informed response. I am always eager to learn. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 11:07 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> >> If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you to >> RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch process RAW than >> there's no reason you can't set your camera up to take decent JPGs. > Oh really? OK, here's a simple question for ya. > How do you set up your JPG-shootin camera to combat purple fringing > (aka "chromatic aberration")? I know how to fix it using the RAW file > in Photoshop. I'm just wondering what settings to use to prevent it > when shooting JPG? If your editor really doesn't let you do that you might need to switch to one that does, or at least use another one as a front end that allows you to convert your jpgs to an input format that your fussy old editor will accept. There's no technical reasons why the correction can't be applied to a jpg image. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > > How do you set up your JPG-shootin camera to combat purple fringing > > (aka "chromatic aberration")? I know how to fix it using the RAW file [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > editor will accept. There's no technical reasons why the correction > can't be applied to a jpg image. You misunderstood the question. The question was how I can set up my camera for shooting JPGs to that I can "get it right in the camera" without having to do any post-processing. The answer is that I cannot. CA is just one of the problems JPG shooters have to live with and it is very apparent in many of their pics, especially those taken with point-and-shoots. It makes even less sense to shoot in JPG mode if your are going to do any post-processing. The JPG itself has already undergone processing and data loss. No sense in making it worse. > Oh really? OK, here's a simple question for ya. > How do you set up your JPG-shootin camera to combat purple fringing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'll wait for your informed response. I am always eager to learn. Easy, you use good glass, dumbass! You don't have that problem with Nikkors. Rita > > Oh really? OK, here's a simple question for ya. > > How do you set up your JPG-shootin camera to combat purple fringing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rita Bullshit. >> If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you to >> RTFM and learn how to use your camera. If you can batch process RAW than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'll wait for your informed response. I am always eager to learn. Actually the new Nikons do correct CA in-camera (or post for raw with their software). >>> If it's taking you all day fiddling with the controls it's time or you >>> to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Actually the new Nikons do correct CA in-camera (or post for raw with > their software). For someone supposedly as prolific a photographer and claiming to be as knowledgeable about photography as Bret Douglas claims to be, simple errors of judgment look like when to shoot and when not to shoot blur into a plastic rendition of digital crap.. Sensor pixel flooding is often mistaken for chromatic aberrations. This occurs when a sharp change from dark to light overloads the sensor pickup points and this floods onto nearby pixels. The best lenses in the world are not going to change this and neither is shooting in a different mode. The simplest way to fix it is to use something like "flo's tools" to shift the chroma. You can do this during the printing operation without needing Photoshop. To some degree chromatic aberrations can also be fixed this way. The fringing problem is not capture mode specific. It is condition specific and a jpeg can have it fixed in ACR or any of a plethora of stand alone applications written just for this purpose. The easiest way to "get it right in camera" is to not compose the shot with that much dynamic range or... Use a ND filter to lower the dynamic range or, turn the other cheek -- Don't shoot those scenes with the composure an experienced photographer should know will produce those errors. Do it right, not shoot from the hip. Learn when it is likely to happen and why. Then you can avoid it entirely. Douglas > Sensor pixel flooding is often mistaken for chromatic aberrations. Because it is often mixed in with CA, it is hardly surprising, and largely irrelevant to the process of fixing it. > The best lenses in the world are > not going to change this and neither is shooting in a different mode. If it was entirely 'flooding' (or blooming as it is more commonly called) that would be true. CA is strictly a lens problem - doesn't Douglas know that? > The simplest way to fix it is to use something like "flo's tools" to shift > the chroma. When Douglas puts quotes around something, you can guarantee he gets it wrong, and of course he never gives details, like a link or cost.. It's "Flo's Undistort", costs $15 for the version that works on images over 800x600, and may be found here: http://flofilters.free.fr/ What is conveniently unmentioned in all this is that if you have CA you can't just 'fix' it - there is an inevitable loss of quality. But some folks standards are so low that it doesn't matter, of course. > The easiest way to "get it right in camera" is to not compose the shot with > that much dynamic range In other words, Douglas recommends that if the shot is hard to capture, don't take it. Mmm. He's a tryer, is our Doug, always seeking to better himself, always learning... > or... Use a ND filter to lower the dynamic range An ND filter does not reduce dynamic range. A *GRADUATED* ND does. A polariser may also be used to help if not shooting into or directly away from the sun/light source. Doug ALSO forgot that you can shoot RAW to improve dynamic range capture, and you can bracket multiple images. Rather obvious - and telling - omissions. > Don't shoot those scenes with the composure COMPOSITION, moron. COMPOSITION. C O M P O S I T I O N How many times does he have to be told? You can tell when someone uses such an incorrect term, they don't hang around photographers... > an experienced photographer should know.. Well, that's Doug excluded. (O: >> Sensor pixel flooding is often mistaken for chromatic aberrations. Because it is often mixed in with CA, it is hardly surprising, and largely irrelevant to the process of fixing it. Actually the other way around: blooming is pretty rare and quite different looking. Purple fringing is another kind of chromatic aberration which is not so easily fixed. I had that mixed up too for a long as most people did, and apparently it's not well understood. http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html " Purple fringing: lens or sensor? Chromatic aberration, and purple fringing in particular, have received considerable attention with the advent of digital cameras. Indeed, although chromatic aberrations can be noticed on film (Fig. 7), they do look more intense on CCD or CMOS images. On the one hand the digital photographer is only a few mouse clicks away from a full screen display, and few lenses stand image inspection at high magnification. On the other hand it is possible that digital imaging somehow renders the color fringes due to chromatic aberration more distinct. One of the proposed mechanisms is an enhanced spectral sensitivity in the (ultra)violet and (infra)red regimes, where lenses tend to be poorly corrected for chromatic aberration. Purple fringing is often blamed on sensor bloom, which is odd as blooming is a quite different phenomenon [14, 15]. In fact, there are as many arguments against sensor bloom as there are in favor of chromatic aberration to account for purple fringing. The examples shown on the present page are all demonstrably due to the lens and not to the sensor. Sensor bloom has no known color preference, and if it had, it would not change its colors upon defocusing a lens (as in Fig. 3) or upon swapping lenses (as in Fig. 4). The list of arguments is long [16]. [14] http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/concepts/ccdsatandblooming.html [15] http://www.ccd.com/ccd102.html " Anyways the new Nikons correct the red/green lateral CA just like DXO with a library of lens corrections (for jpegs). It's pretty tedious in photoshop's ACR. Not much to be done about longitudinal/axial purple/green fringing CA. The examples on that page in figure 3 talk about it mostly being a problem with very fast lenses and that's where I've seen it, and also slower less well corrected lenses with very high contrast scenes. > The simplest way to fix it is to use something like "flo's tools" to shift > the chroma. You can do this during the printing operation without needing > Photoshop. To some degree chromatic aberrations can also be fixed this way. I love the circular logic of the idiot trolls. They say something simplistically stupid like "You don't need RAW if you get it right in camera." Then when I point out a situation that makes it impossible to "get it right in camera" they say, "You can always fix it later." Or even better...."Don't shoot these scenes.." > The fringing problem is not capture mode specific. It is condition specific > and a jpeg can have it fixed in ACR or any of a plethora of stand alone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message