mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com
Horshack

Horshack

Lives in United States United States
Has a website at http://horshack.smugmug.com
Joined on Jun 7, 2008

Comments

Total: 280, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Horshack: I use ETTR extensively on my original 5D bodies. Due to JPEG histogram issues mentioned in the article I recommend that everyone calibrate their camera's raw highlight clipping by shooting typical scenes with varying overexposure and then processing the images in their preferred app to see correlate actual clipping to what they see on the histogram. Another method is with Iliah Borg and Co. RawDigger app; there's a great 3-part article on this here: http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/rawdigger-histograms-what-is-the-raw-histogram.

My field ETTR metering technique is to leave the camera on spot metering. I meter the brightest highlight I want retained, which puts that highlight at middle grey, then dial in an exposure +2EV to +3EV above that depend on the reflectivity of scene and the camera I'm using.

Here are some 5D ETTR examples (before+after):

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-NXkhBhH/0/O/i-NXkhBhH.png

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-zhPzj4M/0/O/i-zhPzj4M.png

Thanks zsedcft. I used a combination of LR digital GND and local adjustments. For me the biggest benefit of ETTR is not lower noise per se but greater flexibility in applying contrast in post. Extreme contrast adjustments can sometimes yield more visible noise than directly raising shadows.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

semorg: WOW...Dpreview finally discovered ETTR?

Looks like Richard forgot to write about an additional source of noise - the comment section of dpreview articles :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 16:37 UTC

I use ETTR extensively on my original 5D bodies. Due to JPEG histogram issues mentioned in the article I recommend that everyone calibrate their camera's raw highlight clipping by shooting typical scenes with varying overexposure and then processing the images in their preferred app to see correlate actual clipping to what they see on the histogram. Another method is with Iliah Borg and Co. RawDigger app; there's a great 3-part article on this here: http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/rawdigger-histograms-what-is-the-raw-histogram.

My field ETTR metering technique is to leave the camera on spot metering. I meter the brightest highlight I want retained, which puts that highlight at middle grey, then dial in an exposure +2EV to +3EV above that depend on the reflectivity of scene and the camera I'm using.

Here are some 5D ETTR examples (before+after):

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-NXkhBhH/0/O/i-NXkhBhH.png

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-zhPzj4M/0/O/i-zhPzj4M.png

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 16:34 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: Regarding dpreview's notes about the lack of image averaging - I'm a fan of averaging myself (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55438883) but you'll get a cleaner images from fewer files from bracketing+HDR vs averaging. At least that's the case with PS's Merge-to-32-bit HDR support. Should be the case for LR6's 16-bit HDR as well if it uses the same basic exposure mapping algorithms.

FYI, PhotoAcute has ceased development:

http://photoacute.com/forum/index.php/topic,1346.msg1777.html#msg1777/

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 14:02 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: Big space savings from using LR6's Merge-to-HDR DNG vs PS CC Merge-to-HDR. For a 8-image 5D classic (12MP images) merge:

PS CC
PSD: 565MB
32-bit Floating-Point TIF: 565MB
16-bit Floating-Point TIF: 492MB

LR6
16-bit DNG: 49.5MB

Yep. The EXIF confirms it as well. The value for the Photometric Interpretation field is "Linear Raw", which the DNG specification defines as:

"The LinearRaw PhotometricInterpretation value is intended for use by cameras that do not use color filter arrays, but instead capture all color components at each pixel. It can also be used for CFA data that has already been de-mosaiced."

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 13:57 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "What's more, the output is a 16-bit DNG file"

Richard. I think it's quite important that you mention that this is a 16 bit *floating point* DNG file. A 16 bit linear file can hold around 16 stops of DR. A 16 bit floating point file can hold about 30 stops of DR due to the inherent logarithmic encoding of floating point format.

@Barry, based on the EXIF data, the pano files produced by LR6 are not floating-point - they're 16-bit integer. The HDR 16-bit DNGs have the "SampleFormat" field, with a value of 3 designating "float". This field is not present in the EXIF for the 16-bit pano DNGs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 03:57 UTC

LR6's Merge-to-HDR appears to handle tonal transitions much better for bracketed images with EV spacing > 1EV. With PS I've always had to keep the spacing at 1EV or less to avoid tonal halos. Here is a quick comparison I did:

http://horshack.smugmug.com/photos/i-Rk4T7GK/0/O/i-Rk4T7GK.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 22:35 UTC as 84th comment | 4 replies

Big space savings from using LR6's Merge-to-HDR DNG vs PS CC Merge-to-HDR. For a 8-image 5D classic (12MP images) merge:

PS CC
PSD: 565MB
32-bit Floating-Point TIF: 565MB
16-bit Floating-Point TIF: 492MB

LR6
16-bit DNG: 49.5MB

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 20:25 UTC as 98th comment | 2 replies

I just compared LR5.7 vs LR6 for importing 74 D800 files (2.65GB), using full 1:1 previews.

LR5.7: 4 minutes 43 seconds
LR6: 4 minutes 58 seconds

System: i7-3770K overclocked to 4.5ghz, 32GB, SSD-based LR catalog, files on 7200RPM HD, WIndows 7 64-bit

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 20:06 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

Kurt Helge Roesand: Since I hate the CC idea, this little nugget really upsets me, big time. "New features or enhancements will only be added to Lightroom CC."

HDR looks awesome though.

Based on Adobe's wording they'll still include additional camera and profile support to their minor releases of standalone LR6.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

Kurt Helge Roesand: Since I hate the CC idea, this little nugget really upsets me, big time. "New features or enhancements will only be added to Lightroom CC."

HDR looks awesome though.

As much as I hate CC this isn't a change in policy for Adobe regarding LR. To my knowledge they've never added major features or enhancements to minor version releases of standalone LR.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 18:23 UTC

Regarding dpreview's notes about the lack of image averaging - I'm a fan of averaging myself (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55438883) but you'll get a cleaner images from fewer files from bracketing+HDR vs averaging. At least that's the case with PS's Merge-to-32-bit HDR support. Should be the case for LR6's 16-bit HDR as well if it uses the same basic exposure mapping algorithms.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 16:21 UTC as 148th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

Thanks for the update. There are very deep shadows in the open black camera case on the left side of the scene. I always try to include a very dark region in my conparison setups, usually via a lighting flag.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 00:35 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

Here are the A7s and Df raws for the comparison I posted in this thread:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6jq0xvaoviwhtio/AAAtMxq_KOI5hQRWrCasqXM3a?dl=0

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

Words = claims, Images = proof.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

Your A7s claims are not factual. Posted for a third time, my A7s vs Df comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54031579

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54031579

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: The best sensor maker keeps getting better.

The E-M1's sensor is only a marginal improvement over the E-M5 yet was 18 months behind Sony's MFT sensor product cycle.

A7s > Df/D4s
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54031579

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 14:46 UTC

A better question to ask is if Mac power users should ever hitch their workflow bandwagon on an Apple software product, considering how Apple has a history of abandoning their advanced users (Final Cut, Aperture, etc...)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 16:00 UTC as 191st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: I'm perplexed how such an obvious issue could slip through Nikon's design verification processes. A VR/IS system's sensitivity to camera-induced vibrations (or "pulses" as Falk prefers) is not something new; you'd expect a VR system to be specifically designed to account for such vibrations, or, failing the thoroughness of the design process, to at least test for the effects of vibrations once the design is complete.

It's an interesting question Rishi and I don't know the answer. There's a semi-active discussion of this issue here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55660844

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
Total: 280, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect