gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Images: 5Ds RAWs with +5.00 Exposure: Noise and DR | |
To clarify one thing further: What I did here correlates to what photographers dealing with real-world exposure problems such as very dark, blocked shadows are likely to do. (Though I set up this case to deal with only a single variable, the "exposure" slider." I did not constrain the adjustments here to the shadows only, as I would actually do with a situation like this. Another way to get at the same thing might be to raise black point and then perhaps compensate using other adjustments like shadows and/or contrast.)
It is important to know and understand the source and meaning of examples shared to illustrate performance comparisons between camera files. For example, I've seen some files used to suggest what photographers will likely see in real images from a camera like the 5Ds that were the result of very different processes, and this is not always revealed by those posting such images. Readers are instead left to imagine incorrectly that real world camera performance would be as awful as it appears, for example, in test images from an article used to discuss how so-called "ISO-less" cameras and others (like the Canon cameras) handle a subset of exposure types very differently. I've seen examples said to be representative of 5Ds performance that were created not in ways that typical photographers are likely to use but which instead came from an experiment comparing how two camera systems deal with ISO settings to produce, say, 3200 ISO images.
There is nothing wrong with that, and it is interesting data, but it begs two questions.
1) Why not be completely open about the source of the images and how they were created? No harm is done by revealing sources, unless the source is not important or if revealing it might make the case less strong — and if that is the case, why not let readers/viewers decide? The more we know about the source images the more we can understand about what they do and do not mean.
2) If the images came from, for example, a test showing what would happen if one tried to achieve ISO 3200 on a Canon camera by setting the camera to ISO 100 and then pushing it to ISO 3200 (or some other value) in post, why not also share the (rather good) image quality that results from using the sample camera in the way the manufacturer designed it to be used — e.g. by simply setting the camera to ISO 3200? Using one camera in the way it was designed to work and the other in a way that is completely not the way it was designed to work is not the most useful comparison of real-world photography performance. Might that weaken the case for using such images as the test case? If not, why not be open about the circumstances?
In general, posting some image into a thread without any reasonable way to understand specifically what it represents is not a great idea. In the worst case, it suggests that the poster may have something to hide.
Edited on Jun 08, 2015 at 01:41 PM · View previous versions
|
Pushing two stops in your example above brings out some detail in the boat hull, all that would probably be needed in this case IMHO. I'm sure there are scenarios where more would be needed.
