As far as I am aware, Highlight Tone Priority is a JPG only setting. You can use it on your RAW files, but only if working within DPP. It's not magic people . . . HTP just uses a special tone curve to process the image, which effectively brings down your highlights a bit.

To test this, take a pic with any camera with HTP ON (in RAW), then take the same pic, no settings changed, with HTP OFF (in RAW) and compare both of them in ACR or LR. There is no difference as far as I'm aware.

So, unless anyone else has info that I haven't read yet, this is what I have learned.

sboerup wrote:
As far as I am aware, Highlight Tone Priority is a JPG only setting. You can use it on your RAW files, but only if working within DPP. It's not magic people . . . HTP just uses a special tone curve to process the image, which effectively brings down your highlights a bit.

To test this, take a pic with any camera with HTP ON (in RAW), then take the same pic, no settings changed, with HTP OFF (in RAW) and compare both of them in ACR or LR. There is no difference as far as I'm aware.

So, unless anyone else has info that I haven't read yet, this is what I have learned.
i don't use it, but if you take your raw shot at iso 100, and then turn highlight tone priority on and take the same shot, the iso defaults automatically to iso 200...i would expect a higher shutter speed to assist in recording better highlight detail but at the expense possibly of some shadow detail....it seems to me that this differential should be reflected in the raw files whether they are opened in dpp or acr.....
as for the optimizer, the raw files can be adjusted in dpp, which suggest that the optimizer is a tag on the raw file which is read in dpp, but not necessarily in thrid party apps....

Spencer, please reread what I said about opening the 1D3 files in an earlier version of Capture One. All my RAW files were 1 stop underexposed when using HTP. Since an update to the program to cope with this, C1 reads the HTP tag and automatically adds a stop. Just like ACR, LR, DPP, all the rest. Just because you don't notice, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I tried some tests last night with all those settings turned off, and I'm still seeing black dots:
5D Mark II Black Dots

ayip wrote:
I tried some tests last night with all those settings turned off, and I'm still seeing black dots:
5D Mark II Black Dots


Ugh. Very disappointing. I'm still waiting for my 5D2 to show up. The only reason I was an early adopter was because I was sure Canon wouldn't, couldn't possibly allow the release of yet another piece of flawed gear. Guess I was wrong. I won't be cancelling my order but I may return it if it produces the black dots and canon doesn't quickly addres the issue.

Cheers!

akclimber wrote:
ayip wrote:
I tried some tests last night with all those settings turned off, and I'm still seeing black dots:
5D Mark II Black Dots


Ugh. Very disappointing. I'm still waiting for my 5D2 to show up. The only reason I was an early adopter was because I was sure Canon wouldn't, couldn't possibly allow the release of yet another piece of flawed gear. Guess I was wrong. I won't be cancelling my order but I may return it if it produces the black dots and canon doesn't quickly addres the issue.

Cheers!


It'll be in a firmware update, much like with the original 1D that was having the same problem.

Really? The original 1D had the same problem? If so, that's reassuring. I was concerned that it might be some kind of physical problem with the sensor design, where pixels were affecting their neighbors and would require a hardware fix.

Do you know of any links or examples covering the problem in the 1D? I couldn't find anything with a quick search. Thanks!

ayip wrote:
I tried some tests last night with all those settings turned off, and I'm still seeing black dots:
5D Mark II Black Dots

The OP posted an update on DPR that pretty much comes to the same conclusion:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30289574

as did Rick a bit earlier in this thread.

It's real folks, and it's in the RAW data. Now let's just hope the underlying cause is a parameter that can be fiddled in firmware (tweak that DIGIC IV)...

ayip wrote:
Really? The original 1D had the same problem? If so, that's reassuring. I was concerned that it might be some kind of physical problem with the sensor design, where pixels were affecting their neighbors and would require a hardware fix.

Do you know of any links or examples covering the problem in the 1D? I couldn't find anything with a quick search. Thanks!

It's reassuring that Canon released a camera that exhibits a problem the ORIGINAL 1D had? When was the 1D released again

My first choice would have been no problems . But my second choice is a problem that can be fixed in firmware, so I'm reassured that a similar problem was fixed with new firmware in the case of the 1D.

I then turned the settings to "Disable" for highlight tone priority


What if I like to use this option?

Turning the settings you mentioned off makes no difference to my body.
Shot this earlier tonight. Disappointing doesn't even begin to sum my feelings up.
It's a large file btw.

Click here to view

Well, all you suckers wanted a 20 odd mp camera...you got it - flaws and all. As I keep saying, nature doesn't like it when man tries to outsmart her. 20+mp cameras are overkill, and degrade IQ at the expense of the number of pixels. Sure, you can *try* and fix things post shot in processing, but that's a bandaid fix. Nikon has the far better approach to this - step off the mp pi$$ing contest train and concentrate on what matters - IQ.

Dave

The original 1D didn't have this problem - it did have the "blue glows" at the top left/right hand corners of the sensors, due to the crappy Panasonic op amps that provided power to the sensor being too close. This was only apparent on long exposures (greater than 15 seconds usually, and occurred at any ISO). Oh, and it was NEVER fixed in firmware. Canon should never have released the original 1D like that, and in fact, I honestly believe that government intervention should have been made to force Canon to recall the units as faulty, and fix the issue, rather than sell a camera with a known fault. I mean, if Toyota sells you a car with known breaking issues, they *have* to recall it. Why doesn't the same applie to other manufacturers who release products with known faults?

Canon will do the same thing with the 5D mark II as they did with the 1D Mark III - deny, deny and deny. They'll blame the users, the shooting circumstances, anything but their own technology. Given the problems with the original 20D (grip issues), 5D (mirrors falling out!), 1D Mark II (lots of reports of AF problems in early versions of the camera), 1D mark III (let me say no more), 400D (I've heard lots of reports of some "black stuff" falling onto the sensor, requiring cleaning), 50D (poor IQ, worse than the 40D) and now the 5D Mark II, it tells me that Canon has a LONG history of poor QA.

Dave

melkor wrote:
Well, all you suckers wanted a 20 odd mp camera...you got it - flaws and all. As I keep saying, nature doesn't like it when man tries to outsmart her. 20+mp cameras are overkill, and degrade IQ at the expense of the number of pixels. Sure, you can *try* and fix things post shot in processing, but that's a bandaid fix. Nikon has the far better approach to this - step off the mp pi$$ing contest train and concentrate on what matters - IQ.

Dave


Excuse me? Nikon stepped off the mp train? Did Nikon not just announce the 24.6 MP D3x ? Hello?

melkor wrote:
Well, all you suckers wanted a 20 odd mp camera...you got it - flaws and all. As I keep saying, nature doesn't like it when man tries to outsmart her.


Since when is any aspect of digital photography a natural phenomenon

It worked for me! Thanks.

Well.. I have had mine for over a week now.. Shot many things that I normally shoot and could not be happier with the images. I haven't seen any black dots...but then again...I am not trying to find something wrong with the camera and the first thing I did (as I do with my other bodies) is turn off NR and ALO...never use HTP either. I was one of those that had a nightmare with his 1D3 too... If some tiny black dots are in my images in certain specific situations that do not show up in print, I'll be fine. At least they are in focus.

If there is indeed a flaw (which I don't doubt)...let's just see what happens with a fix. I personally never expect a 1.0 (or in this case 1.0.6) camera body to be perfect. I have owned too many bodies from various manufactures to be that naive. They all have "things" that get worked out over time "typically".

Sean Mills wrote:
melkor wrote:
Well, all you suckers wanted a 20 odd mp camera...you got it - flaws and all. As I keep saying, nature doesn't like it when man tries to outsmart her.


Since when is any aspect of digital photography a natural phenomenon



and since when is film part of natural phenomen? Digital photography is simply the collection of photons - the same as film. Convert said photons into how strong they are. Place a filter in front of sensor (bayer) to filtrate the light spectrum. Film does this as well, but uses grains rather than pixels. My point was directed at the fact that the size of pixels limit SNR as well as a host of other things. Canon, and others (including Nikon with the D3x) are doing silly things with the number of pixels, at the expense of what really matters - IQ. There is no need for 20+ mp cameras, but manufacturers feel that they can break the laws of physics and sidestep issues by going so small pixel wise. Software is good, but it has limits.

Dave

melkor wrote:
As I keep saying, nature doesn't like it when man tries to outsmart her.

Great quote for somebody who mentions Star Wars and Harry Potter in his profile