Paul_K Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
My personal obeservations seem to have attracted quite a bit of reactions
RoamingScott wrote:
Why not use the right lens for the job, instead of being forced to introduce a bunch of splotchy color noise to your "saved" photo?
Might be the res you linked, but nothing looks in focus either.
You apparently miss the point of a torture test
When done with a perfect lens and under ideal conditions, it completely would fail to show what a camera is capable doing under adverse conditions. A bit liike testing the off road capacities of a Landrover Defender by taking it on a school drive or a trip to the shopping mall. A camera like the Z9, D6, 1DX etc wil always perform and deliver at the highest level under those conditins and anybody, even an enthousiast amateur should be able to come back with good results
As for the saved' picture, sure, the IQ isn't perfect,
But then again the IQ was already compromisd due to the bad lighting conditions, and following simple market demands (years of shooting catwalk have taught me designers, magazines press etc. 99% of the timer don't want dark images barely showing the creations) inevitable heavy lifting of the shadows in post afterwards.
That said, having in the past shot runway on due to the time limited high ISO capacity pushed film, I find it still much better then eg Tri-X or TMax 3200 pushed to IS0 800 or push processed Scitch 3M 1000M or 640T slide
The perception of sharpness / focus does suffer indeed from the low res of the image posted.
The Z9 actually impressed me with how sharp the (processed) images actually were when looked in at 100% (a level of pixelpeeping I always stayed far away from even with my D850 and Z7II)
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't know what to say the reason the focus was missed, but yes it looks a bit soft.
.
See above
pe1125 wrote:
I took the OP to mean he purposely chose a slower lens in bad light to disprove another thread's claim that the Z9 was lousy in poor light.
Correct, a 2.8 70-200, even the 2012 VRII version I still use woUld have made the job far too easy
1bwana1 wrote:
I am not sure what this ultimately says about the Z9 sensor in low light.
IMO it shows it holds up quite well, again IMO even better then eg my 2018 Z6 even / especially with severally challenged bad / low lighting, funky WB lighting mix and relatively slow AF (due to a not 'ideal' lens)
1bwana1 wrote:
For sure exposure was missed with, under exposure by multiple stops. The file was then pushed in post to lighten it up significantly. At 3200 ISO I am not sure what sensor with the resolution of the Z9 would hold up without noise. If we really want to see how well the Z9 can perform in low light, we should look at files that hit exposure right so they don't need rough handling in post that produces noise and color artifacts.
At this point I am inclined to give the Z9 sensor the benefit of the doubt.
As said before the intent of this torture test was to see how the Z9 would hold up under adverse conditions, challenged IQ, high ISO and AF
In this case slow lens, bad / low light level, no evenly lit 'catwalk' , no stage lighting, mixed WB / color : 3400K tungsten, RGB LED, 5400K direct day light coming from large windows, high contrast from brightly lit vs deep shadow with indirect low daylight fill parts
If conditions were studio like, with a perfect evenly lit catwalk, consistent one color temperature / WB , using a 'typicasl' perfect fast (both AF and aperture) lens like eg the Z 2.8 70-200mm VR S, there would be no challenge, and anybody could / should be able to come away with usable pretty much perfect shots
sjms wrote:
98% of the issue in the second image which is a rework of the first was overly ambitious post processing.
See above
andrewd01 wrote:
The exposure in the first image was fine IMO. The model was spotlighted which suits the image. Boosting the exposure of the background makes the image less interesting and adds a bunch of artefcats.
Theoretically nice observation on the light, but ignoring the actual situation.
Agai, said stated right fom the start, there was no stage lighting, let alone a spotlight.
Light was a mix of open shadow indirect fill in, a few overhead chandelier with LED lights, and in certain spots direct light coming from large windows. With this picture the latter was the case, so no spot.
The big differcent in light level between the direct window light and shadow areas in the rest of the venue causing the spot like high exposed / deep shadow contrast, forcing heavy shadow lifting for commercially usable results
The 'original' lighting may seem great from an 'artistic' PoV.
One of the designers actually did present his collection in a more theatrical /dramatic way, and there using the contrast, shadows and spot like lighting did work well https://pbase.com/paul_k/20221001_fashionweek_dh_studio_hiem
But as I said before, for the image shown, from a more feminine and 'gentle' (colors, tulle, low profile presentation by he models) collection, and can be seen eg in the images of catwalk shows in the usual magazines, designers, fashion, press etc absolutely don't have a taste for that kind of artistry and want images that show the clothes as they are, even if not always of the highest technical level, including IQ, noise or even sharpness
Hopes this somerhow helps smooth out some of the most urgent reactions
Edited on Oct 03, 2022 at 09:57 AM · View previous versions
|