JohnJ80 wrote:
It makes no difference. If there are too many photos on the pixels sites - however they get there, the pixel/sensor can be nonlinear. That can happen because of ISO, shutter or aperture issues.
J.
It makes a difference because if the shutter is not maxed out, you can let the extra light spill over into that without perceptibly changing the picture quality at all. And you'd have to be an idiot not to shoot at the lowest ISO possible under the circumstances with a pocket camera, anyway.
JohnJ80 wrote:
If either the ISO, the shutter speed or aperture is maxed out, then ND will move it back into the operational range of the camera. Additionally, as you approach the edges of the envelope of the performance range, you are going to start getting nonlinear behaviour (i.e. clipping) out of the sensor. If you can bring that all back more into the center of the sensor's performance, you will get better results. One way to do that is with the ND filter.
J.
Bingo. Others over analyze.
For example, not to create more dynamic range as one poster mentioned, but to reconcile the adverse conditions into a realm that the camera's limited dynamic range can handle.
A jpeg shooter like G7 required to get the best starting exposure, for either no post processing or minimal processing. The G7 without raw in harsh light benefitted from ND filter in the posted examples. The scenes would have been clipped in either direction. But a reasonable balance was struck.
Yes, a screwdriver can also be used to open paint cans.
For example, not to create more dynamic range as one poster mentioned, but to reconcile the adverse conditions into a realm that the camera's limited dynamic range can handle.
A jpeg shooter like G7 required to get the best starting exposure, for either no post processing or minimal processing. The G7 without raw in harsh light benefitted from ND filter in the posted examples. The scenes would have been clipped in either direction. But a reasonable balance was struck.
Yes, a screwdriver can also be used to open paint cans.
This is utter rubbish. I have tried several times to tell you nicely, but you simply aren't listening.
Sorry if I'm being offensive but you are talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about. It might be better if you didn't proffer advice to people about things you clearly know very little about.
Why don't you explain your point instead of going to the attack realm? Making such statements isn't being helpful at all unless your goal is to be insulting.
You've only said that it was related to shutter speed (only) and never "why"?
JohnJ80 wrote:
Why don't you explain your point instead of going to the attack realm? Making such statements isn't being helpful at all unless your goal is to be insulting.
You've only said that it was related to shutter speed (only) and never "why"?
J.
I haven't been insulting, have I? Are you confusing me with dhphoto?
As for my supposed lack of explanation, look right up there at the top of the page, read, and comprehend what I wrote: "It makes a difference because if the shutter is not maxed out, you can let the extra light spill over into that without perceptibly changing the picture quality at all. And you'd have to be an idiot not to shoot at the lowest ISO possible under the circumstances with a pocket camera, anyway."
The sole exception to this is when you want a bit of motion blur, as someone noted-- but it's not really an exception, as it merely represents a self-imposed limit on shutter speed.
Also, dhphoto's frustration is very understandable. savask really shouldn't be giving advice on the use of the ND filter if he doesn't understand what it's for. Based on his advice, a newbie would flip on the ND filter all the time in good light thinking that it is actually increasing dynamic range, and shoot JPEG. In fact, the thing to do is shoot RAW to maximize dynamic range, and use the ND filter when the settings are maxed out.
JohnJ80 wrote:
Why don't you explain your point instead of going to the attack realm? Making such statements isn't being helpful at all unless your goal is to be insulting.
You've only said that it was related to shutter speed (only) and never "why"?
J.
If you are referring to me (and you have read all the posts), you will see I have explained the actual photographic principles (because I actually understand them) several times within the thread. If I appear irritated it is because I am. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. persons should not give 'advice' on matters they do not fully understand. I know I don't. I could have been entirely misled by Savas' post if I had not known it was 'rot'
Re the comment on the G9 producing better shots than the Fuji F31, I imagine this would definitely be the case in bright light where the Canon could shoot in ISO 80/100/200... but how about in lower light?
The F31 is a very good camera (I have 2), but it lacks the ability to alter sharpness or contrast which is a big minus. The G9 is physically bigger but a vastly more configurable camera and of course it has RAW
The Fuji is a (good) one trick pony, It's good at low light shots, but then you can't alter them much afterwards without loss
dhphoto wrote:
This is utter rubbish. I have tried several times to tell you nicely, but you simply aren't listening.
Sorry if I'm being offensive but you are talking about stuff you obviously know nothing about. It might be better if you didn't proffer advice to people about things you clearly know very little about.
All I can do is suggest and offer visual proof. Shots I posted would have been blown and required laborious effort afterward had I not taken the step I mentioned. ... And yes, I've done many a waterfall with cotton-like appearance in bright light. Tools can be used for other than what they are originally intended. Offering an alternative idea does not necessarily indicate absense of knowledge. It indicates creative thinking on one's own two feet.
Savas K wrote:
All I can do is suggest and offer visual proof. Shots I posted would have been blown and required laborious effort afterward had I not taken the step I mentioned.
I'm shooting some bright scenes tomorrow with my G9, namely a golf course in the desert in the middle of the day. I will turn on the magical ND filter and watch my photos improve! Seriously, I apologize for the sarcasm but I will post identical photos of bright scenes tomorrow, with the only difference being the ND filter on and off. And of course the shutter speed will be different, but the images will be identical. This is because a ND filter has no effect on image quality, contrast, tone, etc... If I'm wrong I will personally eat these words. But if I'm right (I mean when I'm right), those here that think the built-in ND filter is some sort of magical image improvement tool will finally learn something. See you tomorrow.
dhphoto wrote:
The F31 is a very good camera (I have 2), but it lacks the ability to alter sharpness or contrast which is a big minus. The G9 is physically bigger but a vastly more configurable camera and of course it has RAW
The Fuji is a (good) one trick pony, It's good at low light shots, but then you can't alter them much afterwards without loss
David
That's really my feeling. My husband has an F30 and I bought it for him because he needed a very small cam he was willing to carry to shoot sometimes low available light interior shots for his work. Its great at that--and just what he needed.
However, I can't shoot RAW and adjust, have to accept the camera's in camera NR, etc. And--its not as good for daylight pics. Certainly not as configurable, as said above. I feel like I'm shooting a P & S (not to be derogatory about it) and with the G9, I have a much better shooting experience--I'm a DSLR user and appreciate being able to use the G9 much as I do the 5D. I have my nits about it (I'm considering buying a Voigtlander 38mm VF for it), but I like the output considering the size (and really like the files when processed as mono which is how I will shoot mostly I think), like the handling--its just the right size for me--the F30 is just too small to feel like a 'camera' to me .
ChrisDM wrote:
I'm shooting some bright scenes tomorrow with my G9, namely a golf course in the desert in the middle of the day. I will turn on the magical ND filter and watch my photos improve! Seriously, I apologize for the sarcasm but I will post identical photos of bright scenes tomorrow, with the only difference being the ND filter on and off. And of course the shutter speed will be different, but the images will be identical. This is because a ND filter has no effect on image quality, contrast, tone, etc... If I'm wrong I will personally eat these words. But if I'm right (I mean when I'm right), those here that think the built-in ND filter is some sort of magical image improvement tool will finally learn something. See you tomorrow.
Fortunately I won't have to eat these words. Below are two shots taken with the G9. Nothing was changed between the two other than the built-in ND filter being turned on. And of course there is absolutely no difference between the images, other than the shutter speed of course. Can you tell which is which? (without looking at the shutter speed)...
jvarszegi wrote:
Exactly as happy as before. Next time you risk blowing highlights or blocking up the shadows, try shooting in RAW, which will really help.
Hard to do with the G7, which is what I had at the time (and before the raw hack was released). I recently sold it in favor of G9.
Though I was mildy happy during that post. FM didn't have an icon for that.
Here's another old G7 shot that would have been toast, or required extensive post processing, had I not put the ND filter to use. This is as-exposed, only reduced in size and sharpened a little bit.
Savas K wrote:
Here's another old G7 shot that would have been toast, or required extensive post processing, had I not put the ND filter to use. This is as-exposed, only reduced in size and sharpened a little bit.
Interesting. The shot was taken at f5.6, 1/80".
Why was the ND necessary? Couldn't you have shot at a smaller aperture or faster shutter speed as an alternative?
.