"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 9 Oct 2009 03:33 Kyle D. <kd(a)kdsnospam.org> wrote: >On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:14:55 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >wrote: > >>Clues wrote: >>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:19:12 -0500, John Sheehy <JPS(a)no.komm> wrote: >>> >>>> Exposure to the right is usually given as advice for RAW shooting. The >>>> RAW data usually clips well above the level where a JPEG would clip it, >>> >>> Very true, for all those cameras that intentionally do a poor job at the >>> RAW to JPG conversion. This is why RAW became so popular. DSLRs are >>> inherently poor at this process. In fact it's the very reason that having >>> access to the RAW data became so popular. Far too many DSLR owners wanted >>> to repair in their resulting images what the DSLR's firmware programmers >>> failed to do correctly in the first place. Companies then realized that >>> they could turn this into an asset. Not only sell a camera that didn't work >>> quite right, bundled with a kit-lens that wouldn't provide images any >>> better than a Barbie-Cam, conning them into buying a $5,000-$10,000 lens to >>> make their $500 DSLR functional, but now also sell them expensive editing >>> software to fix what their cameras weren't doing properly to provide a >>> useful image right out of the box. >> >>'Ceptin' the major camera mfg's provide software with the purchaseof the >>camera, and excellent lenses can be had for a mere grand. One or two >>{Nikon} may also try to sell "Pro" RAW converters. >> >>Most in-camera conversion for JPEGs is above very decent, and is >>excellent for daylight/time normal exposures. > >If your camera's resulting JPG file's dynamic range does not closely match >the dynamic range of your RAW data, then there's something obviously very >wrong with your camera, your camera's settings, or you. > >(To enlighten the ignorant: There is zero difference in the amount of noise >in a 2 minute exposure in low light and a 1/2000s exposure in bright light. >Photons are photons. If you collect enough to get over the base >noise-threshold then all those parts of the image that are properly exposed >will be noise-free in any image, no matter the initial light levels.) But electron noise is a function of time and temperature. The longer the exposure the more opportunity there is for electrons to party. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 9 Oct 2009 03:36 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >>>Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: >>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hence if the right edge is set correctly with high >>>>> contrast or low contrast, either way it is exactly the >>>>> same exposure and neither is more accurate than the >>>>> other. >>>>> You continue to say that low contrast makes it easier >>>>> to >>>>> see where the edge is, but that is only true for special >>>>> cases, and for an equal number of special cases high >>>>> contrast would make it easier! >>>>> >>>> >>>>In NO CASE would high contrast make it easier ... >>>>at least on a Canon 30D. >>>> >>>>Mr. Davidson: Let me ask again: What is the serial >>>>number of the Canon 30D you have checked this on. >>>> >>>>If you have not done so, SHUT UP. >>>> >>>>We admit that you are right if somebody using >>>>a Canon 30D is willing to allow 2/3 stop more "slop" >>>>than is really necessary. >>> >>>It does not appear that you understand how to read a >>>histogram. >>> >>>Hmmm... tell me what you make of these two histograms: >> >>You're trying to change the subject. > >*Narrowing* the subject. > >It is exceedingly difficult to discuss histograms with >people who do not understand what a histogram shows and >how to read it. People such as yourself, for example. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: DRS on 9 Oct 2009 03:47 "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87ljjlnohh.fld(a)apaflo.com > "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: [...] >> According to you. Not according to everybody else. You maintain >> you're the only one here who understands what's going on but that's >> not supported by the evidence so I'm quite happy to let you drift >> off in your fantasy world. > > The evidence is rather extensive, and nothing I'm saying > is unique. Everyone who does understand it says > basically the same things... Except you. Go read your own tutorials. I already have.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 9 Oct 2009 06:29 "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message >news:87ljjlnohh.fld(a)apaflo.com >> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: > >[...] > >>> According to you. Not according to everybody else. You maintain >>> you're the only one here who understands what's going on but that's >>> not supported by the evidence so I'm quite happy to let you drift >>> off in your fantasy world. >> >> The evidence is rather extensive, and nothing I'm saying >> is unique. Everyone who does understand it says >> basically the same things... > >Except you. Go read your own tutorials. I already have. Do it again. The point is to understand. You don't. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: DRS on 9 Oct 2009 08:48
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:878wfkoo6r.fld(a)apaflo.com > "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: >> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message >> news:87ljjlnohh.fld(a)apaflo.com >>> "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> According to you. Not according to everybody else. You maintain >>>> you're the only one here who understands what's going on but that's >>>> not supported by the evidence so I'm quite happy to let you drift >>>> off in your fantasy world. >>> >>> The evidence is rather extensive, and nothing I'm saying >>> is unique. Everyone who does understand it says >>> basically the same things... >> >> Except you. Go read your own tutorials. I already have. > > Do it again. The point is to understand. You don't. So you say. Whatever. Get a life. |