Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:53
I shoot RAW 14-bit; I never use Nikon's software and I have never noticed that those Picture Controls have any impact on my final results after I have processed my RAW files.
Also, the Histogram which you see on the back of your camera relates ONLY to the JPEG — which is why you may think that messing around with the Picture Controls is changing the characteristics of your RAW exposures when they are not.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:03
I have no interest in using automated settings or processing of any kind and have found that I can easily process 1000 RAW shots in a day without any need for Picture Controls or Presets or Effects Filters.
I use all automated settings and processing of every kind and have found that I can easily shoot 1000 RAW shots in a day without any need for an Editor.
So, one can do all the work after the shot or one can do all the work before the shot. As they say, c'est la même difference!! "-)
Posted 30 November 2012 - 07:01
So here's a quick little freehand demonstration using ACR's highlight indicator with two files at exactly the same manual settings (ISO 800, shutter speed 1/320, & f/stop f/16), and opening direct in ACR without any adjustment, the only variation being that DR was set to 100% in the first, and to 400% in the second. This is a true high DR shot - deep shadows, the actual sun for a "highlight". ACR seems to think that the highlights are more blown in the DR100% raw file than in the DR400%, even though the histo looks similar (notable difference is the size of spike at the right - hmmm, fancy that.....).
Again, I really don't care in the slightest whether a graph or test chart shows one thing or another in jpeg or tiff or whatever, this is a shot taken with my lens and my camera from a post on my side fence about 5 secs apart (time taken to change the DR figure), and in this case the unaltered result pretty much backs the curves as displayed in the graphs here which seem to be causing some angst. Full size screenshots (colour will be off because Windows screen capture doesn't like ProPhoto, which is the monitor profile I work Ps in).
Shot with a fisheye so highlight area is smaller than it would be with a rectilinear, but I got more variation into shot this way.
So even if the accepted thinking is that the camera settings have zero effect on the raw file, these examples are good enough for me that this is not the case with the Fuji at least, and I will continue to use the camera setting for DR, even if experts tell me I'm having a lend of myself.
Edited by Fred Nirque, 30 November 2012 - 22:21 .
Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:02
Because of this discussion, I have just been re-reading the section on ADL in the D3S Manual and noting that Nikon publish a warning that uneven shading and and random noise, streaks and fog may appear; in camera processing time increases; and buffer capacity is reduced.
I seriously question the value of using Nikon's ADL under most circumstances.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:30
I should read more careful...
And the second sentence is about exposure *choice*.
Did overlook the choice ;-(
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(
Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:09
And pulling the White slider to the left in ACR wouldn't equalize the size of the blown-out whites in both shots?
The description is as follows allowing that the initial exposure is identical, using the two other highs manipulating tools (whites, then separately, highlights):
Pulling the whites slider to the left does not lose the red indicator even at -100 with either of the files. The DR 100% file still has a blown indicator about twice the size as the DR 400% file with the slider moved to -100 and the DR 400% slider still at 0, and about 4 times the size if the DR 400% white slider is also pulled to -100.
So, to answer the question and using the clipping indicator as a gauge, to approximately match the actual size of the clipped indicator in each, with the DR 100% slider at -100, the DR 400% slider needs to be at +37. That's the only way I could match the size of the clipping.
With this setting at -100, though, the DR 100% file looks dreadfully flat in all white areas except for the sun.
By comparison, with the highlights slider pulled to the left instead of the whites slider, the clipped indicator disappears at -15 with the DR 100% file, and at -65 with the DR 400% file. At that point the DR 400% image shows about twice as much detail than the DR 100% shows of the flared image of the sun.
Looking at the histo at full screen capture size it's pretty obvious that there is some serious manipulation going on over pretty much the whole image with the DR 400% files when compared with the DR 100% histo. The spikes do worry a bit, until it becomes evident that I can't see any deleterious effect at 200% on screen, so at that point I cease to be concerned as image pixellation will become the problem from then on..
Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:57
the amount of shadow noise introduced at ISO 800 makes this a non-option for me - the example i posted is a pretty representative case.
Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:20
I set the ISO at 800 (again, not Auto) below which the camera won't use 400%. It switches to 200% between 640 & 400 (400% is grayed out), and 100% at 320 to 100 ISO (where only 100% and Auto is available). I assume that is the same with the X-E1?
The Exif is the same in both: 1/320 @ 800 ISO (the lens is not coupled so the aperture is not recorded, but as it has an aperture ring I know that was set at f/16 and that it was not moved between shots).
Using a mirrorless camera with an uncoupled lens coincidentally also takes a possible variable out of the equation, namely sluggish aperture blades, particularly at higher shutter speeds, and the effect that can have on exposure as the lens is mechanically stopped down all the time. The only possible variable left is the shutter blades, so I suppose to 100% confirm this example is to take 10 shots at the same settings of a high DR scene at both camera settings and see if there's any difference between shots at the same setting and that there's still a difference between the two different settings. I have a feeling that this would come under the category of "splitting hairs", though.
Edited by Fred Nirque, 30 November 2012 - 22:27 .
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users