It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:08 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 4 of 4   [ 55 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:12 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Posts: 3286
Quick update looking at my 16mp CMOS shots (from various models) I'm surprised that not much progress has been made with "highlight headroom" it's better than the older sensors, possibly not v the 12mp CMOS. The main improvement seems to be you can be more aggressive with the shadows on the newer sensors. Still easy to blow out the sky even a few years down the road.

We've still got some way to go here..that's my view at least APS-C wise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:41 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
David Kilpatrick wrote:
Digital is actually very capable of handling highlights and shadows, much as colour negative film is. Both far exceed the capabilities of colour slide film, but digital needs to be exposed like slide film. What screws up your view of digital is the in-camera JPEG or the RAW preview embedded, and the use of fairly powerful tone and saturation curves before you even get to see what the raw file contains. Here is an example of the real content of a digital capture, shown using Linear export with zero contrast, neutral gain adjustment, and maximum shadow and highlight range:


How do you think a new camera with a new sensor shooting raw and converting with LR 4.3/ACR 7.3 would do?

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:36 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Posts: 6183
Location: Kelso, Scotland
I've just done an HDR from one raw file from the Canon 6D. As Barry says, the gain is all in shadow zones, the highlight headroom is still about 2 stops as it always was for Min/Sony. But previous Canons had only 1 stop highlight headroom, so it's an improvement within their range. It now matches Sony :-)

David

_________________
http://www.photoclubalpha.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:47 am 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
David Kilpatrick wrote:
I've just done an HDR from one raw file from the Canon 6D. As Barry says, the gain is all in shadow zones, the highlight headroom is still about 2 stops as it always was for Min/Sony.


I would appreciate an explanation of this since it is something that I may be confused about. It sort of seems to me that how one wants to use the DR is up to the photographer so I don't quite understand talk of gain in the shadow zones or headlight headroom. This may just be my misunderstanding though. With color negative film, I think, there was more room at the top than the bottom so it was often better to give more exposure and with slides it was generally the opposite. One can meter and set exposure as one wants with raw digital too and if one wants more in the highlight end then expose a bit less and then adjust when the raw conversion in LR, ACR, etc. is done. If one wants more in the shadows end then expose a bit more and then adjust when the raw conversion in LR, ACR, etc. is done.

Here are some interesting articles that I have found in the last few months:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

RAW is not Raw

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html

Why ISO Isn't ISO

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:33 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Posts: 6183
Location: Kelso, Scotland
The problem with just exposing more, or less, is that digital raw files will at some point clip entirely (no more data present). It's best to give a normal exposure, so that there will a reasonable amount of hidden range at the highlight end that can be pulled back in without colour clipping or total clipping. Some 10-bit raw files have very limited information in the shadows (hence the outdated Canon 'expose to the right' advice) so you can't brighten up the shadows without introducing noise. Most 12-bit files are a bit more robust, but 14-bit raws tend to be far better - you can dial in +2 exposure and the shadows will brighten up perfectly and stay clean without tone breaks or noise. When this is combined with good highlight recovery headroom, you can really work the raw file to an extreme.

It goes far beyond the range ever possible with film of any type.

David

_________________
http://www.photoclubalpha.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:50 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
David Kilpatrick wrote:
The problem with just exposing more, or less, is that digital raw files will at some point clip entirely (no more data present). It's best to give a normal exposure, so that there will a reasonable amount of hidden range at the highlight end that can be pulled back in without colour clipping or total clipping. Some 10-bit raw files have very limited information in the shadows (hence the outdated Canon 'expose to the right' advice) so you can't brighten up the shadows without introducing noise. Most 12-bit files are a bit more robust, but 14-bit raws tend to be far better - you can dial in +2 exposure and the shadows will brighten up perfectly and stay clean without tone breaks or noise. When this is combined with good highlight recovery headroom, you can really work the raw file to an extreme.


David, that matches what my understanding is, so, I think it hinges on what is a "normal exposure"? I know what you mean, but my thoughts are that one can choose the exposure for a particular photo based on what one wants to achieve and one's knowledge of the characteristics of the camera and the raw converter. Even with film that was common. I think Ansel Adam's Zone System is one of the more famous variations on that. These days most cameras have a matrix metering system with sophisticated software running on a computer inside the camera and the result is sometimes they will give a different exposure than a center-weighted meter or averaging meter. The matrix metering system probably takes into account the characteristics of the sensor and camera as a whole. Some cameras (I think the E-M5 does this and I also think I have read that some Sony cameras do this) "underexpose" a bit in contrasty situations and then internally gives a boost for jpegs and the camera profile for the raw converter does it in order to try to keep highlights from blowing out.

David Kilpatrick wrote:
It goes far beyond the range ever possible with film of any type.


Since this thread was started a long time ago digital has gotten better. Earlier the comments in the thread were that film was better in this regard so it is cool to see the progress that has been made. I don't do testing, but my feeling is that my 16mp E-M5 is somewhat better in DR and better in high ISO than my 12mp A700 and 18mp Canon 60D even though it has a smaller sensor than both of them. I think DxO says the same thing.

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:52 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
Yes, the E-M5 has better DR and high ISO than the A700 and 60D:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/793|0/%28brand%29/Olympus/%28appareil2%29/663|0/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28appareil3%29/562|0/%28brand3%29/Sony

Since my A700 and 60D were the cameras that I was using at the time I got the E-M5 that is the comparison that was meaningful to me. Of course, later Sony models with their larger and newer sensors would do better.

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:39 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
I just went back to the beginning of this thread that started in 2008 and skimmed through it again. Pretty interesting and worth doing to see the discussion and also how digital has evolved over the last 4+ years.

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:30 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Posts: 3286
I'm cautious about DR numbers as I think they are not likely to be realistic in the real world.
I did do some extreme tests with the D7k when I had it, and concluded that 14bit v 12bit was basically not demonstrating any advantage in the raw files, at least nothing I could detect either with fairly strong over or underexposure.

Yes DR is improving, and I imagine in 3/4 years with newer technology things will get even better.
It certainly was an issue in the earlier days, I suppose I forget that the Km5d 6mp CCD is quite dated in many ways (still nice tonal wise though)
Some of the newer tech is interesting and talk of this Fuji/Panasonic organic sensor and other developments could be worthwhile.

As said last year, most of the DR gains are shadow end, some improvement in highlights..
I think from a practical perspective neg film was always better fire and forget in daylight, expose for shadows and rarely would you have highlight problems. Digital was early days a rude awakening in some ways, the dreaded white out skies a fairly big issue (even more so on compacts 10 years ago)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reasons to shoot colour neg film part I ;-)
Unread postPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:44 pm 
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Posts: 4870
Location: Japan
For people who prefer film and especially color negative film then, IMO, it is best to go analog the whole way. In other words, if you shoot color negative film and then plan to scan the negatives then that is not really a good way to go. You may be interested in this scanning thread:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8068

_________________
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 4 of 4   [ 55 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
twilightBB Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net