Photoclubalpha

April Fools, anybody?

The measurable differences between 850 and 900 image quality are very low. Whatever diff the DxO may quote is well below statistical error, so it's mere pseudoscience on their part, as usual. The more relevant data is found in the IR review. They note that small differences in noise properties are t...

Agorabasta, I don't understand why doing corrections before getting out of raw and into bitmap is the wrong way to go. If you pass the info from raw format to a 16bpc bitmap without cutting out blacks and highlights and generally avoiding highly non-linear transforms, then it's as good as can be. M...

David's writeup on sky noise and other issues deals with three separate matters, actually. 1. A hard fact. A550 could expose its sensor 1-2 stops more. And up to 2 bits of already limited 12bit raw are simply unused. 2. A conjecture. The A550 cameras may be doing strange tricks juggling analog and d...

... if the A550 had ISO 100 ... The funny thing is that you almost always can expose a5x0 one full stop more without raw clipping in highlights. So you sorta may get that ISO100 effectively. But frankly, it only means that the raw levels are not used up properly in those cams. They should've used t...

Actually, I used to do raw conversions more like that, but in the last year or two started doing more and more in the raw converter since it became more capable and I had thought that doing it early with the raw data was better. Henry, The 'raw converter' has two stages of processing - the operatio...

I presume it’s the same sensor as in the A700, making the problem inherent. :lol: Making so are the laws of nature, the sensor is just delivering it at the eyes of beholder (through his/her electronics). So you are free to choose whom to blame. The choices are - 1. God/nature; 2. The 'beholder'; 3....

WestCoast wrote:Reading the latest review on the new D300s from dpr, the so-called blue sky grain is a by-product of the sensor…

Inasmuch as the image itself is...

bakubo wrote:I don't suppose you have tried converting any A700 files with the new LR3?

In fact I did. I find Lr3 the first Adobe product that I really like. And I really mean I like it, not just find it acceptable with reservations. If they don't ruin it on the way to final release, I buy it.

I have always thought that it was supposed to be best to get the image as close to what you want during raw conversion while working on the raw data rather than do most of it after the raw conversion. I think what I am getting from you though is that it is better to get a very dull, low contrast, f...

By the way, do you think that it is ACR or the A700 that has so much trouble getting the hue of blue skies correct? Your hue/saturation adjustment improved things a lot, but I am wondering why it is so off-kilter to begin with? Anyway, this is a side issue to my main problem at the moment. :) The A...

Henry, Your example clearly shows red clipping down in the sky. It's then further exaggerated by 'clarity' setting. Here's what always works in the 'skies' for me - set recovery much higher at 70 or even more; set blacks to zero; if reds still clip down, add exposure. By all means avoid primaries cl...

BTW, your particular example shows bit-slicing intro'ed by processing rather than any true noise.

Henry, Judging from colour of the skies, you really can improve the outcome by changing the relative saturation and hue of the basic colours. For the a700 in Lr3 I used the following 'calibration' - http://lh5.ggpht.com/__bYe591qcSo/SwEshd_yyyI/AAAAAAAAB5M/WQnP2yX34SA/s800/calibration.jpg The piece ...

I did some quick checks between my a700 and an a500 at a shop (not the a550). At the same scene brightness, the same WB, the same raw processing, no NR, with comparable lenses - a500 appears to be at least not worse than a700 at ISO200. All a550 raw samples I had around (I don't have the cam) seem t...