[quote="Sonolta"]
I have already proved the similarity of the raw and jpg HI200 files as compared to the ISO 200 files.
No! You haven't! They are as different as they should under condition that the ISO 200 is ISO 200 exposed 'correctly' by the camera judgment and HI200 is ISO 125 underexposed by 2/3. I examined your MRW files of a greenish wig (?) and they clearly show this! You are contradicting to yourself...
For some reason you are making several posts here but you are not presenting any new information, and you have not shown me how I can get to ISO 125, and you have not been able to tweak the ISO 200 files to recover the highlights. Geesh...
I don't have to tweak 'normally' exposed ISO 200 file which has lost highlights - that's impossible. But if a file is slightly underexposed then it is easier to recover midtones and shadows while preserving highlights at the same level. If you shoot in RAW only then using ZM has no meaning - with the same success you may shoot with constant -2/3 compensation. Another story if you shoot using ZM in JPEG or RAW+JPEG - then the camera does the shadow and midtones recovery for you automatically, but in JPEG files ONLY! MRW files are left intact (i.e. underexposed) so if you want to use them and get the same result as the corresponding JPEG shows you will definitely have to apply curves.
Again. Something special is done, it is minimum a 125 -EV exposure and this is not a setting that can be set any other way than by using Zone Matching!
'Something special' is underexposure/overexposure (HI/LO) of a 'special' ISO setting (125 in this case) which you cannot set manually and application of 'special' curves to JPEG files (not to MRWs!). If you don't like wasting your time in PP and you shoot JPEGs (or at least RAW+JPEG) then the ZM is for you.
But if you shoot in MRW only then it is almost useless, its benefit is only ISO 125 setting that cannot be set manually. But nothing prevents you setting any regular ISO and dial in negative or positive compensation (depending on the scene's key). Please note that here I am talking about shooting MRW only!
Look buddy, it's quite clear you have never used ZM in the field. You can not easily get the exact same results frame after frame!
On more or less similar subjects with more or less similar backgrounds??? Are you kidding? And then, what made you think that I have never used ZM?
LOL...that is the whole advantage of using ZM! Geesh man....how much extra time do you need to waste?
As I said - if you like results you get from ZM then it is for you!
What is so special about ISO 125 besides that it is set in ZM only?
Try to recover he details on those ISO 200 samples...you can't!
I don't have to - it's useless. But if you'd shot the same scene in ISO 200 with -2/3 compensation then recovering shadows and midtones and preserving highlights would be a matter of a few seconds!
It's is NOT underexposed, it is more PROPERLY EXPOSED...notice the HIGHLIGHTS are NOT BLOWN to the MOON.
See my above comment - the difference between two MRW files you had posted earlier clearly shows underexposure in the second file - everything is a little bit darker, starting in shadows and ending in highlights. Consequently, highlights are not blown out!
Before you speak another word on the subject show me how I can recover the ISO 200 HI Key shots...you can't!
No, I can't if they are shot in ISO 200 with 'normal' (from the camera's point of view) exposure. But I can easily recover shadows and midtones in ISO 200 files with some underexposure (of course, if the subject and lighting conditions are the same in both shots).
Again, what is so special in ISO 125? Does it have some magic in itself?
Yeah....if you notice the ZM JPG tone curve gives wider Dynamic range than the default ACR conversion. ZM can give peak DR at either end of the spectrum even when shooting JPG!
Probably so, but only with JPEGs. Dynamic range of MRW files stays the same regardless HI, LO or regular ISO setting.
Thanks man, but the samples clearly show the hi200 raw has probably the most preserved detail, followed by the hi200 jpg, and both of those blow the ISO200 shot to the moon. You can not dial back -o.6 from the raw and recover the highlights and this situation is a very similar scenario as shooting flowers on a bright Sunny day.
Who is talking about recovering highlights in 'normally' exposed ISO 200 shots??? But if you dial in -2/3 DURING shooting flowers on a bright sunny day you will easily be able to recover shadows and midtones if you PP raw files. But the ZM does it nicely for you to your JPEGs (only)! And that's fine!
Like I have said a half-dozen times already...set -0.6 at any ISO and shoot an hours worth of flowers on a sunny day. Then set Hi200 and shoot the same flowers on a sunny day and see which one gives you better exposures. I don't need to do this test because I have already done these sorts of shoots dozens of times and I have found hi200 to be the way to go! Three years of using ZM tells me this...not 10 minutes of talk!
Won't argue with you on this! I just want to say that ZM works fine as intended BUT for JPEGs ONLY. If you shoot MRW only then ZM is next to useless!
Marat. And off to bed now. Let's continue tomorrow if you wish!