Monochrome camera vs converting from color?

[Alan Klein]

Here's an example.  Do you really need to see more of what's in the shadows?  I could have raised it, but the details there are unimportant and would detract from the main picture.

Citicorp Stadium - Queens by Alan Klein, on Flickr

[digitaldog]

I guess I wasn't clear. 

That's one way to explain it. 
Meanwhile, some of us are attempting to explain that optimally exposing your image data provides the least noise and greatest DR and that our capture systems are far from able to capture what we see and often what we wish to express.

[Iliah]

You missed my point.  I guess I wasn't clear.  Maybe someone else can explain.

No, I didn't miss what you call your point. You said "You're assuming seeing what's in the shadows is important." There is no such thing as absolute shadows, shadows is a relative term. From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows. From the point of view of 1/500 sec everything that happens during a game of basketball is shadows.

[digitaldog]

Here's an example.  Do you really need to see more of what's in the shadows? 

You want us to comment on something we can't see? Show us both options (one WITH shadow detail), we'll provide you an opinion. Again, you can't render what you can't capture. I'm not suggesting what so ever that shadow detail is necessary in all images. But you have no choice in many situations. Some of us would like that choice.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You missed my point.... 

There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.

[digitaldog]

There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.

Or the science (and facts) behind image capture (exposure, DR). 

[petermfiore]

There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.

+1

Opinions are other people's ideas...

Peter

[petermfiore]

Or the science (and facts) behind image capture (exposure, DR). 

Having science on your side is fact based not always art...most times it's not.

Peter

[Iliah]

There is no point, Alan, in debating technologists, hair-splutters, and semantics-obsessed.

Bravo. You resorted to insults.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bravo. You resorted to insults.

I think Andrew took is a compliment. Not sure about you, as I do not know you, besides arguing that, when I say it is cold outside at +30 F, you say it is actually quite warm from a North Pole perspective

[Iliah]

I think Andrew took is a compliment. Not sure about you, as I do not know you, besides arguing that, when I say it is cold outside at +30 F, you say it is actually quite warm from a North Pole perspective

That's not what I'm saying 

To elaborate, science is one of the forms of art; cameras are designed with the help of science, film is designed with the help of science, knowing how they work involves science. Semantics is the study of meaning, and it is quite showing how the use of the word turned to disparaging.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's not what I'm saying  ...

That is exactly what you were saying:

... From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows. From the point of view of 1/500 sec everything that happens during a game of basketball is shadows.

So, let me rearrange my sentence:

From the point of view of the North Pole, everything that happens in a midwest winter is warm. While you might be semantically correct, we in the midwest still shiver at +40F.

But since you brought up "a dimly lit bar," where "everything is shadows," let me illustrate what photographers call "shadows" in a dimly lit bar: for instance, the area on her chest clearly has shadows within your "shadows." And those "shadows within shadows" is what we photographers are interested in, as they help provide a sense of 3D, even where "everything is shadows."

[Iliah]

That is exactly what you were saying

Alas, but no.

you brought up "a dimly lit bar," where "everything is shadows,"

Again, no. I said "From the point of view of ISO 100 everything that happens in a dimly lit bar is shadows".

When you say "technologists", do you know what the root tekhne means? Art.

Do you know how a digital camera works and what ISO setting in a digital camera is?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Do you know how a digital camera works and what ISO setting in a digital camera is?

Maybe I don't. I just know how to use it.

[Iliah]

Maybe I don't. I just know how to use it.

You realize that ISO setting doesn't change the sensor sensitivity, and that high ISO noise is a myth, do you?

[digitaldog]

Having science on your side is fact based not always art...most times it's not.

Peter

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Søren Kierkegaard

[digitaldog]

You realize that ISO setting doesn't change the sensor sensitivity, and that high ISO noise is a myth, do you?

Why do some of us have to keep stating that scientific fact?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why do some of us have to keep stating that scientific fact?

You two give science a bad name

[Iliah]

You two give science a bad name

Seems like you don't see the relevance of knowing what ISO setting is in digital cameras. The relevance is this: what you see as midtone for ISO 800 is shadows for ISO 100. If deep shadows for ISO 100 are clean, so are the midtones for ISO 1600.

[digitaldog]

You two give science a bad name

You have again confused fact/science with fiction and the science fiction of others! 😂