Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: The Optimum Digital Exposure  (Read 64381 times)

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #120 on: October 31, 2014, 08:10:09 pm »

Given that photography is for me a creative enterprise, whatever helps me get a look I like or find compelling or even provocative is the optimum thing to do. Attempts to impose any particular æsthetic or approach as the "right" one should be disregarded.
Yup.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #121 on: October 31, 2014, 08:19:39 pm »

Nailed it.

I respectfully disagree.  If this image were grainless and tack sharp it would be reduced to sterile photo reportage and the sense of tension and mystery would evaporate to a large extent.  The murky quality actually adds to the image, I think.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #122 on: October 31, 2014, 10:26:23 pm »

> The major difference between photography and painting is that no matter how much you know about technicalities, if you have no innate talent, you very obviously still cannot paint

You may want to dwell a little into the history of Vatican to see how it is not so. Does the name Piero Dei ring a bell?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #123 on: October 31, 2014, 10:43:47 pm »

I respectfully disagree.  If this image were grainless and tack sharp it would be reduced to sterile photo reportage and the sense of tension and mystery would evaporate to a large extent.  The murky quality actually adds to the image, I think.

Rand

As I mentioned before, there's no accounting for taste.  ;D

However, a relevant point I would make is that a technically sharp and noise-free image can be degraded as much as you like during post processing, to accord with your taste. The reverse is much more difficult.

Whilst a noisy and unsharp image can certainly be improved, for the benefit of those who do not find noise and blurriness a big attraction, most of us would agree that it's difficult to create detail that was never captured in the first instance.

A few years ago I visited an Henri Cartier Bresson exhibition in Australia. I certainly found the photos interesting, but I could not restrain myself, as I walked around the exhibition hall, from making a mental comparison with what I imagined each photo could have been like if it had been taken with a modern DSLR, and processed by me.  ;)  How much better each photo would then have been.  ;)

When I came to this shot of a man jumping over a puddle, what struck me was not any appeal due to murkiness, but the symmetry and the relationships between various elements in the composition.

Previously, I'd seen only rather small images of this shot on my computer screen, no bigger than the current image from Jeremy. On the fairly large print presented in the exhibition (maybe 20" x 25" - can't remember precisely), the background advertisement of the Railowsky Circus, depicting another person in the act of 'jumping',  was much clearer, and therefore the connection or relationship, in the composition, between the picture of the jumping man in the advertisement and the real man jumping the puddle, both with their own reflections in the water, was stronger and more obvious, and as a consequence that increased the appeal of the photo.

This image is truly a great example of 'capturing the moment'. Grain, noise and general lack of clarity do not add to its appeal one whit, in my view.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #124 on: October 31, 2014, 10:55:37 pm »

As a corollary to Ray's point, having artistic latitude inherent in a camera's ability to produce an image is helpful.
Not having certain characteristics in an image means having to introduce it later in post-processing.
Many of these edits are best done from a position of strength as it were since adding grain to a clean image (with respect to noise) is better than trying to clean up a noisy image when clean shadows and fine detail are required or desired.

Tony Jay
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #125 on: October 31, 2014, 11:02:11 pm »

I respectfully disagree.  If this image were grainless and tack sharp it would be reduced to sterile photo reportage and the sense of tension and mystery would evaporate to a large extent.  The murky quality actually adds to the image, I think.

Rand

You are romanticizing, filling in the low detail of the shot with your imagined wonders. We all do it when we watch old B/W movies, etc. It becomes interesting because it lacks so much quality, the ancient times become magical. If you objectively look at a lot  of old stuff it is really very primitive. Compare the first running horse movie, which was a technical marvel at the time, to a modern blockbuster. I think it was Arthur C Clark that said "Any technology sufficiently advanced from the norm, becomes indistinguishable from magic." [Probably not his exact words] Well, when we look back, romanticizing about a lost time when things were simpler and nicer, it is all in our heads. Despite the manners of the Victorian age, life was quite rough. Despite the chivalry of the middle ages, their wars were absolute bloodbaths of masses hacking apart masses.

The HCB image is great given the limitations of the time. If someone recreated the shot in 100MP detail, and you think the magic has disappeared, it is because the magic was in your imagination. Hitchcock was the master of playing on that.

edit: here is the first running horse video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrRUDS1xbNs

Is it more wonderful due to the low image quality? Probably not.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 11:17:01 pm by Fine_Art »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #126 on: November 01, 2014, 12:16:41 am »

You are romanticizing, filling in the low detail of the shot with your imagined wonders. We all do it when we watch old B/W movies, etc. It becomes interesting because it lacks so much quality, the ancient times become magical. If you objectively look at a lot  of old stuff it is really very primitive. Compare the first running horse movie, which was a technical marvel at the time, to a modern blockbuster. I think it was Arthur C Clark that said "Any technology sufficiently advanced from the norm, becomes indistinguishable from magic." [Probably not his exact words] Well, when we look back, romanticizing about a lost time when things were simpler and nicer, it is all in our heads. Despite the manners of the Victorian age, life was quite rough. Despite the chivalry of the middle ages, their wars were absolute bloodbaths of masses hacking apart masses.

The HCB image is great given the limitations of the time. If someone recreated the shot in 100MP detail, and you think the magic has disappeared, it is because the magic was in your imagination. Hitchcock was the master of playing on that.

edit: here is the first running horse video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrRUDS1xbNs

Is it more wonderful due to the low image quality? Probably not.


Ah! I see! There is accounting for taste.  ;D  Thanks for that, Fine_Art.
Logged

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #127 on: November 01, 2014, 10:41:07 am »

I'm a little late to the party here but I have read through most of the thread and I still have some questions regarding the article:

- What makes this article different from the normal ETTR article, including Michael's?  I don't really see any new ground being covered here other than trying to wrap it up in a trademarked phrase and sell a book.

- The only part that was a little new for me was the assertion that there is even more headroom available than we have been led to believe.  But that assertion appears to be based on George Jardine's experiments back in 2012 and after looking over THAT article, it seems questionable as to how accurately it was done and just what conclusions can be drawn from it.  Even George starts to add disclaimers in the comments on that page.  Since apparently nobody from Adobe was consulted, I am extremely skeptical regarding the "97% in LR still leaves one full stop" assertion, given all the behind-the-scenes "magic" that happens in LR regarding highlight recovery.

- The sample pics in the article seem over-the-top to me - the black cat on the coal pile, in particular.  I guess maybe exaggeration to make a point?

- The other thing that occurred to me while reading it was how ETTR is now starting to show a little wear where the new sensors are concerned (Guillermo is talking about this and showing examples in the thread) so it gives me the impression that the author is trying to make a lot of noise about something that has already been extensively covered AND is beginning to be less important than it was in the past.  Seems like poor timing.

What am I missing?  It just came off to me as really light-weight and "gimmicky" compared to what I am used to seeing on LuLa.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 10:47:36 am by Eyeball »
Logged

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #128 on: November 01, 2014, 11:25:36 am »

What am I missing?
the big picture... the front page of LuLa has to be filled with something when there is nothing of real value, it might need to be filled with such articles
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #129 on: November 01, 2014, 11:30:40 am »

- The only part that was a little new for me was the assertion that there is even more headroom available than we have been led to believe.  But that assertion appears to be based on George Jardine's experiments back in 2012 and after looking over THAT article, it seems questionable as to how accurately it was done and just what conclusions can be drawn from it.  Even George starts to add disclaimers in the comments on that page.  Since apparently nobody from Adobe was consulted, I am extremely skeptical regarding the "97% in LR still leaves one full stop" assertion, given all the behind-the-scenes "magic" that happens in LR regarding highlight recovery.

A major flaw of the article is that the author uses LR percentages to judge the status of the raw data. This is hazardous since LR and ACR in PV2012 use automatic highlight recovery and blown highlights may not be recognized. Furthermore, LR and ACR use baseline exposure offsets that affect the histograms and pixel value readouts. RawDigger is the proper tool with which to evaluate the raw file.

- The other thing that occurred to me while reading it was how ETTR is now starting to show a little wear where the new sensors are concerned (Guillermo is talking about this and showing examples in the thread) so it gives me the impression that the author is trying to make a lot of noise about something that has already been extensively covered AND is beginning to be less important than it was in the past.  Seems like poor timing.

Quite true. With current high performance sensors, one may get excellent results without optimum exposure and without the risk of blown highlights with resultant loss of data.

Bill
Logged

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #130 on: November 01, 2014, 01:21:40 pm »

> With current high performance sensors, one may get excellent results without optimum exposure and without the risk of blown highlights with resultant loss of data

More, with some cameras at base ISO, where close to full well is used, standard exposure advices like keep right are resulting in linearity limit being exceeded by close to a stop - like it is with some Panasonic models and Sigmas. A study based on 1 or 2 camera models resulting in general advice is simply wrong.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #131 on: November 01, 2014, 01:30:39 pm »

A major flaw of the article is that the author uses LR percentages to judge the status of the raw data. This is hazardous since LR and ACR in PV2012 use automatic highlight recovery and blown highlights may not be recognized. Furthermore, LR and ACR use baseline exposure offsets that affect the histograms and pixel value readouts. RawDigger is the proper tool with which to evaluate the raw file.

Spot on, Bill. With Lightroom there is too much going on to allow (in particular quantitative and) qualitative assessments. It's also not designed for that purpose, so it's fine for what it does do.

Quote
With current high performance sensors, one may get excellent results without optimum exposure and without the risk of blown highlights with resultant loss of data.

Indeed, but still no license for sloppy technique. Better exposure (more photons) still gives better technical quality, but it is nice to have room to play, in case we cannot avoid to underexpose.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

deejjjaaaa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1170
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #132 on: November 01, 2014, 01:31:01 pm »

RawDigger is the proper tool with which to evaluate the raw file.
FRV (http://www.fastrawviewer.com/ ) from the same sources as RawDigger works nicely too (when you do not need a precision greater than say 1/6-1/12 EV ? or not doing a precise research), now that it has much improved, user friendly (= mouse friendly for me), UI I find myself starting FRV from my image browser almost always instead of RawDigger for the purpose of evaluating regular shots/bracketed shots/etc.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #133 on: November 01, 2014, 05:50:06 pm »

…having artistic latitude inherent in a camera's ability to produce an image is helpful. Not having certain characteristics in an image means having to introduce it later in post-processing. Many of these edits are best done from a position of strength as it were since adding grain to a clean image (with respect to noise) is better than trying to clean up a noisy image when clean shadows and fine detail are required or desired.

This is a variant on the recording musician's dilemma: Track with effects (phasing, delay, reverb, etc.) inline with your instrument or add the effects later? I find with photography as well as music that the "right" way to do it depends. If I'm taking photos with the intent of including noise/grain and I'm using a camera that has a pleasing (as defined by me) noise profile, then I'll set the ISO to give me the amount of noise I want. No "fixing it in the mix." Different camera, different circumstances, different look desired…different choices. There is no right or wrong involved, just a combination of impulse & experience plus subjective taste. Do what works for you.

Also note that these days there's as much technique involved in achieving a deliberately grainy/noisy look as in a clean one. It's a deliberate process, not the result of ignorance or sloppiness.

-Dave-
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #134 on: November 01, 2014, 06:58:35 pm »

Also note that these days there's as much technique involved in achieving a deliberately grainy/noisy look as in a clean one. It's a deliberate process, not the result of ignorance or sloppiness.

Totally agree Dave. Too bad there are apparently only relatively few who master that craft...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #135 on: November 01, 2014, 07:56:06 pm »

Totally agree Dave. Too bad there are apparently only relatively few who master that craft...

Cheers,
Bart
It was (and is) the same with the film. A lot of time needs to be spent with the film choosing the right emulsion, right exposure, right development, and right magnification of the shots of sandpaper to be overlaid to get the grain you want :)
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: Re: Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #136 on: November 01, 2014, 08:30:15 pm »

If I'm taking photos with the intent of including noise/grain and I'm using a camera that has a pleasing (as defined by me) noise profile, then I'll set the ISO to give me the amount of noise I want.

I doubt there is such camera. RAW noise has a gaussian/Poisson distribution on all 4 channels in any Bayer sensor, and how this noise translates to the final image depends mainly on the RAW development software and processing applied (noise reduction, etc...). Same software and processing, equal noise appearance for the same level of input noise.

The best way to have nice noise in the final image on a digital camera is to capture as noise free as possible, then add noise. Whether these manoeuvres make sense or not is subjective.

Regards

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Re: Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #137 on: November 01, 2014, 08:42:27 pm »

RAW noise has a gaussian/Poisson distribution on all 4 channels in any Bayer sensor, and how this noise translates to the final image depends mainly on the RAW development software and processing applied (noise reduction, etc...). Same software and processing, equal noise appearance for the same level of input noise.

The best way to have nice noise in the final image on a digital camera is to capture as noise free as possible, then add noise. Whether these manoeuvres make sense or not is subjective.

Hi Guillermo,

Couldn't agree more. The Raw conversion process will dictate the 'look' of the mostly Poisson/Gaussian noise, but demosaicing will determine what it's going to look like.

The best approach, if (!) one wants to use noise as a creative option, adding it to a relatively noise free image is the best approach to have creative control.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Iliah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 770
Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #138 on: November 02, 2014, 10:19:30 am »

Well, officially version 0.9.4 was published this morning only, that includes colour management, EXIF,... Changelog is on the download page, http://www.fastrawviewer.com/download
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Re: Re: The Optimum Digital Exposure
« Reply #139 on: November 02, 2014, 03:20:59 pm »

I doubt there is such camera. RAW noise has a gaussian/Poisson distribution on all 4 channels in any Bayer sensor, and how this noise translates to the final image depends mainly on the RAW development software and processing applied (noise reduction, etc...). Same software and processing, equal noise appearance for the same level of input noise.

I should've noted that when I gain up the sensor with the intent of producing noise it's with JPEG use in mind. Thus the only RAW converter in play is the one on-board the camera.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Up