Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Reality is they are damn close. But I did not say thatBut not for topics of conversations on photography forums... :lecture::talk028::argue::cussing::banghead:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Reality is they are damn close. But I did not say thatBut not for topics of conversations on photography forums... :lecture::talk028::argue::cussing::banghead:
What confuses me is that LR4 doesn't consider the file clipped until a few stops past when it appears clipped. The software adds information in the form of detail-free tone that goes on (uselessly, IMO) for at least two stops past where the detail ends. I've done a few controlled tests to demonstrate this, by photographing a pattern with alternating 0% and 5% bars at many exposures a stop apart.What Lightroom, Capture One etc can do is to show something as long as there is at least one channel that is not clipped, but this means that you don't have full color information so you make some guesses or simplifications.
Amen. I wish cameras tailored their histograms and clip indicators to the actual raw file. At least when you're shooting raw! It's very frustrating to see such a detailed display of information and have to treat it as a dumb approximation.In-camera histograms differ from manufacturer/model how they choose to show clipping. Some leave some space above it, that is don't show the real clipping point. The histograms may be luminance only and thus show an RGB product and not show individual channel clipping. Learning how the histogram works for your own camera is worthwhile if you often face DR challenges and need to expose optimally. So far I have not come across a camera that have a histogram that gives you the full information (probably because those histograms would be less "user-friendly"), but even if not you can come pretty close to optimal exposure if you just know how it works.
Personally, I test it. You don't need a real-world scene; just a low-contrast target and the exposure controls on the camera.But one thing I do not trust, and I do not mean any offense, is when a photographer takes a picture and then states a camera has x stops DR. That is guessing as they never do any measurements to even know what the DR of the scene is.
The only thing I'd need would be clipping indicators (blinkies) with say yellow for "one channel clipped", orange for "two channels clipped" clipped and red for "all channels clipped". Oh well, I'd like to have underexposed areas highlighted too (not blinking though), everything below a certain level of exposure (preferably configurable) should be highlighted (maybe made gray to not disturb too much with the highlight blinkies), default would probably be something like 7-8 stops below saturation, and do this is in the luminance channel (weigh together red/green/blue rather than looking at separate as for clipping) as we're interested in total noise level here.Amen. I wish cameras tailored their histograms and clip indicators to the actual raw file. At least when you're shooting raw! It's very frustrating to see such a detailed display of information and have to treat it as a dumb approximation.
Excellent suggestion.The only thing I'd need would be clipping indicators (blinkies) with say yellow for "one channel clipped", orange for "two channels clipped" clipped and red for "all channels clipped".
That's more or less what I do too. I sometimes have to go the other way as well, since the pre-exposure histogram won't always take into account the highlights that are small.TWhat I do in practice today in difficult conditions is that I usually bracket a bit rather than thinking a long time about the (approximate) histogram, ie I make one "safe ETTR" and then one or two with more exposure and then I pick in post which one to choose.
Wouldn't that be nice? I think some of this comes down to learning how to use your gear, as you've alluded to. On a new (to you) DSLR, or when knowing you got the exposure really matters, I have become a big fan of having a UniWB setting. If the histogram says a channel is clipped, it is clipped. Admittedly, most of my MFD time is tethered, so the histogram is off the raw.Amen. I wish cameras tailored their histograms and clip indicators to the actual raw file. At least when you're shooting raw! It's very frustrating to see such a detailed display of information and have to treat it as a dumb approximation.
FWIW I've taken the opposite path this year, after years using DSLRs.Hello,
I am new to the forum and am considering getting an MFDB. After doing a lot of reading here, it seems that some people have given up MFDB and returned to full frame DSLRs.
Now that it is mid-2013 and the D800(e) is a well-proven machine, and Canon has hints of an even higher MP DSLR for 2014 possibly, it seems the future cost/benefits of MFDB are even murkier.
I am curious... Who here has recently left MFDB for the D800(e), and why did you do it?
Many thanks in advance for your views. They will help me form some of my own future plans.
John
Borrow sounds good. I suppose that would require shopping for insurance for the day.My advice would be you rent or borrow a MFDB...
I cancelled the M240 because I think the images are homogenized white bread (IMO)!.
Oh Jack - I think Marc has posted this on the L forum - or something very similar.OMG! PLEASE do NOT post that in the L forum as some form of nuclear fission will result!
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: