The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
The Definitive Sony B&W Images Thread
- Thread starter etrigan63
- Start date
mediumcool
Active member
I like this kind of photograph very much (my faves are #3 and #4), and have done something similar from time to time, but never on a tripod. I will be lugging my tiny Gitzo out with me soon!
BUT.
The conspicuous posterisation in most of the skies disturbs me. Is it a consequence of the layering?
Audii-Dudii
Active member
No, it's not.
All of these files look fine and print fine in 16-bit .tif form, with no evidence of banding or posterization in the skies or shadow areas.
As best I have been able to determine, the posterization manifests itself as the result of converting the file to an 8-bit .jpg and being resized in Photoshop CS 5.5 or CS6 (using any of the available processing algorithms), and/or the file-size compression process applied by the image host I use.
For comparison, here's a 100% crop from photo No. 4, converted to an 8-bit .jpg with no resizing done in Photoshop and subject to the same image host's file compression process:
On my calibrated and profiled monitor (NEC PA271W), I can see just a hint of some issues with this file, which I attribute to the image host's compression scheme. When the 16-bit .tifs are printed on paper via my Epson 3880, however, they are non-existent.
If there's a way to eliminate this effect and keep the file sizes reasonable for posting online, then I'm not aware of it. My gut feeling is that, in 8-bit form, there simply aren't enough shades of gray to accurately reproduce a gradient that is this close to absolute black, so I'm stuck with it regardless.
But this also raises another interesting, related point, which is that it's been my experience that the most recent generation of Sony sensors and image processing pipelines do not work as well for this type of low-light, long-exposure-at-base-ISO photography as the previous generation of them does.
I borrowed a friend's A7RII for two weeks this past summer and my conclusion is that while the 42MP files were generally a welcome improvement over the 36MP files of my A7R and 24MP files of my RX1 and they were also noticeably less noisy across the board, when it came to capturing details in the deepest shadow areas with these kinds of low-light, long-exposure photos, the A7RII clearly wasn't anywhere near as good as either my A7R or RX1. It was also absolutely essential to keep the A7RII in 13-bit mode (i.e., only use exposures under 30 seconds, no matter what) whereas with my previous generation cameras, I have a small amount of flexibility in this respect.
That said, when using this image stacking / median-blending technique with my RX1, I likewise have to keep the camera in its 13-bit mode, as the image quality in the shadow areas noticeably suffers when I don't. (Alas, both of my A7Rs are broken, so I haven't been able to check how this processing technique affects the results from them, but I suspect they will be similar to my experience with my RX1s.)
This diminution of image quality was enough to keep me from buying my friend's used A7RII, despite the very generous price he offered me, because overall, the files it produced vis-à-vis the type of photography I would be doing with it, were a small, but noticeable step backward from those I was capturing with my humble A7R and even more humble RX1. I don't know whether this will also prove to be the same with the RX1RII -- after all, I understand that it uses the same sensor as the A7RII -- but it has made me cautious enough that I'm not going to buy one before I can confirm or deny this for myself. (I've read in various online fora that many astrophotographers aren't finding the A7RII to be an improvement over the A7R, which seems to confirm my observations, although they typically approach their low-light photography very differently than I approach mine.)
Unfortunately, for the type of photography I do most of the time, there's no substitute for personal experience, as no reviewers use test cameras quite the same way that I do and a camera's low-light, high-ISO performance -- the reviewers' and most photographers' primary focus -- is absolutely and utterly meaningless for my purposes. Some cameras you would expect to fare poorly (various m4/3 bodies) actually do surprisingly well (the Panasonic GX1, in particular) and some you would expect to fare well -- such as the A7RII -- don't. <shrugs>
Last edited:
mediumcool
Active member
Thanks for the considered and comprehensive reply! I have an a7, which produces very sharp and detailed images, but I find them curiously lifeless when compared to results from my two m4/3 cameras (all processed via Capture One and Pixelmator). And no, I haven’t done any A/B testing (life’s too short etc.).
You have inspired me to walk around my neighbourhood at night and deploy a tripod. I will try bracketing, and see what I come up with. All my processing at the moment is for the screen, but I am saving for an Epson P800.
Even with flaws and missteps in hardware and software, it’s a great time to be involved in photography—my first camera (chosen and supplied by my father) was a Zeiss Nettar 6x6 c 1966!
Audii-Dudii
Active member
Do it! If your neighborhood is anything like mine, it's truly amazing how different -- and more interesting -- a familiar environment can look under different conditions.
Although it can be a dodgy, significantly more risky proposition, I also do a lot of photography at night in various industrial/commercial areas as well, for the same reason.
FWIW, it's been my experience that making photos look good when displayed on a monitor is generally much easier than making them look good when printed on paper. Frankly, almost any photo can be made to look good on a monitor, but this is definitely not the case when printing them on paper. Expect to go through a lot of paper and ink as you learn the process and familiarize yourself with the tools ... btdt.
I agree! (FYI, my first camera was a Kodak 35 rangefinder that belonged to my father, quickly followed by a Minolta SRT-100 that was more appropriate for the sports/action photography that interested me as a teenager.)
V
Vivek
Guest
Audii-Dudii
Active member
Here are a few of the photos I've taken on late-night walks with my dog and RX1 around my neighborhood over the past two nights. Although I haven't included the supermoon itself in any of the photos -- with a 35mm focal length lens, what would be the point? -- I have taken advantage of the additional light it's providing to photograph several scenes that I wouldn't have been able to photograph to my standards otherwise or even at all.
And Yes, Miss Abby and I will be going out again tonight for a few hours, because I can't resist this once-in-my-lifetime opportunity and also because sleep is overrated!
And Yes, Miss Abby and I will be going out again tonight for a few hours, because I can't resist this once-in-my-lifetime opportunity and also because sleep is overrated!
Audii-Dudii
Active member
Oh, well ... went out for a while tonight, took only two photos, then the clouds rolled in and all the extra light was I was counting upon was gone.
V
Vivek
Guest
Fishing Pier at Jacksonville Beach. Unfortunately, Hurricane Matthew took off the far end.
[size=4#1[/size]
Date Taken: 2016-09-05 07:26:05
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS @ 16 mm
f/16.0 | 0.1 sec (1/10) | 320
JaxPierSunrise_3 2
Date Taken: 2016-09-05 07:01:47
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS @ 31
f/14.0 | 25 sec | 320
[size=4#1[/size]
Date Taken: 2016-09-05 07:26:05
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS @ 16 mm
f/16.0 | 0.1 sec (1/10) | 320
JaxPierSunrise_3 2
Date Taken: 2016-09-05 07:01:47
Camera Model: ILCE-7
Lens: FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS @ 31
f/14.0 | 25 sec | 320
V
Vivek
Guest
V
