Encouragement to shoot raw

[smoke665]

He listed blown highlights and noise in shadows.

Again you are totally missing the point. I didn't say I had problems with noise or blown highlights. I said "I know how far I can push the ETTR for a maximum white of RGB 255.255.255, (that's not blown), the most shadow detail possible for the DR of the scene (as Joe mentioned above the highest SNR for the exposure), and a full sensor. Random noise in the shadows is always present but increases as the SNR decreases, if you apply gain post to raise the exposure that noise also gets boosted. If you eliminate it prepost processing by maintaining a higher SNR then it isn't as much a problem in post processing. ETTL (under exposing) can help retain highlight details in a scene but at the risk of increased noise in the shadows, fewer discrete tones, and a decrease in micro transition. There are no downsides to striving for a full sensor (neither over or under exposed) exposure.

Sorry, but all the rest of your post is pretty much nonsensical ramblings.

 

[AlanKlein]

Aah yes, the day of shooting slides. I bought my first TLR in high school in the 1960's. I bought the 127 format, so I could shoot "Super Slide" that were twice the size of a 35mm transparency but still fit in the 35 mm projector. I lived on Ektachrome and have hundreds of slides tucked away. Post processing was simple. Good a slide, good slide, bad slide, toss it. The ultimate SOOC.

12 shots to the roll, drug store development, makes one a bit choosy about your shot, but curious if you chose the right one. Digital is light years ahead of that, you can choose your 10 best angles for the shot. Select the best three and vacillate between them to select best of the best.

But digital has brought with it the ease of post processing and the impulse to tweak small corrections in Jpeg, or for some the enjoyment of turning the image into a work of art in Raw.

When I look at the stream above, the woods, the rocks, the water, the bridge etc. It is a great photograph, absolutely no doubt about that. But it is not real looking. The intensity, richness of the color, and contrast, instantly tell me, the real-life image, in even the best sunlight does not look that good.

Those features simply pop out at me as overdone. I am sure that my, good slide, good slide, bad slide habit has taught me to recognize my personal preferences. I am also sure the photograph to would sell in a heartbeat and be proudly displayed.

As an aside. The reason that some posts are resurrected, is because they are interesting and display diverse opinions of others.

I agree, The brightness is too even with no real contrast. Does not look real. Just because digital cameras have the technical ability to lighten shadows so you can see them doesn't mean you should do that. Leave them darker. Besides, who cares about those dsahow details. There;s nothing in there that we want to see anyway under normal conditions. Our eyes don't see that way either. Shadows go dark when we look at brighter parts of a scene. We see in more contrasty ways.

 

[AlanKlein]

You're right that image isn't true to life, faithful to what was actually seen and actually there. But nobody holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them use post processing software to generate unrealistic looking images. You want the image to be faithful to what was seen? Then for heaven's sake don't shoot film. Film never could get us there. You mentioned Ektachrome. The pro version of Ektachrome 100 (shipped refrigerated and exposed under controlled lighting) got us as close as possible back in the day, I used to use it for product photos in the studio. That was not the film you bought in 127 rolls which, true to life, it was not. Back then most of us shot Kodachrome because it was even less true to life and we liked that; "Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah... So mama don't take my Kodachrome away"

And if you want the image to be faithful to what was seen don't shoot camera JPEGs. They're deliberately engineered to be unfaithful to what was seen. All the camera manufacturers work hard to have their camera's JPEG processing software produce pleasing photos as opposed to true to life photos. I'm partial to my Fuji cameras but I would never use their camera JPEGs. Fuji cameras are well-known for their JPEGs and their film simulations. You can't take a JPEG with a Fuji camera without selecting a film simulation. The classic chrome simulation is a favorite. It produces sky colors that never actually occur on the planet earth. I guess that's why it's so popular, who wants reality right -- camera JPEGs are a way to avoid reality.

But if you really do want your image to be faithful to what you saw, you now have an option with modern digital cameras to let you do that. Save and process a raw file and you can avoid the false colors and tonal limitations of film and the false colors and tone limitations of camera JPEGs. Here's an example:

View attachment 285597
That's the main business street in my neighborhood -- I was out for a walk. My neighborhood is called The Hill because one more block behind my and you'd be in the park that's the high point in the city, we can see the Arch from the top of the hill. That photo is true to life and could not have been taken with transparency film or a digital camera JPEG. If you look at the lighting in the photo you should understand why. Shoot raw and process the image to be what you want. And if what you want is a realistic image true to what you saw then that's the best way to get it.

The brighter parts appear too bright for the lighting conditions and time of day.

 

[21limited]

RGB 255.255.255, (that's not blown),

Since values go from 0 -255, any 255 value certainly could be blown. If you get your values to 254, you can assume they aren’t blown because if they were, they’d be 255. 255 includes any actual value of 255, and any value that would be more than that. Sounds like you whole evauation scheme may be misleading.

So either you didn’t actually have 255 readings, or you possibly have blown highlights. I would interpet any block of 255 readings as sign of blown highlights.

 

[smoke665]

Since values go from 0 -255, any 255 value certainly could be blown. If you get your values to 254, you can assume they aren’t blown because if they were, they’d be 255. 255 includes any actual value of 255, and any value that would be more than that. Sounds like you whole evauation scheme may be misleading.

My primary interest is portrait where White/Black points are important for skin rendering. The standard RGB value for pure white is (255, 255, 255). This means that the red, green, and blue color channels are all set to their maximum intensity. Real life readings may vary but it's generally accepted that if none of the channels "exceed" 255, then whites will not be blown (diffused highlights). Just to be clear, specular highlights can exceed the DR capabilities of the camera, but aren't nearly as important as maintaining the whites in a full sensor exposure for me. Sometimes you have to choose your battles, here's one that exceeded the DR, and no way to bracket, one shot and done. Settings were ISO 100, f/13, 1.6 sec.
hot bulb 2.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

and here is the histogram, note no blown whites, and no clipping in the shadows.

 

[Ysarex]

The brighter parts appear too bright for the lighting conditions and time of day.

The buildings on the left in direct full sunlight -- I don't agree, they look just like what they are -- fully sunlit. There are not blown diffuse highlights in the photo, the brightest object in the photo is a curved backup mirror on a pole down by the auto shop.

 

[21limited]

Real life readings may vary but it's generally accepted that if none of the channels "exceed" 255, then whites will not be blown (diffused highlights).

Generally accepted where?

In your example above what has happend is your whites are up in a range where there is very little difference between say 253, and 255. They will apear to be one solid blotch with no detail even though there may be some numerical difference in the histogram., so, even though you probably aren’t at 255 the highlight is blown. That is determined visually, not with numbers. There is absolutely no detail in those whites, they are absolutely blown. That you would assume differently based on a histogram, would work, if photography wasn't a visual art. You can only assume to be true what you see with your eyes. What the histgram looks like doesn;t matter. So absolutely your whites are blown.

You need to consider how many gradations there are in the high end of the histogram, and how many can be visually discerned by the eye. If you were more ocncerened with visual blown highlights as opposed to technical highlights you could have done better. If you have done this a lot, you know you can’t see the difference between 250 and 255.

2016-12-24-NF at night -2 by Norm Head, on Flickr

I’m don’t pay attention to numerical blow out. That means nothing to the eye. I’m concerned with what appears to be blownout to my eye. There is some blowout in this image, but it’s contained to specific areas where it doesn’t look un-natural.

Blown out doesn’t mean a value less than 255, it mean no detail in the highligts, and your image has no detail in the highlights, because it’s over exposed. HIstograms are meant as guides, but you can’t use them to determine the visibility of detail. That shot being a perfect example.

Here’s another aproach…. expose to where most of the detail is.
2019-08-20-Nipissing-waterfall by Norm Head, on Flickr

I exposed to produce detail in the shadows and pretty much ignore the brighter parts of the image. They may be blown out, I dont care. Because they are confined to areas where they would be blown out if you were there using your eyes. and because the rocks are an important part of the image, and they are black. It has produced comments on line that it’s the best image of this waterfall people have ever seen, because I evaluated what I needed to do, and did it, without biases imposed with concepts like ETTR. If I’d exposed for the lit up trees in the background those rocks would be black blobs. (Kind of like the white blobs above.) My rule is expose for the important parts of the image.

Anyway, do what you want, I’m not getting paid for stating the obvious.

 

[smoke665]

your example, above what has hppend is your whites are up in a rnge where there is very little difference between say 253, and 255. They will apear to be one solid colout, so, even though you probably aren’t at 255 the highlight is blown.

And once again you are misunderstanding what I said, I repeat "Just to be clear, specular highlights can exceed the DR capabilities of the camera, but aren't nearly as important as maintaining the whites in a full sensor exposure for me. Sometimes you have to choose your battles, here's one that exceeded the DR, and no way to bracket, one shot and done." I knew the specular highlights would far exceed the DR capabilities of the camera, and chose to not worry about detail in those areas, as there wouldn't be any in the pure white light of the burning powder.

Per you: "If you have done this a lot, you know you can’t see the difference between 250 and 255"
Apparently it's not something you can, but I do because I rely on the numbers, since most of these don't get above RGB 245,245,245 and the darkest one RGB 241,238,233 and since you only trust your eyes, here's a visual for you. I sampled the diffused specular highlights, (you say are blown) and painted them on a base white of 255,255,255, now can you see the difference.....some got close but most were actually well under!

These aren't "guesstimates" by eye, they are actual samples from the areas "by the numbers".

In any case I've explained why I ETTR, using a method that works fine for me. Nothing you've said to this point has provided any reasons for changing. I personally don't care what method you use, do what works for you, but lets move on with the topic of the thread.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

When I say a picture is "not real looking", the usual answer is "No camera or process can really capture a true picture." That is a given fact, and I certainly have no argument with that. Also, enhancing the image is as old as photograph itself.

Like many folks, I have spent a lot of time roaming the woods and playing in the outdoor. I have seen rocks glisten in the stream, water sparkle against rocks, sun highlight the autumn foliage, etc. But....what I have not seen is a sun angle that highlights all of these features so well simultaneously.

For example, our State Park has a series of limestone canyons. I have pictures of the sun lighting the multicolored limestone sediment wall curving ahead. The opposite wall, though shadowed, is almost as colorful from the reflected light, and my eye's ability to rapidly adjust. Not so with the image my camera's limited latitude.

Naturally, the answer is to tweak the shadowed area in post processing, brighten the shadowed area a bit more. This in my opinion is where many folks go astray. The temptation or intention is to enhance the natural beauty of that wall. But the sun does not shine at two angles at once. This pops into my view quickly.

This may seem picayune and downright trivial, and perhaps it is. But even in my Ektachrome slide days, which I chose because it enhances the blue skies and white clouds, I do not recall seeing the perfect illumination across the image. This is just my opinion, there are no hard and fast rules in the world of art; and that is a good thing.

 

[21limited]

One of my favourites….
This is what I saw, but not what the camera captured.
2012-05-17-Barron-Canyon-150 by Norm Head, on Flickr

The rocks are boosted, the highlights are suppressed. Same issue, The shadows, were darker, and the higlights were brighter. It often takes time to make an image appear the way you remember it.

 

[DanOstergren]

View attachment 285589
How tiring this all is, a thread from 2023 and last time OP has been on this forum is October 2024, my idea: go take some nice pictures and enjoy your old age instead of trying to prove again and again how good you are and how right you are, it's starting to get pretty annoying in just the few weeks you've been back on this forum. I'll press the ignore botton for "21 limited", because I've seen enough of you and I think it's not a bad idea for others to do the same thing.

While I love sassy responses like this and couldn't help chuckling a bit at it, I also find a lot of this discussion fascinating and informative. I've learned several things I never knew before reading this discussion, albeit I don't know how much of it will be applicable or necessarily important to my photography, I'm glad to have learned some new things nonetheless. I like seeing that active discussion and debate still takes place on this forum despite the age of a thread or where the OP might be when their thread becomes active, especially since activity here is so much less than what it used to be.

 

[AlanKlein]

The buildings on the left in direct full sunlight -- I don't agree, they look just like what they are -- fully sunlit. There are not blown diffuse highlights in the photo, the brightest object in the photo is a curved backup mirror on a pole down by the auto shop.

The scene doesn't have to be blown to be too bright. Relative brightness counts as well.

 

[AlanKlein]

When I say a picture is "not real looking", the usual answer is "No camera or process can really capture a true picture." That is a given fact, and I certainly have no argument with that. Also, enhancing the image is as old as photograph itself.

Like many folks, I have spent a lot of time roaming the woods and playing in the outdoor. I have seen rocks glisten in the stream, water sparkle against rocks, sun highlight the autumn foliage, etc. But....what I have not seen is a sun angle that highlights all of these features so well simultaneously.

For example, our State Park has a series of limestone canyons. I have pictures of the sun lighting the multicolored limestone sediment wall curving ahead. The opposite wall, though shadowed, is almost as colorful from the reflected light, and my eye's ability to rapidly adjust. Not so with the image my camera's limited latitude.

Naturally, the answer is to tweak the shadowed area in post processing, brighten the shadowed area a bit more. This in my opinion is where many folks go astray. The temptation or intention is to enhance the natural beauty of that wall. But the sun does not shine at two angles at once. This pops into my view quickly.

This may seem picayune and downright trivial, and perhaps it is. But even in my Ektachrome slide days, which I chose because it enhances the blue skies and white clouds, I do not recall seeing the perfect illumination across the image. This is just my opinion, there are no hard and fast rules in the world of art; and that is a good thing.

I agree with your point. That's the point I was making earlier as well. Shadow areas should remain shadow areas. Don't raise the brightness to see the details except with a fine hand, because first off they're unimportant and second off, real life doesn't look like that.

 

[Ysarex]

The scene doesn't have to be blown to be too bright. Relative brightness counts as well.

Yep, and I don't agree that it's too bright.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

21 limited.

Your Barron- Canyon -150 photo is one of the best examples I have seen of the proper use of post processing.

I say that because in my opinion, you have balanced the scene perfectly. The intensity sunlight accenting the tree is proportional to the overall brightness of the scene, the shutter speed suspends the water movement just the right amount, the color intensity matches the overall lighting, and the scene has the sharpness of a high dollar lens.

But most important when I first viewed the photo, the scene was instantly recognizable, nothing to distract the eye or attention from the overall picture. So, I asked myself what make this scene look just right. That is what generated the comments above.

I suppose other may or may not agree. But they might not see what I am seeing, given my 12-year-old HP monitor, last calibrate when it left the factory. But again, it my opinion, it is an excellent photo, crafted well in post processing.