Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Francis [...] But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an incident light meter. Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal. Unfortunately my whole hog won't fit in my bag... B -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 06/02/2012 05:40, P. J. Alling wrote: On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote: From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Francis [...] But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an incident light meter. Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal. Unfortunately my whole hog won't fit in my bag... You really should get with it and buy one of these modern, far-eastern miniaturised hogs. Whilst they don't have the durability and sheer visible presence of a home-grown one, they do a pretty neat job and you can slip one into your bag with ease. Better to have a hog when you need one than not - get a black one and everyone will still think you are a pro. -- No fixed Adobe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/1/12, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: The Fuji X10, X100 and X-Pro1 optical finders have no focusing capabilities, they rely upon an EVF or AF system for focusing. Which is exactly why I got an X10 - I didn't want to focus manually through the optical viewfinder, I wanted to compose through it. If I want to focus manually through an optical viewfinder i will put a manual lens on a DSLR and do it that way, or get another R-D1, or even a Leica. Sadly funds do not allow the latter!! My point is that I see part of the picture-taking process as looking through an optical viewfinder. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: My understanding of the Fuji is that it is a non coupled viewfinder unless switched over to being an electronic one. That is correct. the X100 is big and bright and you flick a switch to play Space Invaders, er I mean engage the EVF. The X10 is merely an optical finder with no info, not coupled, but does zoom - perfect for my needs on a small AF camera. Is the Epson still current? Negative. You really should try and handle one sometime - you would be pleasantly surprised. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/1/12, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Mark. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: Of course, that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult. Fuck off Colen. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote: On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: Of course, that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult. Fuck off Colen. You want to kiss my what? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Be careful how you reply, Cotty. He's from California and that stuff is legally binding. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote: On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: Of course, that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult. Fuck off Colen. You want to kiss my what? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
But Larry is such a playful guy. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote: Be careful how you reply, Cotty. He's from California and that stuff is legally binding. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote: On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed: Of course, that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult. Fuck off Colen. You want to kiss my what? -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. This is the sad truth. The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a particular tool for the job. I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must be gettin old! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides. I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual and the histogram otherwise. Of course, that's often simply making the best of a bad situation. As for viewfinders, all I have to do it pick up my old SP500 to remind myself of that downhill trend. I swear I hung on to the 645 all those years just so I could look through it and sigh ;-) On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. This is the sad truth. The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a particular tool for the job. I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must be gettin old! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D On 30 January 2012 21:54, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote: The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides. I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual and the histogram otherwise. Of course, that's often simply making the best of a bad situation. As for viewfinders, all I have to do it pick up my old SP500 to remind myself of that downhill trend. I swear I hung on to the 645 all those years just so I could look through it and sigh ;-) On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:10 AM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. This is the sad truth. The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a particular tool for the job. I would not consider a camera without a usable optical viewfinder. Must be gettin old! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-) -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-) It's pretty rough. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Just what I was (not very clearly) trying to say with that long rant. It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic process. Whenever they add a new feature to make the process simpler, they narrow the definition of correct. That leads to additional options and adjustments for the user. Eventually, those options and adjustments, outnumber the original number of decisions you needed to make before all of the enhancements. In the end, this makes things more difficult for the beginner, who was the target audience. For those of us that read manuals and don't mind learning about this stuff, it might lead to more flexibility. That, however, is the exact opposite of what the camera manufacturers had in mind. They put many of those features on the camera to make them more foolproof for beginners. On the other hand, it keeps a steady stream of students signing up for my classes. So, I shouldn't complain. gs George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote: In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend our creative reach. At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human judgement from the equation. For instance, the developments in auto-focus. At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera would then adjust the lens to focus on the point. Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments. At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to teach and too much for the typical photographer to know. So, we came up with some algorithms to have the camera pick that focus point. Some worked better than others, but none of them worked (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do the same thing in every image. So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus, pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came up with. Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we have to learn all of that stuff. After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image. Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces. Of course, we got one more mode to pick from. And besides, it didn't always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without faces in them. Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in the photo and they were at different distances from the camera! Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that. Now we have face detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what combination of buttons is used to pick a different face. All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have to learn how to focus. Wow. Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you wish. I'll step down from my soapbox now. GS George Sinos I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. Paul gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:41 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-) It's pretty rough. However, D700 and A850, and other FF or top of the line bodies, are all DSLRs. (The Olympus E-5 viewfinder is in the same class.) The Leica M8/M9 is a non-DSLR body which has a lovely optical viewfinder with coupled optical rangefinder. The only other one like it is the Epson R-D1. The Fuji X10, X100 and X-Pro1 optical finders have no focusing capabilities, they rely upon an EVF or AF system for focusing. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:45 AM, George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com wrote: ... It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic process. MARK! I'm with ya 100%, George. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote: On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-) It's pretty rough. If Pentax were to abandon the DSLR market, I'd probably go to a full frame Nikon but would also consider Sony. I'd like a bigger, brighter viewfinder, and when I was younger it would have been a priority, but given the deteriorating vision that plagues most of us oldsters and the accuracy of autofocus, it's not a critical need. I do still focus my 400/5.6 manually and am able to get a fair number of hits. I suppose I've become accustomed to the Pentax APS-C viewfinders. They're certainly better than most. But I do avoid looking through my old SLRs. No point in disrupting that acclimation process. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote: On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. :-D Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-) It's pretty rough. If Pentax were to abandon the DSLR market, I'd probably go to a full frame Nikon but would also consider Sony. If you ever get out to Boston (or to GFM) you can try out my Sony A850. It has a truly great control setup: It's got lots of mechanical settings where others have menus, and the pre-sets let you override some mechanical settings (AF mode, for example). Where Pentax is ergonomically superior is in the lens release button and the DOF preview, both of which are awful on the Sony. If only I could combine the best of both worlds... -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-29 15:01 Paul Stenquist wrote You can test for the difference between gray and 5% below clipped highlights. You'll find it's about two stops. But you can tell by looking at a jpeg derived histo as well. If the highlights are clipped just a wee bit, you're golden. i use the histogram like that all the time and it works well when the brightest highlight is my reference; but when spot metering it might not be the brightest highlight that i'd want to move to 5%, yet the histogram is based on the whole scene; if the histogram had a marker for where the spot-metered value lay, that would be a great aid -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little aggressive. Egotistical nonsense snipped As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of themselves that all they see is what they think. Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma. You'd make a good Tea Bagger. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/01/2012 4:10 AM, Cotty wrote: On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. This is the sad truth. The Epson R-D1, Leica M8 and 9, Fuji X100 spring to mind. My X10 is a compromise but does the job just enough that it's useful to me. I do use it with just the rear LCD for some shooting, but that ties in with the subject matter, eg macro for instance. That said, if I do some considered portraits then the A*85/1.4 goes onto either the *ist Ds or the 1D (although I have to ask to borrow that camera :) so for me it's a particular tool for the job. e gettin old! My understanding of the Fuji is that it is a non coupled viewfinder unless switched over to being an electronic one. Is the Epson still current? Leica is, of course, the exception to the rule. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 30/01/2012 7:58 AM, David Savage wrote: The D700 has a nice big viewfinder. Just saying. And the D700 is a non SLR camera how? But point taken, it goes back to the egotistical rubbish I wrote about APS-C viefinders being small and tunnel like. If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little aggressive. In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either drunk or mindless. Egotistical nonsense snipped As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of themselves that all they see is what they think. Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma. You'd make a good Tea Bagger. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake hands and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never happened. ** Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay now. Carry on... ;-) cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras? On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little aggressive. In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either drunk or mindless. Egotistical nonsense snipped As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of themselves that all they see is what they think. Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma. You'd make a good Tea Bagger. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/30/2012 3:03 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either drunk or mindless. Or me, or Bill, or Godfrey, or you, hell half the PDML might do so if we've had a bad day, we have to put the cuss in discussion. Of course, that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Never fear, Frank. I'm done. I put Bill back where he belongs. On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:16 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake hands and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never happened. ** Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay now. Carry on... ;-) cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras? On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little aggressive. In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either drunk or mindless. Egotistical nonsense snipped As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of themselves that all they see is what they think. Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma. You'd make a good Tea Bagger. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. g,dr (sorry, Bill, couldn't resist) :-) cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras? Never fear, Frank. I'm done. I put Bill back where he belongs. On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:16 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake hands and make up. It's time to come in for dinner anyway. Why I bet by tomorrow you'll have forgotten all about this and be playing like this never happened. ** Oh, sorry, I must have just had a childhood flashback or something. I'm okay now. Carry on... ;-) cheers, frank What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -- Christopher Hitchens --- Original Message --- From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras? On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. I was quite sober when I wrote that, are you sober now? You seem a little aggressive. In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either drunk or mindless. Egotistical nonsense snipped As I said, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who is so full of themselves that all they see is what they think. Harder still to have a discussion with someone who refuses to have a discussion at all, unless it's to lay down their own dogma. You'd make a good Tea Bagger. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either. But being in Saskatchewan in winter? That could go a ways towards explaining Bill's disposition. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. . . .And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either. Oooh. A joint Mark! On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either. But being in Saskatchewan in winter? That could go a ways towards explaining Bill's disposition. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Francis [...] But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an incident light meter. Well said! Every photographer should have a whole hog in his arsenal. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend our creative reach. At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human judgement from the equation. For instance, the developments in auto-focus. At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera would then adjust the lens to focus on the point. Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments. At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to teach and too much for the typical photographer to know. So, we came up with some algorithms to have the camera pick that focus point. Some worked better than others, but none of them worked (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do the same thing in every image. So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus, pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came up with. Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we have to learn all of that stuff. After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image. Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces. Of course, we got one more mode to pick from. And besides, it didn't always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without faces in them. Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in the photo and they were at different distances from the camera! Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that. Now we have face detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what combination of buttons is used to pick a different face. All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have to learn how to focus. Wow. Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you wish. I'll step down from my soapbox now. GS George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote: In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend our creative reach. At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human judgement from the equation. For instance, the developments in auto-focus. At one point the human would pick the point in the image on which to focus, line up some little focusing aid in the viewfinder, the camera would then adjust the lens to focus on the point. Making that happen faster and more accurately were welcome developments. At some point, picking that point in the image was deemed too hard to teach and too much for the typical photographer to know. So, we came up with some algorithms to have the camera pick that focus point. Some worked better than others, but none of them worked (or work) all that well because every photographer is not trying to do the same thing in every image. So, we came up with custom functions that let the smarter and more persistent guys pick between super-duper-autofocus, spot focus, pick-your sensor focus and any number of names the marketing guys came up with. Now, instead of learning the simple act of aiming and focusing, we have to learn all of that stuff. After that, some genius figured that most of the time, if there is a face in the picture, that will be the place to focus the image. Cameras got smarter and learned how to detect and focus on faces. Of course, we got one more mode to pick from. And besides, it didn't always actually detect the face, and sometimes we took photos without faces in them. Even worse, sometimes there was more than one face in the photo and they were at different distances from the camera! Engineers, being smart, said we can fix that. Now we have face detection that detects every face in the photo, picks one of the faces for focus, highlights it in a different color so that we have the option of picking one of the other faces, if only we can remember what combination of buttons is used to pick a different face. All of that automation and stuff to learn just so that we don't have to learn how to focus. Wow. Take this example and apply it to histograms and jpg and raw as you wish. I'll step down from my soapbox now. GS George Sinos I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. Paul gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. So far, I have not yet found a single modern, convenience laden DSLR with which I focus and set exposure manually as easily, fluidly, swiftly and surely as I could with my Nikon FM2n. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even much worse metering systems are good enough — we can learn to compensate for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is possible and efficient so as i gravitate toward a more manual process, i imagine the kind of tool i want to work with; the histogram (preferably representing RAW exposure, and live) simply offers a more direct means to an end; a camera's meter just gives one data point; we have to guess how it has evaluated the scene to get the what histogram gives us directly (or spot meter several points); i think the histogram is a better tool for using our brain in conjunction with our meters, and is better suited to intelligent but spontaneous photography i could even appreciate an interface that applies a little more calculus to image data to indicate where in the image, and at what levels, the angle of the histogram's curve is steepest and shallowest, which is part of what i sort out (less effectively) with my brain now -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Steve, I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what I'm saying. On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even much worse metering systems are good enough — we can learn to compensate for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is possible and efficient This is exactly what I'm doing. My career is to write embedded systems software. Designing and writing the software for setting the exposure of a camera would be a job that my 30 years of professional experience is almost ideally suited for. I recognize the limitations of the automatic systems, know to check the exposure against the aids (histogram and blinkies). What is frustrating is that those tools could give me exactly what I need, but they don't. They tell me if the JPEG, which I don't use, would be properly exposed, I want to know what is happening on the sensor. Rather than red blinkies for over exposed and blue for underexposed portions of the jpeg, which will change if you change the color balance, how about red blinkies if you are clipping the data on the sensor, and yellow blinkies if you are close enough to the limit of resolution that you'll get posterization (or whatever you call it when you get those annoying lines in the sky). so as i gravitate toward a more manual process, i imagine the kind of tool i want to work with; the histogram (preferably representing RAW exposure, and live) simply offers a more direct means to an end; a camera's meter just gives one data point; we have to guess how it has evaluated the scene to get the what histogram gives us directly (or spot meter several points); i think the histogram is a better tool for using our brain in conjunction with our meters, and is better suited to intelligent but spontaneous photography Exactly. There are times when metering off the sensor would slow things down too much, use too much power, generate too much heat etc. But there are also times when it is the perfect tool. i could even appreciate an interface that applies a little more calculus to image data to indicate where in the image, and at what levels, the angle of the histogram's curve is steepest and shallowest, which is part of what i sort out (less effectively) with my brain now I also wish that they'd tell me exactly what each of these modes does, rather than when I'm supposed to use them, and let me guess what the camera is doing. I understand that most people are happy with a magic box that does their thinking for them, so that they don't have to think about anything but composition, but at least tell those of us that want to know so that we can decide when to let the camera think for us, and when we should think for ourselves. Instead, I'm left with having to always check the histogram and blinkies, which *almost* tell me what I need to know. It's interesting how many people seem to despise the viewfinder that doesn't show the whole image, but don't seem to mind the histogram that doesn't show all of the information. I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful information. Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most film. When I got my K-5 I thought that I would not need to get a katzeye screen for it. The stock screen seems a lot better than previous cameras, and the autofocus is a lot better. However, I still find myself missing focus in so many cases where if I had a good manual focus screen, it would be trivial to nail focus perfectly. Again, it's a case of optimizing the system for the automatic functions, that don't always work as well as manual. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. I'm glad we agree on something. ;-) Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful information. I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time. Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. That's in practical terms the only thing you can do ... anything else you do is a matter of processing the raw data (setting the appropriate blackpoint, colorspace, and rendering curve to suit the dynamics of the scene). Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's way more than most current in-camera computational processing is capable of. I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras, which is based on 18% reflectance reference). With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual, I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever seen. Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most film. I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is more sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important detail areas more carefully. I don't know of any automation system that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data to work with like your eye and mind does. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Steve, I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what I'm saying. On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even much worse metering systems are good enough — we can learn to compensate for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is possible and efficient This is exactly what I'm doing. My career is to write embedded systems software. Designing and writing the software for setting the exposure of a camera would be a job that my 30 years of professional experience is almost ideally suited for. I recognize the limitations of the automatic systems, know to check the exposure against the aids (histogram and blinkies). What is frustrating is that those tools could give me exactly what I need, but they
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. I'm glad we agree on something. ;-) Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or even that I dislike you. Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful information. I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time. Yes, a scalar meter for a scalar setting is about all you can do. But there is a lot more information available from a histogram than from a match needle, and even more if the camera takes a test shot and reads the value of every sensor site. There are many times when a match needle, or an AE system that follows the match needle is good enough, or the best available. As to manipulating capture data by photosite address, there are times I'd settle for being able to set the ISO of each color channel separately. I often have to underexpose two of the channels by a couple of stops to keep from blowing out the third channel. Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. Very true. How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor? I'll note that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values. Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's way more than most current in-camera computational processing is capable of. In the time available for action shots. But what if you had a mode where you could press the analyze button, and let it churn away for a few seconds? How long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum and minimum values? I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras, which is based on 18% reflectance reference). I suspect I do a lot of this intuitively myself. With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual, I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever seen. Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good to go? Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most film. I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is more sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important detail areas more carefully. All of this is true. I don't know of any automation system that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data to work with like your eye and mind does. Exactly, that is why I want a mode that will take a test shot, or test shots, analyze the data post exposure and report on the ideal exposure based on the scene, and your tolerance for blown out highlights. Ideally, it could do the test shots, and even set optimal values for an HDR range for scenes that may have something like a neon sign on a dark street where one exposure is ideal for the sign, it skips four stops of exposure where the sign is over exposed and the street is underexposed, and another exposure for the street.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. okay, if the spot meter is cued to 15% gray, that means i'd meter as above, then adjust exposure plus whatever the fractional number of stops between 15% gray and 5% below saturation might be on my camera; i suppose i could test that and memorize the adjustment for key ISO values (as the headroom varies); i could preset that bias and be fairly efficient when highlight clipping is my main concern but often i want to choose how much highlight to blow based on how much of my shadows i want keep from turning to mud; and sometimes i'm willing to blow one channel if i can count on keeping some contrast in the other two ... that's when the histogram helps because the best exposure is often not absolute, it's a creative compromise -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. I'm glad we agree on something. ;-) Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful information. I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time. Exactly. This doesn't have to be complicated. Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. That's in practical terms the only thing you can do ... anything else you do is a matter of processing the raw data (setting the appropriate blackpoint, colorspace, and rendering curve to suit the dynamics of the scene). Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's way more than most current in-camera computational processing is capable of. I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras, which is based on 18% reflectance reference). With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual, I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever seen. Exposure compensation is the digital photographer's best friend. It's a great tool. Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most film. I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is more sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more manipulable. That's the beauty of it, and I think all of us who worked with film for so many years can appreciate that. The RAW converter is a hell of a lot more flexible than the developing tank and the enlarger. Paul What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important detail areas more carefully. I don't know of any automation system that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data to work with like your eye and mind does. On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Steve, I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what I'm saying. On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters The K-5 comes somewhat close, but no it's not at the top of the heap. But it's more than good enough when photographers use their brain as well as their meters. that may be, but i suspect that 1) most of us don't have K-5s, and 2) even much worse metering systems are good enough — we can learn to compensate for anything; some of us whose professions are to designs ways to exploit technology, however, will instinctively imagine extending tools as far as is possible and efficient This
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-29 13:33 Larry Colen wrote My career is to write embedded systems software. as a mere generalist programmer and designer of systems, my frustration with the untapped potential of modern camera interfaces is probably a notch or two below yours; whilst we are accused of measurebation, i think it's really our imaginations that are getting us in trouble here -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:53 PM, steve harley wrote: on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. okay, if the spot meter is cued to 15% gray, that means i'd meter as above, then adjust exposure plus whatever the fractional number of stops between 15% gray and 5% below saturation might be on my camera; i suppose i could test that and memorize the adjustment for key ISO values (as the headroom varies); i could preset that bias and be fairly efficient when highlight clipping is my main concern. You can test for the difference between gray and 5% below clipped highlights. You'll find it's about two stops. But you can tell by looking at a jpeg derived histo as well. If the highlights are clipped just a wee bit, you're golden. but often i want to choose how much highlight to blow based on how much of my shadows i want keep from turning to mud; and sometimes i'm willing to blow one channel if i can count on keeping some contrast in the other two ... that's when the histogram helps because the best exposure is often not absolute, it's a creative compromise Exactly. And the histogram on my K-5 works well for that. While the histo may be based on a jpeg, the jpeg is merely the camera's conversion of the RAW. It's in a smaller color space than I work with and it may clip highlights that are useable in RAW conversion, but with some experience it's easy to predict where those lie. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. I'm glad we agree on something. ;-) Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or even that I dislike you. LOL! Smooch! ;-) Very true. How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor? I'll note that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values. The M9 histogram and data processing is actually very sophisticated. When you go to info mode on a zoomed in section of a photo, it allows you to examine just that section in the histogram. Subtle, simple, yet very sophisticated. I don't know whether it is working on the raw or the JPEG data yet, haven't had enough time to learn all that. But it's metering, fundamentally simple as it is (APAE or manual only, strongly center weighted) simply delivers the right results for me in nearly all cases so I haven't even bothered looking at the histogram all that much yet. The exposure is right on the money when I download it and open up the files in Lightroom. In the time available for action shots. But what if you had a mode where you could press the analyze button, and let it churn away for a few seconds? How long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum and minimum values? Sure. How many dozen people would find this of value, and are the hundreds of thousands of dollars in development time and testing worth the investment? Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good to go? When the lighting is really wretched or the scene very difficult, I do. Or I just bracket and don't worry about it, work with what worked well when it's time to render. I don't expect every shot to work out perfectly ... If 10% of what I shoot is worth doing finish work on, I'm good with that. I don't know of any automation system that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data to work with like your eye and mind does. Exactly, that is why I want a mode that will take a test shot, or test shots, analyze the data post exposure and report on the ideal exposure based on the scene, and your tolerance for blown out highlights. Ideally, it could do the test shots, and even set optimal values for an HDR range for scenes that may have something like a neon sign on a dark street where one exposure is ideal for the sign, it skips four stops of exposure where the sign is over exposed and the street is underexposed, and another exposure for the street. You'd have loved an Olympus OM-4Ti. Multispot metering system built into the camera. I almost bought one a few months ago purely for the nostalgia of it. :-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or even that I dislike you. MARK ! -Original Message- From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras? On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use. I'm glad we agree on something. ;-) Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or even that I dislike you. Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more information potentially available that a simple match needle would through away too much useful information. I disagree. Until sensors data can be addressed to manipulate the capture data by photosite address, you will always have one exposure addressing all the photosites the same way. Whether you get there with some ultra-smart evaluative metering system, or you use your brain as the computational system and a meter as the dumb data input, the end result is always an ISO @ aperture @ exposure time. Yes, a scalar meter for a scalar setting is about all you can do. But there is a lot more information available from a histogram than from a match needle, and even more if the camera takes a test shot and reads the value of every sensor site. There are many times when a match needle, or an AE system that follows the match needle is good enough, or the best available. As to manipulating capture data by photosite address, there are times I'd settle for being able to set the ISO of each color channel separately. I often have to underexpose two of the channels by a couple of stops to keep from blowing out the third channel. Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the brightest area of significant detail 5% below the saturation limit. Very true. How do I find 5% below the saturation limit of my sensor when the histogram only tells me the values on the JPEG, not on the sensor? I'll note that your M9 gives the sensor values, not the jpeg values. Writing computational automation to understand the characteristic curve of the sensor @ a specific ISO setting, analyzing the scene to determine what is or isn't important, and setting that single exposure point consistently ... Well, it's not that it can't be done, but it's way more than most current in-camera computational processing is capable of. In the time available for action shots. But what if you had a mode where you could press the analyze button, and let it churn away for a few seconds? How long would it take to read 16M values into a buffer, and note the maximum and minimum values? I do this in my head faster than I can think about it. My E-5 had Spot-Hi and Spot-Lo modes for metering complex scenes that simplify manual metering (by comparison to just Spot in most other cameras, which is based on 18% reflectance reference). I suspect I do a lot of this intuitively myself. With almost all cameras, I set my metering to centerweighted averaging, evaluate the pattern, and use aperture priority AE or manual mode. With the APAE mode, I look at the scene, see the dynamics of the hot and dark areas, and tweak the EV comp to suit. With Manual, I set it to the meter's null point then tweak it up or down the same way, OR I just know what the scene type requires from past experience and set it. My brain does this without me consciously thinking about it, and FAR more consistently than any exposure automation I've ever seen. Do you check your results with the histogram, or just decide that you're good to go? Another issue is that digital isn't as tolerant of missed exposures as film, though at ISO 100 the K-5 may be far more tolerant of underexposure than most film. I don't find this to be true in general. Digital capture is more sensitive to the saturation point than film because it's a hard clip rather than a slow roll off, but it generally has more dynamic range and, as long as you're under the clip point, is much much much more manipulable. What's important to keep aware of is that as ISO increases, DR decreases so if you're looking at scenes that require elevated ISOs for hand-holdability or subject movement, you have to understand that the DR will be decreased and pick your important detail areas more carefully. All of this is true. I don't know of any automation system that can do this pre-exposure ... they simply don't have enough data to work with like your eye and mind does. Exactly, that is why I want a mode that will take a test shot, or test shots, analyze the data post exposure and report on the ideal exposure based on the scene, and your tolerance for blown out highlights. Ideally, it could do the test shots, and even set optimal values for an HDR range
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general. It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. I think George's point, and it's hard to argue with it, is that photographers, like all other animals, will tend to take the easy way out. In the case of cameras, they won't learn how to meter a scene, or learn what the limitations of the meter are, they will put the camera on auto and hope for the best, or perhaps put the camera on manual and blow it because they don't really know how to interpret what their meter is telling them. I spent enough time developing people's pictures during an era where we went from manual everything cameras to automatic everything cameras, and I did it in storefront labs that put me on the spot when it came time to tell customers exactly what went wrong with Aunt Martha's 90th birthday pictures, and yes, I'm sorry for you that she died yesterday and now you don't have pictures from her party either. There really has been a very strong regression in the basic photography knowledge that people using cameras are willing to learn, even while they are willing to learn much more complex camera operations that have little to do with photography other than complicating it in it's own way. We got automatic exposure and a fairly large % of people stopped learning how to set exposure properly. We got autofocus and an equally large % of people stopped learning how to focus a camera (lots of overlap with the previous group). Generally, they wouldn't learn until their ignorance came home to roost, and even then, they would generally be very convinced that it was the lab that caused the problem, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Digital just made it worse, since it took away any possibility we had to fix things if the customer screwed up, and it gave the customer a lot of new and improved ways to bugger things up. At least with film, I could print through 5 stops of over exposure and pull something out of the mess. At least with film, I didn't have to worry about customers wanting 8x10 prints from VGA sized files, and I could always read a negative, but quite often memory cards just wouldn't read in our equipment because the photographer had stuck the card into the camera and started writing files to it without formatting it. If you think camera makers aren't going to take options away from us that we require, look at the viewfinder of your Pentax DSLR camera, compared to that of a good Pentax film camera from the 1980s. It's small, tunnel like, and very hard to manual focus with even moderate wide angle lenses, even if you change the screen out to a Katz-Eye or some such (and having to do that kinda makes the point anyway). Wait until you are forced into an electronic viewfinder, whether you like them or not because the camera company decides that while they are not as good as an optical finder, they are now good enough. If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As a feature, it is almost completely phased out. So much for choice. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote: On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint -- the presence of other options doesn't bother me in the least. Camera makers, for the most part, aren't brain dead. They're not going to take away the options that many of us require. More technology is fine, since it doesn't get in my way. You are thinking only in your own terms, not in the terms of photography in general.It's hard to discuss things with someone who only has an ego centrist viewpoint, but I'll try. Ever the ass, eh Bill? Have another drink. Egotistical nonsense snipped -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data. I want to choose metering modes so I can use expose to the right for raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they call it. For doing landscape and studio work, I fantasize about a mode that will take a test shot (or three), examine the raw data and set the exposure for details in the highlights or the shadows, or the bracketing for an HDR series of exposures that will cover the full tonal range. I want a TAv mode for the green button in M, so that I can set the shutter speed and aperture based on a critical element of the photo, have it set the ISO, and then just leave it there. Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 28/01/2012 7:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. It could also indicate that you don't know enough about photography. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/28/2012 6:09 PM, William Robb wrote: On 28/01/2012 7:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. It could also indicate that you don't know enough about photography. There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what knowledge that I do have. Or it could mean that I'm occasionally prone to minor bursts of hyperbole. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. Perhaps, I'm missing something, butI don't know what you men by choosing 18 percent gray for shooting jpegs. You can use the spot meter and take gray card readings if you want a pure 18 percent gray exposure read. A histogram based on the raw might be nice, but it's not hard to interpret a jpeg histogram in terms of where you'll be with RAW. If you're edge to edge with jpeg, you're pretty much golden with RAW, and if necessary, you can push it beyond that a bit. Paul On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data. I want to choose metering modes so I can use expose to the right for raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they call it. For doing landscape and studio work, I fantasize about a mode that will take a test shot (or three), examine the raw data and set the exposure for details in the highlights or the shadows, or the bracketing for an HDR series of exposures that will cover the full tonal range. I want a TAv mode for the green button in M, so that I can set the shutter speed and aperture based on a critical element of the photo, have it set the ISO, and then just leave it there. Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote: There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what knowledge that I do have. Or it could mean that I'm occasionally prone to minor bursts of hyperbole. You seem to be one of the people who wants to know precisely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not healthy, and I don't think it makes for good photography, at least based on my own experience (I cared about angels and pins for a little while, until I realized it was wrecking my creativity). -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. The principle of exposing to the right has nothing to do with where you put the peak of that bell curve, but that you expose the picture as much as you can without clipping details in the highlights. In the first case, this will reduce the exposure on the fat point of the graph, giving you a bit more noise, but you won't lose information in the highlights. In the second case, you expose everything a bit more, then when you compensate in post production, the noise gets reduced along with everything else, improving your signal to noise ratio. Not entirely unlike how Dolby noise reduction works, apart from Dolby being on an analog signal, and only in certain frequency ranges, but still, amplify everything, signal and noise, and then when you reduce everything, the noise is reduced. Perhaps, I'm missing something, butI don't know what you men by choosing 18 percent gray for shooting jpegs. You can use the spot meter and take gray card readings if you want a pure 18 percent gray exposure read. A histogram based on the raw might be nice, but it's not hard to interpret a jpeg histogram in terms of where you'll be with RAW. If you're edge to edge with jpeg, you're pretty much golden with RAW, and if necessary, you can push it beyond that a bit. Paul On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data. I want to choose metering modes so I can use expose to the right for raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they call it. For doing landscape and studio work, I fantasize about a mode that will take a test shot (or three), examine the raw data and set the exposure for details in the highlights or the shadows, or the bracketing for an HDR series of exposures that will cover the full tonal range. I want a TAv mode for the green button in M, so that I can set the shutter speed and aperture based on a critical element of the photo, have it set the ISO, and then just leave it there. Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/28/2012 6:35 PM, William Robb wrote: On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote: There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what knowledge that I do have. Or it could mean that I'm occasionally prone to minor bursts of hyperbole. You seem to be one of the people who wants to know precisely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not healthy, and I don't think it makes for good photography, at least based on my own experience (I cared about angels and pins for a little while, until I realized it was wrecking my creativity). I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos. To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are. It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a speedometer, an odometer and a big red motor meltdown light. Oil pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous. When I'm racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than good/indifferent/bad. There are a lot of technical reasons these days to take control away from most drivers, and not confuse them with extra information. Automatic transmissions can do a better job than most drivers can do with a stickshift. Likewise ABS will outperform most drivers. Other people enjoy the exercise of doing it themselves, and getting the performance out of their car, rather than relying on microprocessors to do their thinking for them. That's much the way that I like to take pictures. When I want to make the decisions for myself, I want reliable, accurate, information with which to make those decisions. And I do recognize that there are times when the camera can do a better job than I can, and I want to understand when those situations are, so I can make the decision to cede control to it. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. The principle of exposing to the right has nothing to do with where you put the peak of that bell curve, but that you expose the picture as much as you can without clipping details in the highlights. In the first case, this will reduce the exposure on the fat point of the graph, giving you a bit more noise, but you won't lose information in the highlights. In the second case, you expose everything a bit more, then when you compensate in post production, the noise gets reduced along with everything else, improving your signal to noise ratio. Not entirely unlike how Dolby noise reduction works, apart from Dolby being on an analog signal, and only in certain frequency ranges, but still, amplify everything, signal and noise, and then when you reduce everything, the noise is reduced. Perhaps, I'm missing something, butI don't know what you men by choosing 18 percent gray for shooting jpegs. You can use the spot meter and take gray card readings if you want a pure 18 percent gray exposure read. A histogram based on the raw might be nice, but it's not hard to interpret a jpeg histogram in terms of where you'll be with RAW. If you're edge to edge with jpeg, you're pretty much golden with RAW, and if necessary, you can push it beyond that a bit. Paul On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data. I want to choose metering modes so I can use expose to the right for raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they call it. For doing landscape and studio work, I fantasize about a mode that will take a test shot (or three), examine the raw data and set the exposure for details in the highlights or the shadows, or the bracketing for an HDR series of exposures that will cover the full tonal range. I want a TAv mode for the green button in M, so that I can set the shutter speed and aperture based on a critical element of the photo, have it set the ISO, and then just leave it there. Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg? Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out of jpegs and out of raw? What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically? Give me the source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week. The principle of exposing to the right has nothing to do with where you put the peak of that bell curve, but that you expose the picture as much as you can without clipping details in the highlights. In the first case, this will reduce the exposure on the fat point of the graph, giving you a bit more noise, but you won't lose information in the highlights. In the second case, you expose everything a bit more, then when you compensate in post production, the noise gets reduced along with everything else, improving your signal to noise ratio. Not entirely unlike how Dolby noise reduction works, apart from Dolby being on an analog signal, and only in certain frequency ranges, but still, amplify everything, signal and noise, and then when you reduce everything, the noise is reduced. Perhaps, I'm missing something, butI don't know what you men by choosing 18 percent gray for shooting jpegs. You can use the spot meter and take gray card readings if you want a pure 18 percent gray exposure read. A histogram based on the raw might be nice, but it's not hard to interpret a jpeg histogram in terms of where you'll be with RAW. If you're edge to edge with jpeg, you're pretty much golden with RAW, and if necessary, you can push it beyond that a bit. Paul On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data. I want to choose metering modes so I can use expose to the right for raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they call it. For doing landscape and studio work, I fantasize about a mode that will take a test shot (or three), examine the raw data and set the exposure for details in the highlights or the shadows, or the bracketing for an HDR series of exposures that will cover the full tonal range. I want a TAv mode for the green button in M, so that I can set the shutter speed and aperture based on a critical element of the photo, have it set the ISO, and then just leave it there. Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought, and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot with interchangeable lenses. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. --
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? Because the meter is dumb. It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it about plus one stop of exposure comp. So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg? No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based on its firmware. Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out of jpegs and out of raw? You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically? Give me the source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week. You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much light they are capable of reflecting. But the human brain and the human eye can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably remain the best method for many years to come. The principle of exposing to the right has nothing to do with where you put the peak of that bell curve, but that you expose the picture as much as you can without clipping details in the highlights. In the first case, this will reduce the exposure on the fat point of the graph, giving you a bit more noise, but you won't lose information in the highlights. In the second case, you expose everything a bit more, then when you compensate in post production, the noise gets reduced along with everything else, improving your signal to noise ratio. Not entirely unlike how Dolby noise reduction works, apart from Dolby being on an analog signal, and only in certain frequency ranges, but still, amplify everything, signal and noise, and then when you reduce everything, the noise is reduced. Perhaps, I'm missing something, butI don't know what you men by choosing 18 percent gray for shooting jpegs. You can use the spot
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-28 19:35 William Robb wrote (I cared about angels and pins for a little while, until I realized it was wrecking my creativity). that seems to support the idea that it's a necessary part of the process of improvement ... and/or that you were one of the ones whose grappling with pins and angels was/is more problematic i would agree overall, and go further: like most such things, a phase in creative development is not something that just goes away; one's growth process doesn't require the complete abandonment of previous stages, in fact i'd say it's healthy to maintain some connection to all the levels of one's being and indeed, the histogram, especially if keyed to RAW output, is perhaps thing single best tool for getting quick feedback on exposure, whether used in the camera or in post; it's a far better synopsis than the meter; because of this i agree with Larry that it's ridiculous that a RAW histogram isn't the norm; lacking it, one must add another layer of second guessing, which makes it that much harder to finesse one's technique i think the quick feedback loop (with attendant pins angels) is one crucial way a DSLR can enable faster skills attainment; when it seems like i'm chimping, i'm actually just reading the histogram; it tells me what i couldn't see with certainty through the viewfinder; i would love a RAW histogram (in the viewfinder) and better tools to engage with it -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-28 19:49 Larry Colen wrote I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. i understand that better cameras (unless you set them for spot or average) to do some kind of evaluative metering; they try to identify common scenarios like a bright sky and maybe some trickier exposures, but they may not be smart enough to figure out you are pointing the camera at a sunlit snowbank i'd like to think i know better than the camera, at least sometimes, and can read a certain amount of the scene myself, and i use that to second guess the camera (then the histogram helps me see how well i second-guessed); it's a bit of a dance [regarding expose to the right] Not entirely unlike how Dolby noise reduction works i think that's an astute comparison -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:35 PM, William Robb wrote: On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote: There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what knowledge that I do have. Or it could mean that I'm occasionally prone to minor bursts of hyperbole. You seem to be one of the people who wants to know precisely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's not healthy, and I don't think it makes for good photography, at least based on my own experience (I cared about angels and pins for a little while, until I realized it was wrecking my creativity). I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos. To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are. If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment, you end up with nothing but test shots. I recommend focusing less on what the gear is capable of more time on creating interesting images. It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a speedometer, an odometer and a big red motor meltdown light. Oil pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous. When I'm racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than good/indifferent/bad. Using race car driving is a flawed analogy. Driving competitively is a very technical skill. A lot of photography is an art. You can learn the basics of how to drive a camera quite easily, I know, I help teach people new to photography. After 6 hours most people can shoot in Av, some on full manual, after having always shot on program mode. The hardest part is being creative. Focusing on the technical wont get you that. There are a lot of technical reasons these days to take control away from most drivers, and not confuse them with extra information. Automatic transmissions can do a better job than most drivers can do with a stickshift. Likewise ABS will outperform most drivers. Other people enjoy the exercise of doing it themselves, and getting the performance out of their car, rather than relying on microprocessors to do their thinking for them. That's much the way that I like to take pictures. When I want to make the decisions for myself, I want reliable, accurate, information with which to make those decisions. And I do recognize that there are times when the camera can do a better job than I can, and I want to understand when those situations are, so I can make the decision to cede control to it. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? Because the meter is dumb. That is exactly my point. There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years ago. It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it about plus one stop of exposure comp. So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg? No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based on its firmware. Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out of jpegs and out of raw? You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically? Give me the source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week. You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much light they are capable of reflecting. But the human brain and the human eye can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably remain the best method for many years to come. Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few thousand cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've got. Or, you could have a special mode that uses the sensor as a light meter, when you'd rather let the camera spend a couple of seconds making the corrections, rather than going through a few test shots yourself. Or, at the very least, as Pentax, you could describe the actual algorithms used so that the photographer wouldn't have to guess what the camera is going to do. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29 January 2012 12:36, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? Because the meter is dumb. That is exactly my point. There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years ago. It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it about plus one stop of exposure comp. So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg? No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based on its firmware. Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out of jpegs and out of raw? You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically? Give me the source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week. You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much light they are capable of reflecting. But the human brain and the human eye can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably remain the best method for many years to come. Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few thousand cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've got. Or, you could have a special mode that uses the sensor as a light meter, when you'd rather let the camera spend a couple of seconds making the corrections, rather than going through a few test shots yourself. Or, at the very least, as Pentax, you could describe the actual algorithms used so that the photographer wouldn't have to guess what the camera is going to do. Or the photographer could just learn how to meter a
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote: On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos. To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are. If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment, you end up with nothing but test shots. This is true. I don't think that all I ever do is push the envelope. It has been scarce more than a month since I went out on a photo walk, during the afternoon, in lighting that allowed me to shoot a low ISO, in the f/8-16 range, and comfortably hand hold the photos without need of a tripod or even a monopod. I also spend a fair amount of time pushing the envelope just for the technical practice. For example when friends are playing at dive bars, so that when I go specifically to take photos, I'm not pushing into uncharted territory. I know what the camera will do, how to make it do it, and I don't have to interrupt my creativity by trying to devise solutions to new technical problems. Thursday night, I knew when I could use a flash, and when it was better to use the meager available light so as not to disturb people, and that I could push the camera to 12,800 at 1/10 Second and still get something decent. It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be creative, even in challenging light. Then there's the case that some of my best photos come from just noodling around when I'm experimenting with what the equipment will do. What happens if I bounce the flash off the mirror? What happens if I use a slow shutter speed with the flash, and zoom the lens? What happens if rather than using the 77/1.8 I photograph the musicians with the 200/2.8? What happens if I use hi-lighter pens to draw on my model before photographing her in black light I recommend focusing less on what the gear is capable of more time on creating interesting images. Interesting, because I find your night photos with the D700, where you were pushing the abilities of the camera to be so inspirational, as a way of creating interesting images. It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a speedometer, an odometer and a big red motor meltdown light. Oil pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous. When I'm racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than good/indifferent/bad. Using race car driving is a flawed analogy. Driving competitively is a very technical skill. A lot of photography is an art. I suspect that anybody on this list who has driven competitively would agree with me that, like photography, while it can be very technical, there is also a great deal of art involved. I find my mental state can be very similar when doing a shoot as when driving on the track. It's hard to explain how for me, they can both fully occupy the intellectual, emotional and intuitive centers of my brain. Granted, the worry over blowing an exposure isn't usually quite as visceral as the feeling that you may have just made a mistake on the racetrack. You can learn the basics of how to drive a camera quite easily, I know, I help teach people new to photography. After 6 hours most people can shoot in Av, some on full manual, after having always shot on program mode. I've also taught dozens of, maybe a hundred or so, people the basics of performance driving in a similar span of time. The hardest part is being creative. Focusing on the technical wont get you that. I agree, but understanding the technical frees you to be creative without having to use up most of your brain budget on figuring out how to get the photo that you want to take. I'm certainly not claiming that what works for me works for everyone. Hell, for all I know, it may not work for me. I might be producing nothing but boring, blurry, cliche' test photos in ridiculous lighting situations, but I'm having fun doing it. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: You can expose to the right or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understands how meters work. I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at midpoint. This means that if you look at the histogram, you usually get a bell curve right around the middle of the graph, expose to the middle. This means that if you go direct from RAW to JPEG without any compensation in post processing, most of the pixels in the photo will be right around the midpoint of exposure. No. In multi mode, the meter uses a program to analyze the scene and tries to achieve a balance of highs and lows. If you don't like the histogram that results, you can move it right or left with exposure comp. You only get a bell curve in the middle when you have an average scene without extreme highs or lwows. Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? Because the meter is dumb. That is exactly my point. There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years ago. It figures that if there's just one color, then it's midrange. However, modern meters do a better job than the older ones. The K5 only misses by about a stop. The older center weighted meters or averaging meters missed by close to two stops. If I shoot a snow scene with the K-5, I usually give it about plus one stop of exposure comp. So, what you are telling me is that the metering in our cameras is optimized to give the best performance when shooting in raw mode, rather than in jpeg? No, it's not optimized for either mode in particular. It's just a dumb meter. It measures light and tries to guess what the scene looks like based on its firmware. Or, that unlike in film where you'd meter differently for negatives and slides, there is no difference in metering for getting the best exposure out of jpegs and out of raw? You only meter a bit differently for negatives and slides because of the processing. A slightly overexposed negative can still be printed rather nicely with more exposure in the enlarger, but an overexposed slide is junk. When my processing was set up right, I usually exposed about the same for BW film and transparencies -- or slides if you wish. What it does not do is look at the pixels out at the tail end of that graph. If a bunch of them are off to the right, and you expose for the middle, then you end up clipping on a lot of your readings, in other words, you'll lose highlight detail. Then you bring that back in by dialing in negative exposure comp. Alternatively, if most of the readings are to the left of the point that is metered for, then exposing for the middle will leave you with either a lot of pixels that are clipped black, or a lot of your shadow detail lost in the noise. Then you dial in positive exposure comp. Simple. Why not have a mode in the camera that does it automatically? Give me the source code for the K-5 and I could probably implement it in a week. You'd have to invent a meter that could tell the difference between gray and white. Today's meters just read light levels then compare them to firmware that tries to predict shat part of the scene is sky, what's grass, what's a face, etc. They don't really know what color things might be or how much light they are capable of reflecting. But the human brain and the human eye can make that call with precision. So determining how much exposure comp you need based on your own intelligence is the best way, and it will probably remain the best method for many years to come. Or, you could have the meter read all of the metering points, take a look at the brightest, and dimmest, as well as the focusing point, apply a few thousand cpu cycles and come out with something a lot better than what we've got. That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter will come close enough for all practical purposes. for those times when it can't the photographer has to lend a hand. It wouldn't be much fun if machines did all the work. i submit that most of us don't have today's best meters -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-28 21:36 David Savage wrote If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment, you end up with nothing but test shots. who does that? Larry certainly doesn't if you look at his photos ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-28 22:00 Larry Colen wrote It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be creative, even in challenging light. i often feel the same way; one of my common challenges is shooting plants under shifting cloud cover; even without direct sun there's a lot of dynamic range, and my camera (k200d) takes images whose shadows don't like to be burned in; i'm doing this handheld and waiting for the light to brighten for a few seconds; the wind is jiggling the leaves and depth of field is fighting against shutter speed; having practiced a lot helps me enjoy such shooting and stretch my creative possibilities; my technical practice is an essential element for me to enjoy photography -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 29 January 2012 13:00, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote: On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long ago it would have been pretty much impossible to get any photos. To do this, I really need to know where the edges of that envelope are. If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment, you end up with nothing but test shots. This is true. I don't think that all I ever do is push the envelope. It has been scarce more than a month since I went out on a photo walk, during the afternoon, in lighting that allowed me to shoot a low ISO, in the f/8-16 range, and comfortably hand hold the photos without need of a tripod or even a monopod. I also spend a fair amount of time pushing the envelope just for the technical practice. For example when friends are playing at dive bars, so that when I go specifically to take photos, I'm not pushing into uncharted territory. I know what the camera will do, how to make it do it, and I don't have to interrupt my creativity by trying to devise solutions to new technical problems. Thursday night, I knew when I could use a flash, and when it was better to use the meager available light so as not to disturb people, and that I could push the camera to 12,800 at 1/10 Second and still get something decent. It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be creative, even in challenging light. Then there's the case that some of my best photos come from just noodling around when I'm experimenting with what the equipment will do. What happens if I bounce the flash off the mirror? What happens if I use a slow shutter speed with the flash, and zoom the lens? What happens if rather than using the 77/1.8 I photograph the musicians with the 200/2.8? What happens if I use hi-lighter pens to draw on my model before photographing her in black light That I can respect appreciate. I recommend focusing less on what the gear is capable of more time on creating interesting images. Interesting, because I find your night photos with the D700, where you were pushing the abilities of the camera to be so inspirational, as a way of creating interesting images. But those night shots aren't a test of the equipments limitations. They're a test of my ability to take a fun, somewhat cliched genre of photography, try put my spin on it (no pun intended) I can tell you exactly how many test shots I took to test the D700's night photography capabilities. One. As soon as I got a cable release for it I set it up in the back yard pointed it at the sky and took a 23 minuet bulb exposure (I couldn't wait the extra 7 minuets) Once I'd reviewed that test shot, I knew the camera would do what I needed it to do. Every shot after that was just a confirmation. It's kind of like instrumentation in a car. Most people just need a speedometer, an odometer and a big red motor meltdown light. Oil pressure, temperature, tachometer etc. are completely superfluous. When I'm racing, I use all of those, and often to more accuracy than good/indifferent/bad. Using race car driving is a flawed analogy. Driving competitively is a very technical skill. A lot of photography is an art. I suspect that anybody on this list who has driven competitively would agree with me that, like photography, while it can be very technical, there is also a great deal of art involved. I find my mental state can be very similar when doing a shoot as when driving on the track. It's hard to explain how for me, they can both fully occupy the intellectual, emotional and intuitive centers of my brain. Granted, the worry over blowing an exposure isn't usually quite as visceral as the feeling that you may have just made a mistake on the racetrack. You can learn the basics of how to drive a camera quite easily, I know, I help teach people new to photography. After 6 hours most people can shoot in Av, some on full manual, after having always shot on program mode. I've also taught dozens of, maybe a hundred or so, people the basics of performance driving in a similar span of time. The hardest part is being creative. Focusing on the technical wont get you that. I agree, but understanding the technical frees you to be creative without having to use up most of your brain budget on figuring out how to get the photo that you want to take. I'm certainly not claiming that what works for me works for everyone. Hell, for all I know, it may not work for me. I might be producing nothing but boring, blurry, cliche' test photos in ridiculous lighting situations, but I'm having fun doing it. I believe focusing on the creative, the technical will work itself out in time. We're all
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:36:37PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote: Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white? Because the meter is dumb. That is exactly my point. There's no need for a meter to be dumb when our cameras have more processing power than supercomputers of not that many years ago. It's not processing power - it's learned behaviour. In fact, when you are in a dance club, your brain is doing almost exactly what you are calling dumb - subtracting out what appears to be a colour bias from the strange lighting, and adjusting the iris aperture so that the amount of light falling on the sensor falls within a desired range. But if you didn't know, a priori, what colour the walls of the club were, you wouldn't be able to tell if they were white, 18% grey, somewhere in between, or even light blue, primrose, or light green. What do you expect the metering to do? It doesn't know whether the table top should be in Zone I, Zone IV, or Zone VII. It can measure the brightest and darkest points of the metering area, and set the exposure so that most of the pixels fall within the sensitivity range of the sensor. That's what all modern metering systems do. In fact they go beyond that - they'll also recognise common patterns such as a dark central area surrounded by bright background, and bias the exposure to assume you're shooting a backlit subject, so you need to dial in a little more exposure. But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can take control of the situation yourself. Or you can go the whole hog, and use an incident light meter. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Do you know how many of my highly educated friends and relatives have accidentally put their DSLRs in RAW mode and have come to me when they were unable to view the photos? I could only imagine the chaos if you could do that with any point and shoot. Evan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Camera manufacturers are absolutely right in concentrating their efforts on the JPEG rendering options of their cameras. Look at the enormous success of apps on Android and iOS for image manipulation, the custom cameras, Hipstamatic, etc. People want fast and easy, only a very very tiny percentage of users get involved with raw capture and raw conversion processing. Even amongst them, most don't really understand based on my experience trying to teach the subject ... they just want an easy way to get results without having to think about it. That's why so many of the debates on raw processing software are ridiculous .. the debate is most often just a disagreement on which raw conversion defaults are most appealing to an individual. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users from low end users. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
I see many, many brands of point shoot cameras in my Saturday morning class. One of the things I found interesting was people that owned Kodak cameras loved them, but always were kind of apologetic about owning the brand. Most of them usually started a question with this is only a Kodak, but... The interesting thing was the Kodak really understood their customer. The only put stuff into the interface that would be needed. Overall, camera manuals are bad. But of the bunch, Kodak manuals were usually better than most. I think the other brands have learned the the feature count isn't selling cameras anymore, and selling someone a feature laden camera that they can't figure out is not a good way to sell them their next camera. gs George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, William Robb anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users from low end users. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
George Sinos wrote: I see many, many brands of point shoot cameras in my Saturday morning class. One of the things I found interesting was people that owned Kodak cameras loved them, but always were kind of apologetic about owning the brand. Most of them usually started a question with this is only a Kodak, but... Most news articles have cited the advent of digital photography as being the beginning of the end for Kodak. I think they started down their fatal path much earlier, in the late 1950's when they gave up on marketing quality cameras like the Retina and went pretty much exclusively to the bottom end of the market. This led inevitably to the decline in brand reputation (of their cameras, not film) and thus to people apologizing with remarks like this is only a Kodak, but... Note by contrast how shrewdly Nikon and Canon have used their high end cameras to enhance the reputation of their more affordable gear. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
My wife has a Kodak that she got or free secondhand. It's a fine camera, but Kodak isn't a brand I'd ever buy new. They are marketed to the very bottom of the market, and frankly, I feel that they aimed at people who are unable to handle plugging in a cable. On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: George Sinos wrote: I see many, many brands of point shoot cameras in my Saturday morning class. One of the things I found interesting was people that owned Kodak cameras loved them, but always were kind of apologetic about owning the brand. Most of them usually started a question with this is only a Kodak, but... Most news articles have cited the advent of digital photography as being the beginning of the end for Kodak. I think they started down their fatal path much earlier, in the late 1950's when they gave up on marketing quality cameras like the Retina and went pretty much exclusively to the bottom end of the market. This led inevitably to the decline in brand reputation (of their cameras, not film) and thus to people apologizing with remarks like this is only a Kodak, but... Note by contrast how shrewdly Nikon and Canon have used their high end cameras to enhance the reputation of their more affordable gear. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
I agree. Like others said, it's a matter of who their market is, mostly--makes no sense for a camera maker to have to support advanced features like that on a $150 camera. The best way for them to do it would be to open their platforms and let the open source community do it. Which brings to mind CHDK. Done without support from Canon, but it doesn't seem like Canon minds. You can very easily replace the firmware in most PowerShots, and shoot raw, among many other things. I have a couple of Powershots. It's nice to shoot DNGs on a $75 camera that takes two AAs. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK j On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Juan Buhler - http://www.jbuhler.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote: On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users from low end users. The TRVTH of this statement deserves a Mark. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote: On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users from low end users. William Robb My question was somewhat of a rhetorical 'why' and musing. It would not COST ALOT for the feature. GUI-wise it would only need several additional menu items. A camera manufacturer does not HAVE to teach customers how to use a feature (when have they ever?) Most users would ignore it if they didn't understand it as they do many other features. It would be far more valuable than the plethora of custom image modes and color tinting that's provided. It could only increase potential sales, not vice-versa. I won't buy a camera for my wife or son that does not have a RAW mode whether they understand it or not. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 27/01/2012 2:52 PM, David Parsons wrote: My wife has a Kodak that she got or free secondhand. It's a fine camera, but Kodak isn't a brand I'd ever buy new. They are marketed to the very bottom of the market, and frankly, I feel that they aimed at people who are unable to handle plugging in a cable. For a lot of the buying public, that's all they want, and there is nothing wrong with that. Kodak started out by supplying point and shoot cameras that were, in the late 1800s, a precursor to the plastic single use cameras that came to dominate film sales in the 1980s and beyond. Sometimes I think those people are the ones who are mentally better balanced, The advanced photographers are, to a great extent, measurbators who place more importance on a test target than actual photography. Kodak bet their egg on film and paper manufacturing, and were woefully unprepared for the sea change in the photofinishing market which saw print sales go into free fall as more and more people used electronic media for viewing images rather than hard copy pictures. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On 27/01/2012 5:47 PM, Tom C wrote: On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote: On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. If the target market for the camera (casual user) doesn't need it, understand it or want it, there is no point in putting it onto the camera. It doesn't have as much to do with differentiating high end cameras from low end cameras as it has to do with differentiating high end users from low end users. William Robb My question was somewhat of a rhetorical 'why' and musing. It would not COST ALOT for the feature. GUI-wise it would only need several additional menu items. A camera manufacturer does not HAVE to teach customers how to use a feature (when have they ever?) Most users would ignore it if they didn't understand it as they do many other features. It would be far more valuable than the plethora of custom image modes and color tinting that's provided. It could only increase potential sales, not vice-versa. I won't buy a camera for my wife or son that does not have a RAW mode whether they understand it or not. So if they don't understand it, and are very unlikely to use it, and are even less likely to miss it, why would you force it on them? Chauvinism? The PS end of the camera market is so price sensitive that people will choose a camera that is a few dollars less than the one beside it for that reason alone. Heck, people will chose one camera over another because they like the colour of it's outer shell more than the one beside it. The Pentax Q was being pilloried before it was released because it was too expensive for it's sensor and the likely image quality that it would give up. Even after proving itself time and again that it's sensor is more than adequate, people keep finding something or other else to dislike about it, but it is always something relating to it's street price. This is the mentality of the modern consumer. As soon as they put a raw file option into a camera, they have to write a raw converter for that camera. That cost alone would push the price up enough to put it out of the market, and taking off custom processing features makes it a far less fully featured camera than what the unwanted raw file function gives back. There are huge numbers of people out there for whom the cell phone is the camera of choice. I recall reading on another forum that the most actively uploaded image category on flickr is the Apple phone users group. The people who care about raw are in the minority, usually male, and often a bit geeky. For everyone else, jpeg is fine, and that is most camera users. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
on 2012-01-27 16:47 Tom C wrote A camera manufacturer does not HAVE to teach customers how to use a feature (when have they ever?) if the feature is there and people can accidentally enable it, it becomes a support issue; even if the company offers no actual support, it may increase the return rate to stores or influence the reviews — in other words it could impact the success of the product, or at least product managers can fear that would happen many of us think programmable cameras will be what gets us past this problem — they'll have their own apps, but the hardware manufacturer won't have to support third party apps; there are moves in this direction, e.g.: http://www.polaroid.com/en/sc1630 but the competition is already pretty strong from phones, e.g. iPhone 4S and things like this: http://htc.t-mobile.com/amaze-camera-phone it's hard to predict whether smart cameras can gain traction in a sea of smart phones with cameras; something like a Micro 4/3 camera running Android might be what it takes, or maybe it will come down to how many people decide to simplify their lives by ditching the mobile phone, but still wanting the other aspects of the devices (the iPod Touch still seems to sell well..., and there seems to be a market for smallish tablets) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On consumer PS cameras, it's one more thing to explain and potentially support. Since the vast majority of PS owners don't even know what RAW is, the manufacturers just don't want to complicate matters. IMHO, that is ;-) DSLRs, EVILs, and advanced compacts that I know of all support RAW. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
It means more code, and more testing in QA. More code for the UI (admittedly small), but also more code because RAW requires a different compressor, a lossless one. And if it's a manufacturer with a proprietary RAW format, like NIkon, they have to decide if they'll support DNG as well. Whole lot of trouble for a vanishingly small market: ie the set of pros who want RAW but don't mind using a rinky-dink PS. For instance, I don't care if a low-end PS supports RAW or not, I simply won't buy one for my own use. I only care to own high IQ cameras. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a lower end model and therefore command a higher price? Obviously casual users don't need it, or want to understand it, but surely the RAW data (aside from any small degree of massaging) is there for the saving at some point in time. Tom C. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote: On consumer PS cameras, it's one more thing to explain and potentially support. Since the vast majority of PS owners don't even know what RAW is, Steve Desjardins This was brought up at our first meeting, asked how many shot in Raw. Eight out for the ten people looked around the room and said Raw.? whats that. A down and dirty explanation did not really help the matter any.:-). Bring in photo editing for Raw and that killed that. They just want to download and print at Wally world. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
