DSLR sales static, mirrorless heavy growth?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Exactly, and a one size fits all, can often mean one size fits nothing.

    > If it meets the needs of that user, it fits them quite well.


    Fine of course, except I'm always amazed at how bad many peoples photo's
    are, and how often they complain, so maybe many are not all that happy at
    all. Suits me though, as it gives me more work :)


    >A lot of press photographers shoot JPG only - even for color print.


    Yes I know, quality is not needed or possible in newspaper printing. I'd
    always take RAW+Jpeg at least, because you never know when a photo will be
    worth more than tomorrows landfill.


    >It's less hassle, smaller files (often need to transmit over spotty comms)
    >and so on. Speed is of the essence and the images are more that good
    >enough (and still allow for a lot of tweaking if less so than raw).


    And thankfully not necessary at all with a modern DSLR, and todays storage
    costs. But old habbits die hard for some.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 24, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>>> 2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
    >>>> Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
    >>> No it isn't.

    >>
    >> It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.

    >
    > Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.


    Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not doing
    so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they probably
    think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough to
    bitch about it.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 25, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    The intent of the 4/3 standard?

    In article <500bee0d$0$11547$>,
    Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >
    >I thought Panasonic and Olympus jointly developed the 4/3 system. I
    >never researched the patents, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that any
    >patents were held jointly.


    I thought the whole point of the 4/3 and micro-4/3 standards was that
    both Panasonic and Olympus *wanted* other manufacturers to adopt them,
    so there would be lots of lenses for them and support across the industry.
    Is that not how it was supposed to work?

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jul 25, 2012
    #23
  4. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>>>>> 2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
    >>>>>> Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
    >>>>> No it isn't.
    >>>>
    >>>> It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.
    >>>
    >>> Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.

    >>
    >>Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not
    >>doing
    >>so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they probably
    >>think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough to
    >>bitch about it.
    >>

    > It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
    > you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
    > e.g.
    > --- snip ---
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > ... and similar.
    >
    > 'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
    > indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
    > help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.
    >
    > If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
    > fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
    > dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
    > are trying to do.
    >
    > As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
    > is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
    > that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.



    Well anyone can go back and check if they want to accuse me of being
    dishonest. Just bitching because someone doesn't post exactly the same as
    they do is another mater entirely.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 25, 2012
    #24
  5. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012072421405517709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > However, sniping/editing to deliberately change the context of the dialog
    > is pure gamesmanship.


    Agreed, *IF* it's the case. Editing irrelevant parts you are not referring
    to simply makes it easier to read. Personally I *HATE* scrolling down 5000
    lines of text to see someone has added "me too", but it happens! :-(

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 25, 2012
    #25
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: The intent of the 4/3 standard?

    "Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    news:juns6u$3f6$...
    > In article <500bee0d$0$11547$>,
    > Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I thought Panasonic and Olympus jointly developed the 4/3 system. I
    >>never researched the patents, assuming, maybe incorrectly, that any
    >>patents were held jointly.

    >
    > I thought the whole point of the 4/3 and micro-4/3 standards was that
    > both Panasonic and Olympus *wanted* other manufacturers to adopt them,
    > so there would be lots of lenses for them and support across the industry.
    > Is that not how it was supposed to work?


    For the lens mount, yes. The sensors etc. are probably another matter
    though. They don't really want all 4/3 camera's to be identical.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 25, 2012
    #26
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: The intent of the 4/3 standard?

    In article <juoj03$td3$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > I thought the whole point of the 4/3 and micro-4/3 standards was that
    > > both Panasonic and Olympus *wanted* other manufacturers to adopt them,
    > > so there would be lots of lenses for them and support across the industry.
    > > Is that not how it was supposed to work?

    >
    > For the lens mount, yes. The sensors etc. are probably another matter
    > though. They don't really want all 4/3 camera's to be identical.


    they locked down the lens mount too. you *can't* get the 4/3 spec
    without jumping through hoops, signing ndas, etc.

    it's *anything* but open.
     
    nospam, Jul 25, 2012
    #27
  8. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:42:42 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:31:37 +1000, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >>>>"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>> 2. You don't select the curves in-camera, it's pre-programmed.
    >>>>>>>> Exactly, which *IS* the problem!
    >>>>>>> No it isn't.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It *is* the problem for those claiming dynamic range is not affected.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Editing prior posters content to exclude context is plain rude.
    >>>>
    >>>>Editing stuff superflous to what you are replying to is curteous. Not
    >>>>doing
    >>>>so is rude. As is complaining what others choose to do when they
    >>>>probably
    >>>>think the same of your actions but weren't rude enough or stupid enough
    >>>>to
    >>>>bitch about it.
    >>>>
    >>> It is considered permissible to remove text from the article to which
    >>> you are replying if you in some way indicate that you have done so.
    >>> e.g.
    >>> --- snip ---
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>>
    >>> ... and similar.
    >>>
    >>> 'Editing' someone else's text by deleting some of it without
    >>> indicating the fact is commonly used by less scrupulous subscribers to
    >>> help them unfairly win arguments. It's a cunning way of lying.
    >>>
    >>> If you delete parts of someone else's text without indicating the
    >>> fact, you run the risk of people thinking you are trying to run a
    >>> dishonest argument. I have no idea of whether or not that is what you
    >>> are trying to do.
    >>>
    >>> As you say, editing stuff to remove unnecessary text from the article
    >>> is both a good idea and good nettiquette, but doing it in such a way
    >>> that you leave yourself open to suspicions of dishonesty is not.

    >>
    >>
    >>Well anyone can go back and check if they want to accuse me of being
    >>dishonest. Just bitching because someone doesn't post exactly the same as
    >>they do is another mater entirely.
    >>

    > Putting it bluntly, you posting practices mean that your posts are not
    > trustworthy.
    >
    > Is that what you really want?


    For those unable to remember what they wrote, or look at the previous post
    to find out, I don't really care. But if you like lot's of superflous stuff
    to scroll through, I've left it in for you :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 26, 2012
    #28
  9. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:

    > The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer. So good
    > that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    > apparently testing another sample to confirm. I guess what surprised
    > them is the excellent dynamic range.


    > The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    > stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    > better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    > performance.


    > Of course most m4/3 users will never obtain anywhere near these
    > figures because they don't shoot RAW. Shooting JPEGs yields a dynamic
    > range that is 1-2 stops less.


    And prints with the best papers and inks are still less. So the
    photographer (or the camera) has to make some kind of selection from
    the RAW dynamic change for viewing or printing purposes. The usual
    default means that RAW gives you a bit more latitude at each end of
    the scale, so you can in effect push exposure up or down a stop or
    two. By "exposing to the right" (of the histogram) or to the left by
    adjusting exposure compensation you are exploiting some of that range.

    There are also increasing numbers of smart in-camera JPEG processing
    options which, such as dynamic range optimisation, a kind of mild HDR
    which exploits the extra dynamic range of the RAW file to bring the
    shadow and highlight detail at the edges of the range into the
    viewable or printable dynamic range.

    So a shooter who uses JPEG only, but one of these smarter JPEG
    processing modes, does use more of the RAW dynamic range than simple
    straight JPEG conversion, and could use it all.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 26, 2012
    #29
  10. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Trevor <> wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    >> Likewise slide film - very narrow range (a little more than 5 stops).


    > 5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
    > inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.


    Depends what you were shooting. Photogaphers who were aiming at the
    best possible print reproductions of paintings or other graphic art
    work would often choose slide film because the subject had inherently
    low dynamic range, so that limitation of slide film didn't matter, and
    the other superior virtues of slide film mattered.

    >> Yet, many of my best film images were from slide.


    > How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
    > sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40 years
    > ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
    > years from now.


    But if the chosen final product is a print then slide film has more
    than enough dynamic range. What that limitation means is that you have
    to be able to get much closer to the correct selection of dynamic
    range at the time of shooting, and the kinds of selection you can make
    are limited.

    When a phtographer shows you their latest black and white print do you
    shake your sadly and explain to the poor fool that they've thrown away
    most of the information by dropping the colour?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 26, 2012
    #30
  11. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:
    >> The 16 MP Sony sensor in the E-M5 is a very good performer. So good
    >> that DxO Labs couldn't quite believe what they measured and are
    >> apparently testing another sample to confirm. I guess what surprised
    >> them is the excellent dynamic range.

    >
    >> The Panasonic G5 also has very good dynamic range, approximately 12
    >> stops between ISO 160-400. I think the OM-D is probably a stop
    >> better, which will unfortunately overshadow the G5's excellent
    >> performance.

    >
    >> Of course most m4/3 users will never obtain anywhere near these
    >> figures because they don't shoot RAW. Shooting JPEGs yields a dynamic
    >> range that is 1-2 stops less.

    >
    > And prints with the best papers and inks are still less. So the
    > photographer (or the camera) has to make some kind of selection from
    > the RAW dynamic change for viewing or printing purposes. The usual
    > default means that RAW gives you a bit more latitude at each end of
    > the scale, so you can in effect push exposure up or down a stop or
    > two. By "exposing to the right" (of the histogram) or to the left by
    > adjusting exposure compensation you are exploiting some of that range.


    It's not just about exposure "lattitude". It's about what contrast range you
    want, and in which parts of the image, before converting for print or web.


    > There are also increasing numbers of smart in-camera JPEG processing
    > options which, such as dynamic range optimisation, a kind of mild HDR
    > which exploits the extra dynamic range of the RAW file to bring the
    > shadow and highlight detail at the edges of the range into the
    > viewable or printable dynamic range.
    >
    > So a shooter who uses JPEG only, but one of these smarter JPEG
    > processing modes, does use more of the RAW dynamic range than simple
    > straight JPEG conversion, and could use it all.


    That's true, but it can still be better to make all these decisions at your
    leasure later IMO, and with the ability to try different options and
    determine which is best for a particular image, rather than have to make an
    irevocable decision on the spot. The low cost and high capacity of memory
    cards these days makes any use of jpeg in camera, other than perhaps very
    high burst lengths, pointless AFAIC. IF you have to set up jpeg options
    before taking the shot, the *only* other benefits claimed, ie.
    easier/quicker "shot to print", are negated. You can just as easily use a
    "one size fits all" automatic conversion (of your own choosing) in Adobe Raw
    if you are happy with that, and still have options for any images that you
    do want/need to improve.
    IMO Jpeg is just not necessary for modern digital camera's, except for those
    who simply don't want to know what RAW is.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 27, 2012
    #31
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Trevor <> wrote:
    >> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    >>> Likewise slide film - very narrow range (a little more than 5 stops).

    >
    >> 5 stops, hell what film were you using? But yes slides were definitely
    >> inferior to current digital. That's why I don't use it any more.

    >
    > Depends what you were shooting. Photogaphers who were aiming at the
    > best possible print reproductions of paintings or other graphic art
    > work would often choose slide film because the subject had inherently
    > low dynamic range, so that limitation of slide film didn't matter, and
    > the other superior virtues of slide film mattered.


    What "superior virtues" would those be?


    >>> Yet, many of my best film images were from slide.

    >
    >> How sad for you. Whilst I have *many* great photo's taken on film of all
    >> sorts (it's the image after all) I sure wish I had todays equipment 40
    >> years
    >> ago! I can only imagine what people will be able to take for granted 40
    >> years from now.

    >
    > But if the chosen final product is a print then slide film has more
    > than enough dynamic range.



    5 stops (according to you) is "more than enough dynamic range"! :)
    My slides and Cibachromes managed more than that, and I still have many to
    prove it. But it's nice to be freed from the *many* limitations of slide
    film. Just being able to change ISO from one image to the next, effectively
    change from daylight balanced to tungsten balanced film from one image to
    the next, effectively change from Velvia to Ektachrome or Kodachrome etc.
    style from one image to the next (I could go on) is a *massive* benefit for
    me. And *most* importantly for me, being able to get low noise images at
    1600+ ISO, which was imposible with film (and still is)



    >What that limitation means is that you have
    > to be able to get much closer to the correct selection of dynamic
    > range at the time of shooting, and the kinds of selection you can make
    > are limited.


    Yep, been there done that, don't want to go back.


    > When a phtographer shows you their latest black and white print do you
    > shake your sadly and explain to the poor fool that they've thrown away
    > most of the information by dropping the colour?


    Not at all, but if they buy a Leica-M and have to carry a dozen filters
    again, I'd want to see far better shots than I usually see these days!
    IMO B&W still has a place, but I far too often see people who think a crap
    photo is "artistic" simply because it is monochrome! :-(
    I rarely see anything these days that comes close to B&W in it's hey day,
    but equally some of the iconic B&W images of the past would look as good, or
    even better in color. There is a good example of that on the web somewhere
    in which iconic press images of the past have been colorised. Many are
    actually an improvement IMO. (YMMV, art is in the eye of the beholder after
    all) And I still prefer my 6x6cm and darkroom for real B&W. (no longer have
    a proper view camera though) I do love digital post "filtration" when I'm
    shooting for newspaper reproduction however, especially since it gives them,
    or me, the option of printing in color if necessary.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 27, 2012
    #32
  13. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>For those unable to remember what they wrote, or look at the previous post
    >>to find out, I don't really care. But if you like lot's of superflous
    >>stuff
    >>to scroll through, I've left it in for you :)

    >
    > You know very well that's not the point. The question is do you engage
    > in concealed editing/deletion of text which changes the meaning of
    > what you are purporting to be replying to?


    Not IMO.

    > The answer appears to be 'yes' by the way you expect your readers to
    > have to compare what you claim to have quoted to the previous text
    > which you claim to be replying to, to confirm your accuracy. By your
    > own words, what you write is not trustworthy.


    So if they can't remember what they wrote, and can't be bothered to check,
    I'm untrustworthy? You are entitled to your opinion I guess, but I'm not
    losing any sleep over it.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 27, 2012
    #33
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2012-07-27 02:10 , Trevor wrote:
    >> IMO Jpeg is just not necessary for modern digital camera's, except for
    >> those
    >> who simply don't want to know what RAW is.

    >
    > As previously stated, many news organizations use JPG only - time is of
    > the essence and available bandwidth "in the field" might be very low
    > making the upload of raw files impractical.


    As I previously stated, that's when you use RAW+Jpeg if necessary.


    > Indeed, these professional shooters are not using raw because they know
    > the consequences of it: large files that take additional time to edit and
    > can't fit through low bandwidth networks. The in-camera JPG is more than
    > sufficient for them and their photo editors.


    Their loss when they take a great photo that could be used for more than
    landfill. But I never go on assignment without my laptop, so even Raw+Jpeg
    is not something I often bother with.


    > And of course if one strives to get the exposure and composition right in
    > camera, and the WB is correctly set, there is often little else to do to
    > it. And still there is much latitude for editing.


    Yep, if you have time to get everything right, it may often be good enough.
    Still can't see the benefit over Raw or Raw+Jpeg though.


    > Just like slide film.


    As I stated, do you really want to limit yourself to that level these days?



    > In camera JPG's satisfy most people's needs for their photos while
    > reducing memory requirements and additional processing steps that they
    > find to be time wasting and distracting. An obstacle to their needs and
    > enjoyment.


    True, most peoples photo's are so crappy shootingg RAW wouldn't help them.


    > Now please don't repeat what you've said over and over. Raw is good for
    > you, it is good for me. But don't insist that it is the only way to do
    > things. You're just wrong.


    Where did I insist that? What I said is there is no *need* any more, but of
    course most people don't care.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 28, 2012
    #34
  15. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2012-07-27 02:47 , Trevor wrote:
    >> 5 stops (according to you) is "more than enough dynamic range"! :)
    >> My slides and Cibachromes managed more than that

    >
    > Slides are dead black before -4 and bleach clear at about 2.7. So at best
    > 6.7 stops and that's stretching it.
    >
    > In reality, there is so little shadow detail below -3 to -2 and it is so
    > near bleached clear at 2.5 that the resultant range is a little over 5
    > stops.


    Your figures are meaningless as presented. Are you really suggesting a slow
    ISO slide film will resolve nothing but noise at one exposure level, and
    completely clear base at 5 to 6 stops more? And why you would continue to
    claim 5 stops is "more than enough dynamic range" (for you anyway I guess)
    is beyond me.


    > Slide film and digital behave very much the same in the highlights but
    > digital reaches deeper into the shadows.


    Of course if your reference point is the white clipping point/clear base for
    slide film. The important thing is the dynamic range is increased, but still
    not enough for some scenes even using RAW, which is why HDR is popular at
    the moment. Frankly I can't wait for true 16bit dynamic range, and I
    certainly won't be throwing half of it away in camera! :)
    Naturally others are welcome to do as they wish.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 28, 2012
    #35
  16. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Not IMO.

    >
    > Well your opinion has proven to be invalid


    In your opinion, which may be the invalid one of course! :)

    >so I wouldn't rely on that.


    As I would expect, just as I don't rely on anything you say.


    >> So if they can't remember what they wrote, and can't be bothered to
    >> check,
    >> I'm untrustworthy? You are entitled to your opinion I guess, but I'm not
    >> losing any sleep over it.

    >
    > You should. Your editing of prior posters comments to change context is
    > rude.


    In your opinion. You get to do as you want, not play net cop for others.


    >I know you're desperate to prove point


    Not at all, I don't give a rats arse about your net cop antics.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 28, 2012
    #36
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> I remember a time even before Nikon produced the D1 in 1999. A
    > >> photographer shot a winning try at a football match in Auckland,
    > >> walked over to his car and hooked his camera to his mobile phone (I
    > >> don't remember what that entailed) and fired the shot off to his
    > >> editor in Wellington 430 miles away. 35 minutes after the try was
    > >> scored the photograph was in the streets of the front page of the
    > >> Dominion. I have no idea of what type of image or software was
    > >> entailed.

    > >
    > >Want to bet it was a JPG?

    >
    > How now can we possibly tell?


    absent the actual file or a statement from the photographer, you can't
    prove it one way or the other, but since sending data over cellular
    back then was slow and expensive, it is pretty much guaranteed that the
    file was only big enough to have the necessary quality for a newspaper,
    which pretty much guarantees it was a jpeg. there is no reason to have
    sent a raw or tiff.
     
    nospam, Jul 29, 2012
    #37
  18. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2012-07-27 20:31 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> I remember a time even before Nikon produced the D1 in 1999. A
    >> photographer shot a winning try at a football match in Auckland,
    >> walked over to his car and hooked his camera to his mobile phone (I
    >> don't remember what that entailed) and fired the shot off to his
    >> editor in Wellington 430 miles away. 35 minutes after the try was
    >> scored the photograph was in the streets of the front page of the
    >> Dominion. I have no idea of what type of image or software was
    >> entailed.

    >
    > Want to bet it was a JPG?


    Want to bet it's still 1999? :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 29, 2012
    #38
  19. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>> IMO Jpeg is just not necessary for modern digital camera's, except for
    >>>> those
    >>>> who simply don't want to know what RAW is.
    >>>
    >>> As previously stated, many news organizations use JPG only - time is of
    >>> the essence and available bandwidth "in the field" might be very low
    >>> making the upload of raw files impractical.

    >>
    >> As I previously stated, that's when you use RAW+Jpeg if necessary.

    >
    > There is no need for it for some shooters.
    >
    > Anyway, I'm EOD on this.


    Glad to hear it.

    >You clearly can't see beyond your own needs.


    You clearly don't get what I actually wrote.

    > They are legitimate to be sure. But they don't represent everyone's
    > needs.



    Never said they did. But still amazed at how many buy a good DSLR and
    cripple it to jpeg. Mostly because they don't have a clue IME.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 29, 2012
    #39
  20. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>>> 5 stops (according to you) is "more than enough dynamic range"! :)
    >>>> My slides and Cibachromes managed more than that
    >>>
    >>> Slides are dead black before -4 and bleach clear at about 2.7. So at
    >>> best
    >>> 6.7 stops and that's stretching it.
    >>>
    >>> In reality, there is so little shadow detail below -3 to -2 and it is so
    >>> near bleached clear at 2.5 that the resultant range is a little over 5
    >>> stops.

    >>
    >> Your figures are meaningless as presented. Are you really suggesting a
    >> slow
    >> ISO slide film will resolve nothing but noise at one exposure level, and

    >
    > ISO has pretty much nothing to do with the DR of film it just changes the
    > exposure time all else being equal.


    Have you ever used film at all? Tell me that a slow ISO fine grain low
    contrast film does nothing for you other than change exposure time Vs a fast
    ISO course grained film and let the whole world laugh at you. Most companies
    once made low contrast and high contrast films at slower ISO's, and how
    about comparing slow B&W films developed for low contrast Vs fast ISO films.
    Lots of chemical choices available to change the contrast whenever
    necessary. (Doesn't work as well as the ISO is increased however.) No
    difference in DR? What are you smoking exactly?


    >> completely clear base at 5 to 6 stops more? And why you would continue to
    >> claim 5 stops is "more than enough dynamic range" (for you anyway I
    >> guess)
    >> is beyond me.

    >
    > You're taking that out of context which is no surprise.


    Read what you wrote and tell me how exactly?


    >Slide film was preferred for it's rich color and fine tonals as well as the
    >simply ability to be projected. The results could be quite stunning.


    Only if they had more than "5 stops" DR or a very low contrast subject :)


    >The down side of that was a more limited dynamic range. When the
    >photographer is aware of that range he shoots within it (or sets the studio
    >lights for it).


    OR selects the film to suit. Why do you think there were films made
    especially for weddings as one example where a wider DR and accurate flesh
    tones were desired. Not everyone shot only Kodachrome you know! :)


    > So it was indeed more than enough DR for the millions of photogs who used
    > it.


    Because it was all they had doesn't mean it was all they ever wanted.
    Perhaps for you, definitely not for me!


    > One of the most famous photos ever, "the Afghan girl" was shot on slide
    > film within the DR of slide film.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sharbat_Gula_on_National_Geographic_cover.jpg


    And that is the only subject anyone ever wanted to shoot in your opinion?


    > Indeed a large amount of NG film was slide. That narrow DR didn't affect
    > them too badly, did it?


    Actually it did, they just put up with what was available as people have
    done since the dawn of time.


    > Slide film had a little more than 5 stops.


    So you say.

    >I budget 5 to stay within range and that has been quite useful.
    >
    >>> Slide film and digital behave very much the same in the highlights but
    >>> digital reaches deeper into the shadows.

    >>
    >> Of course if your reference point is the white clipping point/clear base
    >> for
    >> slide film.

    >
    > What else would it be?


    Just clarifying your omission since you are so careless with specifics.


    > The important thing is the dynamic range is increased, but still
    >> not enough for some scenes even using RAW, which is why HDR is popular at
    >> the moment. Frankly I can't wait for true 16bit dynamic range, and I
    >> certainly won't be throwing half of it away in camera! :)

    >
    > A 16 bit range will not extend the highlights, it will only reach deeper
    > into the shadows.


    One simply exposes less to extend the highlight margin! Don't you even get
    that? (Didn't we just cover that above already and you agreed the white
    clipping point is your refernce?)
    It's the total DR that's important after all, and more than "5 stops" VERY
    useful to most people.


    >So multiple shot HDR will persist and be abused as always, or at least
    >require multiple shots to get the required information.


    Very little need when we get true 16bit DR in one RAW image, one simply
    edits that single image to suit the display capabilities of screen or print.
    (which is easier than multiple image HDR)
    THAT's MY point. Not surprised you still don't get it.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jul 29, 2012
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. anthonyberet

    How heavy is a litre of heavy water?

    anthonyberet, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    11,012
    tadchem
    Apr 10, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    Digital camera sales growth to slow

    Alan Browne, Feb 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    453
    Alan Meyer
    Feb 12, 2005
  3. thing2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    317
    thing2
    Feb 22, 2006
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    2,375
    Bob Larter
    Jul 13, 2009
  5. Rich

    Cruddy P&S sales drop for Sony, DSLR sales jump

    Rich, Aug 1, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    476
Loading...

Share This Page