Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who said you couldn't keep detain in strong light?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:06:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.

A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong,
midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's
ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.

More about : detain strong light

Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>
> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
> and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
> record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>
> A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
> or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong,
> midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's
> ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
> --
> Douglas,
> Zero care factor for negative responses
> from anonymous posters.

impressive
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
July 20, 2005 1:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
> and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
> record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>
> A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
> or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong,
> midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's
> ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm


Nice image, but where's the beef^H^H^H^Hbeach? That image (cropped?)
seems an even blend of dark/light areas. An event at the beach, but not
one grain of bright sand do I see.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Related resources
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:06:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There may be a new generation of compact digitals that have fast processors
that can manage the levels and the curves and can improve the detail in
shadow and highlights. This is equivalent as if we have record the photo in
raw and post processed in PS in 12 bit, only it is automatic, better for
amateur use. New Nikons S2 and others have a feature called D-Lighting that
can equalize the curve like this, but I don't believe that process the photo
before compression. I think that may be other new cameras as a very thin
Sony I have recently seen that may use a more or less similar process.

The benefit of using this process IN the camera and BEFORE jpg compression
is that the photo is in 12 bit, so the dark and highlight details have 4
more bits to develop detail (4096 levels instead of 256 in full spectrum),
so if this equalization takes place before convert to 8 bit, the final
result will be much-much better.
--
Dimitris M

>
> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
> and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
> record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>
> A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
> or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong,
> midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's
> ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:45:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42dcded4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

>The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
>and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
>record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.

Not really; 12-bit digitization is the real limit, at least with current
DSLRs, at their lowest ISOs. If this were not true, there wouldn't be
much point in shooting at the higher ISOs.

Whatever image quality you get out of your 20D at ISO 1600, that's what
the 12 least significant bits would be, from the same sensor, if the
camera cleanly digitized at 16 bits at ISO 100.

>A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
>or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong,
>midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's
>ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
>http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm

What the hell are you talking about? Even in this downsized image,
there is absolutely *Z E R O* detail in those shadows; just 8*8 blocks
of dark, solid color. The highlights are clipped, and blocky as well.

Again, you have proven absolutely nothing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:45:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42DCE65B.FDDD2574@blueyonder.co.uk>,
Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>impressive

How so?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 2:15:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <42DCE65B.FDDD2574@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >impressive
>
> How so?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

okay, I should have said

"In comparison to my Oly c-725"

I can see details in all the right places.
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
July 20, 2005 2:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:42dcded4$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights and
> deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will record and
> that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>
> A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown highlights
> or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in strong, midday
> sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with it's ability to
> record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same time.
> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
> --
> Douglas,

And all the people in the scene has a very purple-reddish skin tone.
Can anyone show a set of portraits with decent skin tones from a Panny,
please?
/per
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:18:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"per" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42dd6343$1@news.wineasy.se...
> And all the people in the scene has a very purple-reddish skin tone.
> Can anyone show a set of portraits with decent skin tones from a Panny,
> please?

The skin tones are pretty ghastly. Those look to be Canadians. Not at all
surprising how the pre-melanoma renders. Just the same, I wouldn't be
altogether displeased if a P/S rendered a scene this way straight out of the
camera. The 9 or 10 stops of brightness range we see is about all that tiny
sensors can image.

Can't tell from the context, but this could be an inland body of water, or
at least the horizon wasn't visible in the direction of the sun. Cap'n Bligh
is shooting his noonshot downward at an artificial horizon. Also, the noon
sun seems pretty low; not just Canadian, but pretty high latitudes at that.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:57:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>
>> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
>> and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
>> record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>>
>> A lot of otherwise nice photos are often lost to either blown
>> highlights or blocked shadows. Nothing is much worse than the beach in
>> strong, midday sun. The Panasonic FZ20 surprised this DSLR owner with
>> it's ability to record detail in dark areas and highlights at the same
>> time.
>> http://www.ryadia.com/sailor_lost.htm
>
>
>
> Nice image, but where's the beef^H^H^H^Hbeach? That image (cropped?)
> seems an even blend of dark/light areas. An event at the beach, but not
> one grain of bright sand do I see.
>

Not cropped... Full frame of the shot.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dimitris M wrote:
> There may be a new generation of compact digitals that have fast processors
> that can manage the levels and the curves and can improve the detail in
> shadow and highlights. This is equivalent as if we have record the photo in
> raw and post processed in PS in 12 bit, only it is automatic, better for
> amateur use. New Nikons S2 and others have a feature called D-Lighting that
> can equalize the curve like this, but I don't believe that process the photo
> before compression. I think that may be other new cameras as a very thin
> Sony I have recently seen that may use a more or less similar process.
>
> The benefit of using this process IN the camera and BEFORE jpg compression
> is that the photo is in 12 bit, so the dark and highlight details have 4
> more bits to develop detail (4096 levels instead of 256 in full spectrum),
> so if this equalization takes place before convert to 8 bit, the final
> result will be much-much better.

That shot was captured in TIFF mode. Using JPG mode on the same scene
produces blown highlights.

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:59:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>

> That shot was captured in TIFF mode. Using JPG mode on the same scene
> produces blown highlights.
>
> --
now that's interesting. why would that be? could this be true of other
cams?

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:33:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:
>
> That shot was captured in TIFF mode. Using JPG mode on the same scene
> produces blown highlights.

If you look at the histogram, you'll see that the highlights are blown on
that image.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:33:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <dbjvgn$p1r$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>"Foto Ryadia's Studio" <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

>> That shot was captured in TIFF mode. Using JPG mode on the same scene
>> produces blown highlights.

>If you look at the histogram, you'll see that the highlights are blown on
>that image.

The shadows are completely featureless, too. If you paste the image
into an editor, and change the gamma, you can see solid 8*8 tiles of
dark color (total JPEG compression) in the shadows, and if you move the
gamma slider the other way, you see the same featureless squares at the
edges of the blown-out area.

Doug is out on a limb once again.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

To me, there is another issue with strong light, especially very high
contrast scenes, that is completely optical, not electronic.

I am disappointed with the flare performance of most cameras and lenses
(especially zoom lenses) these days.

Long time ago, most folks disapproved of flare. Then, it became a fad,
with filters available to add flare and ghosts :-( I suspect camera
mfgs at that point said, "hey, folks no longer object to flare, so why
should we spend a lot of resources minimizing it?"

Ray tracing flare is extremely computationally intensive, and I don't
believe there is any practical way to do it in camera processing. Now
that there ARE tools around to design around it in the camera or lens,
it seems like mfgs don't make much use of these tools.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:26:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> What the hell are you talking about? Even in this downsized image,
> there is absolutely *Z E R O* detail in those shadows; just 8*8 blocks
> of dark, solid color. The highlights are clipped, and blocky as well.
>
> Again, you have proven absolutely nothing.

And you are stupid enough to argue about nothing?

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 9:05:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Boat wrote:
> "per" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:42dd6343$1@news.wineasy.se...
>
>> And all the people in the scene has a very purple-reddish skin tone.
>> Can anyone show a set of portraits with decent skin tones from a
>> Panny, please?
>
>
> The skin tones are pretty ghastly. Those look to be Canadians. Not at
> all surprising how the pre-melanoma renders. Just the same, I wouldn't
> be altogether displeased if a P/S rendered a scene this way straight out
> of the camera. The 9 or 10 stops of brightness range we see is about all
> that tiny sensors can image.
>
> Can't tell from the context, but this could be an inland body of water,
> or at least the horizon wasn't visible in the direction of the sun.
> Cap'n Bligh is shooting his noonshot downward at an artificial horizon.
> Also, the noon sun seems pretty low; not just Canadian, but pretty high
> latitudes at that.
>
Very well guessed Boat.
Artificial horizon of mercury because the suns rays distort the true
horizon. Not Canada but Australia. In the middle of winter. Matthew
Flinders landing re-enactment on the "6th Island" on Moreton bay,
Southern Queensland. The ghastly skin tones are probably from all the rum!

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 1:15:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42ddc47e$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Foto Ryadia's Studio <nospam@ryadia.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> What the hell are you talking about? Even in this downsized image,
>> there is absolutely *Z E R O* detail in those shadows; just 8*8 blocks
>> of dark, solid color. The highlights are clipped, and blocky as well.
>
>> Again, you have proven absolutely nothing.

>And you are stupid enough to argue about nothing?

Everything I said above is true; there is no detail in the shadows;
there is no detail in the highlights, and your images show nothing about
the camera, only something about the post-processing.

The FZ20 is certainly one of the best small-sensor digitals. Please
don't muddy its reputation by making claims and doctoring images to
prove them.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
July 21, 2005 5:39:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Foto Ryadia's Studio wrote:
>>
>> The contrast range which a sensor will record data in both highlights
>> and deep shadow is quite narrow compared to what negative film will
>> record and that in turn is very narrow compared to what the eye can see.
>>


This is for the OP, can't respond because he pulled his original post.


Why does this guy post controversial things, then pull the post and remove
the files from his website when people don't like what he said? Like duh
what do you think people are going to say to these posts?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 6:20:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:39:52 -0400, Stacey wrote:

> This is for the OP, can't respond because he pulled his original post.

Are you sure? I deleted it, emptied the trash and then reloaded
it again from my newsserver. If he did try to cancel his OP, my
server didn't honor the request. Most newsservers don't.


> Why does this guy post controversial things, then pull the post and
> remove the files from his website when people don't like what he said?

If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 2:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:39:52 -0400, Stacey wrote:
>
> > This is for the OP, can't respond because he pulled his original post.
>
> Are you sure? I deleted it, emptied the trash and then reloaded
> it again from my newsserver. If he did try to cancel his OP, my
> server didn't honor the request. Most newsservers don't.
>
> > Why does this guy post controversial things, then pull the post and
> > remove the files from his website when people don't like what he said?
>
> If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
> explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 

He HAS removed the post and his replies. I'm on a text only server and
they're gone, where the rest of the thread are still here
--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 4:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:14 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote:

>> If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
>> explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 
>
> He HAS removed the post and his replies. I'm on a text only server and
> they're gone, where the rest of the thread are still here

Well that's foolish of him. It only removed his posts from a
fraction of the newsservers, helped to confirm that his shot *was*
doctored, and did nothing to eliminate the content of his messages
that were quoted in replies. I was tempted to copy the entire OP
(complete with headers) but saw that it was already available in
your early reply. :) 
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 10:01:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:14 GMT, Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> >> If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
> >> explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 
> >
> > He HAS removed the post and his replies. I'm on a text only server and
> > they're gone, where the rest of the thread are still here
>
> Well that's foolish of him. It only removed his posts from a
> fraction of the newsservers, helped to confirm that his shot *was*
> doctored, and did nothing to eliminate the content of his messages
> that were quoted in replies. I was tempted to copy the entire OP
> (complete with headers) but saw that it was already available in
> your early reply. :) 

get it while it's hot :o ))

--
Paul (And I'm, like, "yeah, whatever!")
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 12:40:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <46fud1lk2s7uluu5uc9ckngmrnimqqojs2@4ax.com>,
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
>explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 

Did I say "doctored"? I really didn't mean *all* the nasty
connotations; just that the noise was missing, and the shadows were on a
steep curve.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 12:40:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:40:48 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>> If he did engage in "doctoring images" as JPS claimed, that could
>>explain the hasty retreat of the files from his website. :) 
>
> Did I say "doctored"? I really didn't mean *all* the nasty
> connotations; just that the noise was missing, and the shadows were on a
> steep curve.

Yep, that's what you said, sort of. When I started my reply I
quoted your reply from memory and also typed "doctored". But I
checked before sending it off and saw that you actually used
"doctoring". :)  I didn't take your use of the word to indicate
malicious tampering, more like a stronger version of "processing
images". But the attempt to quickly remove all traces of his
messages and web images does tend to indicate that he thinks he may
have done something inappropriate, whatever that might be.
July 22, 2005 2:54:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:39:52 -0400, Stacey wrote:
>
>> This is for the OP, can't respond because he pulled his original post.
>
> Are you sure? I deleted it, emptied the trash and then reloaded
> it again from my newsserver. If he did try to cancel his OP, my
> server didn't honor the request. Most newsservers don't.


Article could not be retrieved.
The following error occurred:
423 Bad article number

The article you requested is not available on your news server;
you could try to get it from groups.google.com.

Seems it's gone from google as well. Silly for someone to do this, like
anyone really cares -that- much about what anyone posts here? I sure hope
nobody cares about what I post here! :-)

--

Stacey
!