Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2025 9:46 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:26 pm
Posts: 32
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
and LR does allow you to fix horizon (probably all imaging software do).
Not sure if DPP can take Nikon files, we one photographer using Canon and another on Nikon in the same wedding and LR handle both.

Louie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:29 am
Posts: 3415
Location: James in RH
Has thanked: 2 times
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/cahhK
Actually, with today's digital cameras (high iso capability, low noise) I would say digital is a lot more forgiving and flexible when compared to film, especially when shooting in raw.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:36 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Scarberia
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Seren Dipity wrote:
Actually, with today's digital cameras (high iso capability, low noise) I would say digital is a lot more forgiving and flexible when compared to film, especially when shooting in raw.


Except for over-exposure. You can easily over-expose colour-neg film by 3 or 4 stops and still not blow the highlights. However, under-expose it, and it looks like crap.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:38 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:29 am
Posts: 3415
Location: James in RH
Has thanked: 2 times
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/cahhK
Kin Lau wrote:
Seren Dipity wrote:
Actually, with today's digital cameras (high iso capability, low noise) I would say digital is a lot more forgiving and flexible when compared to film, especially when shooting in raw.


Except for over-exposure. You can easily over-expose colour-neg film by 3 or 4 stops and still not blow the highlights. However, under-expose it, and it looks like crap.


Ah, good to know.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 135
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
fionah wrote:
I've been playing around with the Canon software. Initially I was aghast at the ugliness of my RAW photos until I realized it was unprocessed file. I didn't expect it to look worse than my jpg shots but now I know why. One thing that I learned is that DPP can't really correct photos that you took in very unforgiving light. I shot film many many years ago - digital is new to me. I see that digital isn't a lot more forgiving than film. I had hoped it would be - it isn't so far as I can tell. Bad lighting will still probably create a bad digital photo.

My horizons still are often off. How can you correct that with the cropping tool in DPP? It's driving me crazy.


You cannot rotate / correct for horizons in DPP - it just doesn't have that functionality - and probably the most requested one. If they had that - it would do 95% of what I need.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:35 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
The new version of DPP (3.8.0) supports angle adjustment now.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... elid=14999


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 135
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Great News now that DDP does angle adjustment! Tried it out for a bit.. makes my work flow much easier for certain things.

Finally Canon listens!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
carbon4 wrote:
Great News now that DDP does angle adjustment! Tried it out for a bit.. makes my work flow much easier for certain things.

Finally Canon listens!


No kidding! Don't know why this wasn't an option from the start. What? Canon expects everyone to shoot perfectly horizontal? lol


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:10 am
Posts: 371
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Great info everyone!!
(yes even you Metrix, I love it when you're helpful :D :D )
The links to the canon videos are tremendously helpful. The news that I can update DPP and correct horizon is also valuable.

I do see that RAW is more forgiving than film, what I meant was that as digital is completely new to me I expected it to be even more forgiving - blame it on bad CSI episodes where they seem to work miracles with crap digital files


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:25 am 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
fionah wrote:
I do see that RAW is more forgiving than film, what I meant was that as digital is completely new to me I expected it to be even more forgiving - blame it on bad CSI episodes where they seem to work miracles with crap digital files


I as well came into digital under the impression that current sensors had surpassed film for dynamic range, so you're not alone. Not sure where I got that "info" but I sure did believe it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
fionah wrote:
- blame it on bad CSI episodes where they seem to work miracles with crap digital files


That's funny. I always get a hoot out of watching what they do with their digital files on CSI. And how they take some of the crime scene shots inches away using non-macro lenses and no diffusers on the flash.

It always amazes me why they never turn on the lights when searching a crime scene for evidence/clues.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:10 am
Posts: 371
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Kin Lau wrote:
Seren Dipity wrote:
Actually, with today's digital cameras (high iso capability, low noise) I would say digital is a lot more forgiving and flexible when compared to film, especially when shooting in raw.


Except for over-exposure. You can easily over-expose colour-neg film by 3 or 4 stops and still not blow the highlights. However, under-expose it, and it looks like crap.


So it is better to under-expose than over-expose with digital (assuming one were not able to expose properly?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:13 am
Posts: 397
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
fionah wrote:
So it is better to under-expose than over-expose with digital (assuming one were not able to expose properly?


Yes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:41 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
wendyshakeyhands wrote:
fionah wrote:
So it is better to under-expose than over-expose with digital (assuming one were not able to expose properly?


Yes.


That's contradictory to what I've heard about exposing to the left of the meter, or HAMSTTR. Exposing to the right allows the censor to capture more data and as long as you don't blow the highlights, or any channel, it can all be brought back down to reasonable in post. I've also been told that when underexposed digital censors produce more noise than they do when over-exposed, again assuming highlights have not been blown.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:45 pm
Posts: 325
Location: The Annex
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
ions wrote:
wendyshakeyhands wrote:
fionah wrote:
So it is better to under-expose than over-expose with digital (assuming one were not able to expose properly?


Yes.


That's contradictory to what I've heard about exposing to the left of the meter, or HAMSTTR. Exposing to the right allows the censor to capture more data and as long as you don't blow the highlights, or any channel, it can all be brought back down to reasonable in post. I've also been told that when underexposed digital censors produce more noise than they do when over-exposed, again assuming highlights have not been blown.


In this instance "over-exposed" is being used synonymously with "blowing highlights".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 512
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
wendyshakeyhands wrote:
fionah wrote:
So it is better to under-expose than over-expose with digital (assuming one were not able to expose properly?


Yes.


I disagree. You need to bias your shots towards overexposure. This means looking at your histogram and making sure that "hill" (well a typical histogram to serve my point) is more towards the right without clipping the highlights.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 2119
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 1 time
Shuttereye wrote:
I disagree. You need to bias your shots towards overexposure. This means looking at your histogram and making sure that "hill" (well a typical histogram to serve my point) is more towards the right without clipping the highlights.


That's what I do. I find underexposed images have way too much noise to be salvageable.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:07 am 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I agree - expose to the right as far as possible without clipping the highlights.

Perhaps Wendy was refering to under and/or overexposure by one or 2 f-stops rather than histogram clipping?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:13 am
Posts: 397
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
philmar wrote:
I agree - expose to the right as far as possible without clipping the highlights.

Perhaps Wendy was refering to under and/or overexposure by one or 2 f-stops rather than histogram clipping?


When the histogram clips and all the white parts of the pic flash red on my LCD, I cry and scurry back to my Holga/Spotmatic/Rolleicord.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:18 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Scarberia
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
I lean towards underexposure if the highlights are important, like a wedding dress or white plumage on a bird.

If the majority of the subject is dark or there are significant shadows, I expose to the right, over-expose by a stop or so, and then pull it back when converting and/or "shadows and highlights" tool in PS.

Most of the time, I try to expose correctly, so under and over exposure are just some of the methods to achieve that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
Carlton wrote:
Shuttereye wrote:
I disagree. You need to bias your shots towards overexposure. This means looking at your histogram and making sure that "hill" (well a typical histogram to serve my point) is more towards the right without clipping the highlights.


That's what I do. I find underexposed images have way too much noise to be salvageable.



I agree but in addition you need to use the seperate rgb colour channel histogram as the grey scale histogram might show good but a colour channel might be blown. Bright or saturated colours are of a particular problem for digital sensors.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 135
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
After all this talk (as you are talking a few stops here), Fionah is more confused then ever and nobody really answered her question.

I guess the answer is - try to get it as close to proper exposure (as you see it) as possible (either a little over or under is okay) as RAW is a little forgiving.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:35 am 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
carbon4 wrote:
After all this talk (as you are talking a few stops here), Fionah is more confused then ever and nobody really answered her question.

I guess the answer is - try to get it as close to proper exposure (as you see it) as possible (either a little over or under is okay) as RAW is a little forgiving.



Basically correct except unfortunately any over exposure is not saved by using RAW. Some programs such as Lightroom can fill in the over exposed areas by making guesses based on the surrounding area but these are only approximations as the real detail has been lost. Best not to overexpose the subject while as you say some under exposure is forgiven.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
My understanding was that RAW converters do a great job of saving over-exposure (and that this is desirable) but only if the highlights are not blown. That was the whole reason for the 'shoot ot the right' mantra. ACR/LR only 'guesses' blown highlight values in situations where the highlights are blown and then only when there is clipping in 1 or 2 of the RGB channels. it does this when using the 'highlight' slider and does the guesswork when 1 or 2 of the RGB channels are blown.

It is desirable to expose to the right if shooting RAW. Most of the information is on the right side. Desired because it results in less noise in dark areas and fuller use of the colour spectrum. However once highlights are blown, information is lost, Sometimes the lost information can be inferred/guessed by ACR/LR but only if there is some information - i.e. one channel that ISN'T blown.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... ight.shtml
I believe that is the link to the origins of the theory.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:13 am
Posts: 397
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
philmar wrote:
My understanding was that RAW converters do a great job of saving over-exposure (and that this is desirable) but only if the highlights are not blown. That was the whole reason for the 'shoot ot the right' mantra. ACR/LR only 'guesses' blown highlight values in situations where the highlights are blown and then only when there is clipping in 1 or 2 of the RGB channels. it does this when using the 'highlight' slider and does the guesswork when 1 or 2 of the RGB channels are blown.

It is desirable to expose to the right if shooting RAW. Most of the information is on the right side. Desired because it results in less noise in dark areas and fuller use of the colour spectrum. However once highlights are blown, information is lost, Sometimes the lost information can be inferred/guessed by ACR/LR but only if there is some information - i.e. one channel that ISN'T blown.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... ight.shtml
I believe that is the link to the origins of the theory.


Very detailed explanation. Thanks!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:20 pm 
Offline
TPMG SUPERSTAR
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Yonge-Davisvillish - T.O.
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Sorry fionah - let me know if this has prompted you to sell the G11 and go back to film. I could use a lighter smaller camera that shoots RAW :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:39 pm
Posts: 327
Location: Scarborough
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 0 time
If I read everything correctly, if over-exposure means "blown-highlights" or "channel(s) clipping", that is a no-no in digital. And shoots to the right of the histogram without major channel(s) clipping is the proper exposure.

But the fact the OP is using a G10/G11 shooting RAW, has anyone tested the highlight headroom using any RAW converter? Would the sensor size makes any different? I always thought smaller sensor has a smaller dynamic range, could it affect the ability to recover highlights or the RAW converter's ability to guess what was supposed to be there?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:51 pm 
Offline
TPMG Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:26 pm
Posts: 3379
Location: Burlington
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 11 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherbrian/
For me I use "over-exposed" as exposed to the right of centre and "blown" for uh blown. I try to, or I mean to when I think of it, get as much area under the curve in the histogram as far to the right as possible without hitting the right edge, when it makes sense for the shot of course.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:37 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
Not everyone has the same definition of overexposure. Mine is it is overexposed when one or more of the channels are clipping anything less is not overexposing regardless of whether or not it looks too bright or washed out you can fix it when you get it into your computer. So by my definition overexposure results in colour clipping or blown highlights. Shoot a bright red dress on a sunny day and overexposure will in most cases result in lost of detail in the red dress it may also result in blown highlights.

By my definition shooting to the right of centre is normal exposure. To the left may be underexposed again the subject versus background has to be taken into account.

If you are shooting at low ISO then you can be conservative and under expose by about a half stop and still get good shadow detail. For my camera i usually compensate the exposure by 1/3 stop unless the subject is much darker or brighter then the background. If you are shooting at higher ISO then the shadow detail starts to get noisy and you might want to shoot closer to the right side of the histogram again depending on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:58 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
ions wrote:
I mean to when I think of it, get as much area under the curve in the histogram as far to the right as possible without hitting the right edge, when it makes sense for the shot of course.


+1


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group