|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2011 04:09:53 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He tested mirror lockup on "long exposures" and found no evidence that it helps. I agree with that. It's the middling exposures where it matters; like, say, 1/8 sec or 1/4 sec, somewhere in that range. On truly long exposures, say 5 seconds plus, lockup is utterly pointless.
R. |
Definitely. The size of the mirror and the sturdiness of the support, as well as the focal length of the lens all also add significantly to this. There are times that mirror slap is blatantly apparent. A great example is seen here at Luminous Landscape. Scroll down to the image of the building. There are times where it matters and times where it doesn't, the assumption that it always improves shots is quite off the track, but it certainly has necessary applications and likely has a larger impact on FX bodies.
The other thing that I found interesting was the mention if Native ISO, which, at least in the case of the D300, is openly stated by Nikon to be of a lesser quality. I've never been one to check it, but that's what they say. Also, the reason they suggest that has NOTHING TO DO WITH NOISE. To quote the manual- "The settings [LO 0.3] through [LO 1] correspond to ISO sensitivities 0.3ΓΆ€“
1 EV below ISO 200 (ISO 160ΓΆ€“100 equivalent). Use for larger apertures
when lighting is bright. Contrast is slightly lower than normal; in most
cases, ISO sensitivities of ISO 200 or above are recommended."
Have I and do I use 100? Sure, there are perfectly fine times to and it's not something I avoid, per se, but I don't think he's quite coming at the idea from the right angle, either.
Message edited by author 2011-11-19 04:10:20. |
|
|
|
11/19/2011 10:52:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by mcaldo:
As for the JPG Vs. Raw white balance point, based on my experience in case of massively wrong WB (e.g. fluorescent in daylight) the RAW has a considerable edge, as different colours often will be remapped to the same one in JPG thus loosing them irreparably.
However, it might be a problem with my postprocessing skills. |
Shooting in Tungsten WB outdoors by mistake is what pushed me to shoot RAW all the time. I had a really nice shot that was impossible to color correct.
Not to mention that standard WB settings aren't available in LR, so you'll never be able to use a 'standard' WB setting because LR has no idea where the starting point is in each file. You can use the sliders, but it's suboptimal.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2011 06:12:35 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by alohadave:
Shooting in Tungsten WB outdoors by mistake is what pushed me to shoot RAW all the time. I had a really nice shot that was impossible to color correct.
Not to mention that standard WB settings aren't available in LR, so you'll never be able to use a 'standard' WB setting because LR has no idea where the starting point is in each file. You can use the sliders, but it's suboptimal. |
I agree that when it comes to 'standard/as shot' WB point, LR never really renders it as the camera would, which I find very annoying. However I suspect that's less of a problem for Canon and Nikon users. Adobe spent much more effort in profiling for the big brands, leaving Pentax and even more my Samsung rebrand of the k10d very poorly served.
However, Pentax/Samsung software does a pretty good of getting close to the original (as shot) WB and tonal rendition, which I honestly prefer as a starting point to what LR would give me. I too find the sliders not that great for setting WB.
This said, like you say, in case of massive WB errors RAW will save the day, Jpeg won't. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 08:24:01 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 08:24:01 PM EDT.
|
