Page 38 of 38 FirstFirst ... 28363738
Results 371 to 379 of 379

Thread: GAS talk

  1. #371
    Corvette Enthusiast Kchrpm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,232
    The idea was showing how much info was captured, but I agree.

    As for the ground being brighter, I'm assuming the low lying full moon is the cause. I'd love to see an, uh, less processed version (all RAW files have to be processed, so I assume that's the proper terminology).
    Get that weak shit off my track

  2. #372
    What does the Bat say? Jason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Sad, little man View Post
    I'd be more impressed by the A9's dynamic range if the 5D's weren't better.

    https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...IV___1162_1106

    At the end of the day, I can't believe that that photo is not heavily photoshopped. I don't care what camera you're taking a photo with, the ground is not as bright/brighter than the sky at night. Maybe because of the headlights behind? Either way, it feels kind of cheesy to use a heavily photoshopped image to show what a camera itself is supposedly capable of in a "review" frame of reference.
    Moonlight in the desert = dark sky, lighter ground when shooting night photography. I have a shot I took relatively recently that isn't as dramatic, but if I boosted it a couple stops would look similar in balance between ground and sky. The moon was setting on the opposite side of where I was shooting, the ground reflects said light, and the lack of humidity in the sky creates for minimal reflection/light in the sky.

    Edit: Not saying there isn't photoshop work involved, but the foundation for making that image is there without too drastic of adjustments (ie a gradient filter in Lightroom)

    DSCF3312-Pano.jpg

    In my case I had that pesky milky way peaking over the horizon, no headlights, and a *very* low moon (just below the horizon behind me, looked almost black to the naked eye)
    Last edited by Jason; July 17th, 2017 at 01:24 PM.

  3. #373
    Consultant KillerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Cypress, CA USA
    Posts
    1,043
    Well, sure, the Sony A9 is amazing... as it should be, for $4500.

    More importantly, though, since cameras advance pretty quickly, while a great lens is a great lens forever (as long as you can keep getting newer and better bodies to hook up to it), what's Sony's system like? Does it look like it has staying power? Because if I'm going to spend 4 figures on a lens, I damn well expect to be able to still be using it 20 years from now.

  4. #374
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Moonlight in the desert = dark sky, lighter ground when shooting night photography. I have a shot I took relatively recently that isn't as dramatic, but if I boosted it a couple stops would look similar in balance between ground and sky. The moon was setting on the opposite side of where I was shooting, the ground reflects said light, and the lack of humidity in the sky creates for minimal reflection/light in the sky.

    Edit: Not saying there isn't photoshop work involved, but the foundation for making that image is there without too drastic of adjustments (ie a gradient filter in Lightroom)
    Ok, but when you're writing an article to say "look how great this camera is," and you photoshop the heck out of it, it kinda defeats your message. A heavily processed and noise reduced photo doesn't say much about any one specific camera's edge in dynamic range over the competition, it basically just shows that, yes, cameras overall have acquired very good dynamic range and low-light capabilities.

  5. #375
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,328
    Quote Originally Posted by KillerB View Post
    Well, sure, the Sony A9 is amazing... as it should be, for $4500.

    More importantly, though, since cameras advance pretty quickly, while a great lens is a great lens forever (as long as you can keep getting newer and better bodies to hook up to it), what's Sony's system like? Does it look like it has staying power? Because if I'm going to spend 4 figures on a lens, I damn well expect to be able to still be using it 20 years from now.
    It's not cheap, but it's cheaper than the 1DX 2 and it's also smaller and lighter.

    The system, not 100% sure about staying power, but here we are and it looks like a huge lens selection and the legacy are the only things keeping Canon/Nikon alive.

    I have a friend who, admittedly, shoots mainly people, travel photos, or landscapes. After aweekend of being forced to use his A7 or whatever similar model he sold all his Nikon gear including a D810 and several pro-level lenses. It's one storu about one guy, but I'd take the smaller size and weight for full frame, full sensor af, and higher fps.

  6. #376
    What does the Bat say? Jason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Sad, little man View Post
    Ok, but when you're writing an article to say "look how great this camera is," and you photoshop the heck out of it, it kinda defeats your message. A heavily processed and noise reduced photo doesn't say much about any one specific camera's edge in dynamic range over the competition, it basically just shows that, yes, cameras overall have acquired very good dynamic range and low-light capabilities.
    You still require a good foundation to do that work from. That sort of picture would not be easy to pull off just a few years ago, even with insane amounts of photoshop. Now, though, due to how good modern sensors are, it's pretty damned easy.

  7. #377
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    You still require a good foundation to do that work from. That sort of picture would not be easy to pull off just a few years ago, even with insane amounts of photoshop. Now, though, due to how good modern sensors are, it's pretty damned easy.
    Right, but when you photoshop an image this much and put it in an article extolling the virtues of one specific camera, it's kind of silly when you could get very close to the same result from any other modern camera.

  8. #378
    What does the Bat say? Jason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    1,937
    I loved shooting long-exposures with it, too. Unfortunately, there was always too much moon and too much haze for me to try a nice, clear shot of the Milky Way, but I’m confident it would excel there. I did get a handful of shots while driving down Highway 50 in Nevada (the so-called “Loneliest Road In America”) that I was really happy with. The above shot was a single exposure taken with the electronic shutter around midnight. I was side-lit by the moon and backlit by an oncoming truck (relax, it was very far away). It was a 20 second exposure at ISO 800, f/2.8. Obviously, I did plenty of tweaking in Lightroom, but I use this to show you just how much dynamic range is captured in the RAW photos.
    Pushing and pulling a raw file in post is exactly how you find out about a camera's dynamic range. Taking a photo straight from camera doesn't really tell you anything about dynamic range because display technologies limit what's displayed. This is why RAW files have to actually go through a demosaicing engine, and processed down to standard color profiles (sRGB for most of the web, though wide gamut is finally becoming a thing).

    If you were complaining that the author was making a point about noise control with that image, and applied heavy noise reduction, you'd have a point. But the author was talking about dynamic range, which is seen by pushing/pulling a raw file's exposure when processing it. There are certain situations where post processing is not appropriate for a technical test, or an example of a camera's quality, and there are certain situations where it absolutely is appropriate. This is the latter.

    Sony and Canon are really hitting their strides with sensor tech, it's pretty astounding what can be done.

  9. #379
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,470
    I agree with what you're saying, but if you want to definitively say "Look how this camera is better than the competition," you would probably want to push the raw file right to it's limits, showing the ugly result right when it starts to break up, then show how a competitor's camera does better or worse right at the limit. Just showing a low-res, heavily smoothed out full image doesn't prove a whole lot. But maybe I'm expecting too much from a simpler publication.

    Anyway, I saw this, and it sort of cracked me up. I guess it never hurts to have ambitions.

    lenses.jpg
    Last edited by Sad, little man; July 19th, 2017 at 07:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •