Why no title?
David
Why no title?
David
I could not find one ...
[retracted]
Like "Rush hour" or something?
Come on, spit it out, and I'll permaban you if I don't like it.
[retracted]
Is it me, or is there a lot of noise in that picture when you look at it at 100%?
Alan
LOL
I think it is low quality JPEG and underexposed shadows originally
Not sure about underexposed shadows - camera settings say 9.5 LV about right for that scene and it IS a Leica ...
... but then it was multi-segment metering, so who really knows what the lighting value was?
Posted JPEG is fully chroma sub-sampled (4:2:0) but couldn't find the compression Quality in the EXIF.
RAW
[]
NR LRC
[]
@Daneland has written: @AlanSh has written:Is it me, or is there a lot of noise in that picture when you look at it at 100%?
Alan
What noise :)
LOL
Quoted message:I think it is low quality JPEG and underexposed shadows originally
Not sure about underexposed shadows - camera settings say 9.5 LV about right for that scene and it IS a Leica ...
... but then it was multi-segment metering, so who really knows what the lighting value was?
Posted JPEG is fully chroma sub-sampled (4:2:0) but couldn't find the compression Quality in the EXIF.
RAW
[]NR LRC
[] @xpatUSA has written: @Daneland has written: @AlanSh has written:Is it me, or is there a lot of noise in that picture when you look at it at 100%?
Alan
What noise :)
LOL
Quoted message:I think it is low quality JPEG and underexposed shadows originally
Not sure about underexposed shadows - camera settings say 9.5 LV about right for that scene and it IS a Leica ...
... but then it was multi-segment metering, so who really knows what the lighting value was?
Posted JPEG is fully chroma sub-sampled (4:2:0) but couldn't find the compression Quality in the EXIF.
Sorry, I don't understand what these images are supposed to tell us and I have no idea what "LRC" means.
@Daneland has written:RAW
[]NR LRC
[] @xpatUSA has written: @Daneland has written: @AlanSh has written:Is it me, or is there a lot of noise in that picture when you look at it at 100%?
Alan
What noise :)
LOL
Quoted message:I think it is low quality JPEG and underexposed shadows originally
Not sure about underexposed shadows - camera settings say 9.5 LV about right for that scene and it IS a Leica ...
... but then it was multi-segment metering, so who really knows what the lighting value was?
Posted JPEG is fully chroma sub-sampled (4:2:0) but couldn't find the compression Quality in the EXIF.
Sorry, I don't understand what these images are supposed to tell us and I have no idea what "LRC" means.
RAW is converted from RAW w/o any adjustments, I posted it to show how much it is actually underexposed, the second one is Lightroom Classic noise reduction applied to the first post
@xpatUSA has written: @Daneland has written:RAW
[]NR LRC
[] @xpatUSA has written: @Daneland has written: @AlanSh has written:Is it me, or is there a lot of noise in that picture when you look at it at 100%?
Alan
What noise :)
LOL
Quoted message:I think it is low quality JPEG and underexposed shadows originally
Not sure about underexposed shadows - camera settings say 9.5 LV about right for that scene and it IS a Leica ...
... but then it was multi-segment metering, so who really knows what the lighting value was?
Posted JPEG is fully chroma sub-sampled (4:2:0) but couldn't find the compression Quality in the EXIF.
Sorry, I don't understand what these images are supposed to tell us and I have no idea what "LRC" means.
RAW is converted from RAW w/o any adjustments, I posted it to show how much it is actually underexposed, the second one is Lightroom Classic noise reduction applied to the first post
Understood, thanks. A difficult shot if the girl was the subject, with the bright overhead lights fooling the matrix exposure metering.
I like the full shot, but would trim the sides so that the bars are not visible. Then it looks like the end of the carriage, where the camera is, has been sawn off!
David