this is one of my all time best images ,its a live mosquito head. at 10x
-
-
You're running away from the question again :-)
You said you didn't shoot raw, so how were the images you stacked created?
-
I like it.........maybe you can call it "Dumb and Dumber" 🙂 ..............................oh wait......I think that might already be taken......I'll go and check
-
jpegs only to shoot 10 frames per second silent shutter and stacked in zerene. i have even shot 60 hiress 80 meg images total finished image 240 megs.
-
jpegs only to shoot 10 frames per second silent shutter and stacked in zerene. i have even shot 60 hiress 80 meg images total finished image 240 megs.
i dont want to offend people useing m43 but some of my early work was shot with m43 and the stacking programs stack noise which is a pain in the a..s thats why shooting sony a6300 the images are so much cleaner. -
So those jpegs have been processed from the camera's raw data.
Every photographer with a digital camera shoots raw, whether they realise it or not, and the only difference is whether the photographer gets the camera to do the post processing internally to output an image (sooc jpeg) or whether the photographer does the post processing using a raw converter app to output an image.
So who knows what post processing settings were set in the camera when those photos were taken. There could have been heavy noise reduction, sharpening, colour profiling, contrast, brightness etc etc etc processing applied to the raw data to output the jpeg images which were then stacked.
Therefore, Ian's critique is totally valid. Whether you accept it or not is your choice to make 🙂
Hopefully one day you will understand the potential benefits of maximising the quality of the raw data allowing images of higher quality to be created compared to sooc jpegs.
-
-
That's nicely put, but the discussion of these two is a nuisance to all serious posters. Thread quality drops significantly with such a number of irrelevant posts.
-
most replies were smoke and mirrors. the thread should be deleted completely ,restarted and i will answer it in 2 words "It doesnt" my thread got railroaded deliberately. i re read the whole 500 posts , and shook my head.
-
Your thread was doomed at the first post when you asked which of the 2 histograms was the raw histogram and neither of them were.
It is unreasonable to expect people to take you seriously when you post nonsense like that.
If raw histograms don't matter to you that is fine as it is your choice to have that opinion.
Maximising the quality of the raw data has clear benefits enabling you to potentially output higher quality images than sooc jpegs.
-
-
Im keen to hear how would maximize the raw data. here's my example image.
-
The same way as has been described to you on many occasions.
If you need a refresher then have a look here:
-
The image of the bottom mug is noticeably lighter and at least the reds and yellows are also noticeably different to the corresponding colours in the top image. So what?
-
You maximize the raw data by means of the exposure, depending on what you want to protect in the high lights is where you max your raw data.
The image above I have no idea why you are showing an raw histogram with a + added to the EV in the FRV?If your goal was not to clip then you have overexposed your image.
If your goal was to sacrifice some of your highlight in the goal to protect your main subject then it could be correct -
Your right but we can sure question your understanding on what a raw histogram is
-
Your post really has nothing to do with ETTR and how a raw histogram informs you as to what you are recording
-
It really not hard to use a camera with ETTR for the majority of one's work at base iso
It really is not something hard to do, exposure was set to place my whites 1/3 from clipping the spectral highlights I was not worried about. ETTR was used because the vast majority of the image my tones fell 5 and more stops bellow clipping and wanted to collect as little noise in them.
Here the exposure was selected as to not clip the spectral highlights for processing
This was to reduce the amount of noise in aid to capture as much as I could for the use of extreme macro, why add NR and then sharpening when NR could be done by record of more data?
In macro we are already combating diffraction why add NR into the mix to combat something that could be done another way
In macro work that requires a lot of magnification diffraction and noise is your limiting factor
Usually when people bring into the discussion that they are a professional photographer so I know what I am doing fall into the category this was good enough for me so everybody should listen, I tend to ignore them as to why I should listen to their advise.
The funniest part is that this has gone on for way too long when most photographers with an interest in achieving better results catch on rather quickly as to what a raw histogram is.
PS I would never use DPR photo gallery as portfolio to advertise my Professional business
