Canon 7D noise at high ISO

[dcstep]

<p>Welcome to the club Robert, you're now a digital photographer.</p>

<p>Keep sharing the "secret" of ETTR.</p>

[robert100]

Ya, lemme think..... In Digital work, I've got a tad over a hundred thou exposures on the 7, well over 150

thou on the 40D, a few thou on each of a t3i, xsi, a Nikon d3200, a fuji compact zoom, a 5meg fuji, and

a 2meg Nikon way back in history ...........and I'm finally gonna actually learn how to use one. 'Bout

friggin time.

 

The real thing is, that for landscape photographers this isn't as critical. (mind you, if i was photographing

landscapes i wouldn't pack one of these monstrous heavy dslr's around anyway, 'd switch to the

weightlessness of a one inch mirrorless in an instant), because they have two things to work with which

i don't have........they have short focal lengths, and the luxury of time to work with....IE, a 1/15 or 1/8

shutter speed is an eternity of time. I work with high speed, erratically moving subjects 99 percent of

the time. And the majority of the time, also with medium-to-longer focal lengths. Being able to get iso

3200, 4000, 5000, and 6400 usable changes everything - absolutely everything - in the approaches I can

take.

 

This isn't an actual "real mathematics" statement so don't read it as such, I'm only using "yak yak

numbers" to make a point. The friggin depth of field on a 450 mm lens (which a "300" actually is when

mounted on a 7D) at a distance to subject of 10 meters and at F5.6.....is probably about half an inch.

Which means, with the squirrel for example, at F5.6, you've got the eyeball to work with and nothing

else. You're trying to keep an eyeball the size of your fingernail in focus....while the squirrel's shaking

and bobbing its head by more than your available total dof. And you're also gonna try and do that while

you're trying to steadily hold a 450mm lens during a 1/15 second exposure ?

 

By getting to expand that dof by moving to F11, and get to 1/300 or faster gives you a huge comparative

increase in workable dof ...............and lets you catch the squirrel without motion blur. Those are not as

critical if you're photographing a barn sitting still at sunset. You have more ways to play.

 

The 7D, despite the number of them sold to people who use them for "everyday" imagery, is at its

essence, designed as an "action" camera. Eight frames per second and a 22 image raw buffer weren't

built in there because they help you capture barns at sunset. Those features are there so you can go

"aim here, bang bang bang burst....swing over here, bang bang bang four image burst....swing two

degrees to the right at the other bif go bang-etc 11 frame burst..."...and so it can do it, and it can write

the buffer empty fast enough so you don't have to stop and drink a coffee waiting for it.

 

And finally learning how to use it at 3200 and up......means I actually finally get use of it "as" the action

camera it's designed to be. Like you said............"welcome to the digital club".

[dcstep]

<p>Well, for landscapes, I figure that ETTR is just as important because I'm more likely to try to print it at 60" and have people sticking their noses right up to the paper to examine every little detail. I pull out the stops for landscapes, using a tripod, ISO 100 or 200, mirror lock-up, smaller aperture and, yes, ETTR. Even though you're typically at a lower ISO, satisfying landscapes often have lots of dynamic range and potential for noise in dark areas. I'm also more likely to do a realistic multi-shot HDR when shooting a landscape, which is a combination of ETTR and ETTL.</p>

<p>Over at DxOMark I noticed that the DR of the 7D2 and the 5D3 are very close at ISO 200. I'm going to experiment with the 7D2 as my landscape camera. My wider lenses are more suited to full-frame, but it is a matter of interest.</p>

[robert100]

yup,yer gonna have a challenge alrighty, that narrower FOV of the smaller sensor drove me nuts for a

long time because my head just refused to wrap itself around not being able to see everything my brain

thought a 24mm "should"let me see. And to compound that, the 24 was just a number i had to work to

get my brain used to when i finally started doing some 35 mil work. Before I finally started packing a 35

mil around, the majority of my work was a Mamiya RB67 and a Linhoff 4x5 view camera.....and the so-

called "normal" focal length on those, are "longer"...... and "even-more-longer".

 

Printing 60 inch is magic, isn't it. The reason we used RB67's as our portrait camera systems was that

our objective for a "family/group" portrait assignment, was to sell what we called a "sofa" portrait, which

was a 42 by 60, custom laminated on canvas. The only company in western Canada at the time (early

80's) which could produce them for us was a custom lab in Calgary.The initial print was done as usual

on photo paper, then the emulsion layers were "peeled off" the backing paper and mounted on canvas.

 

Impressive as h. (and good money)

 

As a "matter of interest" I'm sure you'll have fun playing at it, As a matter of "practicality", I can't wrap

my head around an aspc lanscape camera/

[robert100]

incidentally, David, your post substantiates what i had said, it doesn't refute it. I didn't say ettr wasn't as

important for landscape, what I said was that the higher iso's weren't, because when working landscapes

you have other ways to achieve the ettr, ie, using the pod and slower speeds, allows you to achieve ettr but

do so, at iso's of 100 and 200.

 

...and please.....after you decide the 7dii is "wasted" on landscapes.....i'll swap you for a t3i which is

content to sit still on a pod for hours on end looking at landscapes, and i'll take the 7dii off yer hands and

let it "run free and wild" like a good strong active horse......

 

maybe someday, canon will also realize putting "video" software in a 10fps camera "wastes"" its 10 fps

capacity. Lower the price by 500 bucks, leave the video out of it, build it as a "camera", and then let people

spend the other 500 bucks to buy an actual video camera from you which is designed for that purpose..

[Andy Collins]

<p>This has been a wonderful discussion and has also breathed 'new life' into my 7D. Naturally I've been considering the 7DII, but to be honest I still really like my 7D and the results I get from it, and its overall performance is more than sufficient for my use and skill level. I plan to really work with the ETTR idea; I've seen people say that over the last several years but never really put it into practice, but I'm eager to work with the idea a lot more. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion and lesson.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p><strong>@ robert c. anderson</strong>--That's a fascinating bit of information about Galen Rowell and his Instamatic. Having been a huge fan of his for a long time, that's a tidbit I never knew!</p>

[robert100]

Andy. Galen Rowell is one of those people I wish I'd had the opportunity to meet in person. He wrote a number

of truly superb 'techinical' books on photography, but the key to the man was his "eye", he truly loved

everything in the natural world and he "lived it". He was "the truth". He wasn't one of those so-called "wildlife

photographers" photographing trained animals romping around like trained seals at some fenced in refuge,

when he submitted a photograph of a tent in the middle of nowhere at minus 45 degrees ass deep in snow, he

was out there sleeping in that tent in those conditions. His landscape photography, his American mountain

landscapes, his Tibetan mountain landscapes, etc, are the iconic images which burned themselves into the

cortex of thousands who have sought out the spots he stood in and tried to duplicate his images.

 

And it's funny, because I mentioned to David Stephens that if I were going to do landscape work I wouldn't

pack a 7D or mk11 or a 5D, I'd go with a one-inch mirrorless (the new Nkon maybe) for portability, and Rowell

was one of the "leaders" in showing that small, light, efficiently portable gear was viable for landscapes. He

primarily used rangefinders because there were good, small ones, on the market. I can't recall which image it

was, but one of the Tibetan ones, or Iceland or somewhere, was taken on a camera he was carrying in his

shorts pocket on his morning 10 km run from his base-camp.

 

There is also one tragic story which resulted from his photography. The iconic thousand-year-old pine high in

the Rockies which, after its location being disclosed by photographs, was killed by senseless "biologists" who

in their moronic quest for "analytical data" bored a hole through it to take "age samples"....thus killing it in the

process. (sometimes maybe, we should take the photo, but bury it rather show it to the world)

 

The intriguing part of this whole thread, and David Stephen's contributions, particularly as he now has added a

7Dii to his arsenal, is that in my playing around for the past few days, it has allowed/prompted me to re-

analyze the entire scope of my photography, and I'm reasonably satisfied that I won't be rushing out to get

one of the new ones right away. (which is good, because my car conked yesterday, and my camera-gear

budget is being diverted to going to look at a 4x this afternoon....so I'll need to be satisfied with my cameras

for a bit longer anyway).

 

But ya, two people I definetly wish I'd had the chance to meet, naturalist/photographer Galen Rowell, and

naturalist/author R.D.Lawrence (among his books are "The Ghost Walker" (cougar), and "Where the Water

Lillies Grow"). They lived it, and breathed it all, to the bottom of their inner beings.

 

I virtually grew up in a tent and a canoe (and a small boat), fishing and hiking the remoteness of Northern

Alberta. And the greatest joy I experience with photography, is that it doesn't matter if I'm back around the

farm in Ab or here on the Island on the west coast, packin a camera "gets me outside and into it, and makes

me really, really, pay attention to it all."

 

I own a 7D for one reason and one reason only. The buffer which can handle a burst of 22 raw, and writes it

off in a hurry. Other than that, although it's a nice rig it's also heavy as a pail of concrete on a hike, and it

sounds like a thunderstorm goin' off at 8fps.. If I could get myself so I actually enjoyed looking through an EVF

and was after landscapes ala Galen Rowell, one of the new one inch mirrorless jobbies could be really

interesting.

[tonycarlson]

Ok, I finally got around to doing my experiment. However, I don't think it's necessary to post example

pictures. First, I waited until I could duplicate (as best I could) the low light environment

as in the original photo that caused frustration. I need to be clear - low light as near sunset not shade during the day when ambient light is greater. After reading the above advice here is what I did: with my

kit lens and copying the original settings at f4, 18mm, AV mode and hand held, I started at ISO 400, then

800, then 1600, then 3200, then 6400. At 3200 & 6400 I also did exposure compensation (EV) at 0, +.33, +.67,

+1. Results: at ISO 400, 800, & 1600 the photos were fine. What I noticed at ISO 3200 & 6400 when EV

was 0 the fine detail (at 100%) had an increasing watercolor look (lost detail). As I increased EV there

became more detail and sharper. The image that led me to my original post was at ISO 3200 with EV at 0,

which I believe led me to make the mistake of over sharpening to bring out more detail. This in turn led to

greater noise (even white spots) nor did it really get sharper because the detail was never there to begin

with. In fact all the sharpening efforts seem to be canceled as I added noise reduction. Here's what I have

learned from all the advice and my experiment: when above ISO 1600 if I increase EV I'll get less noise

and a little more detail that won't require a lot of sharpening. For other readers it is important to note that as

you increase ISO you, in turn, can use faster shutter speeds. However, as you increase EV shutter speeds

decrease (which may be counter what you are trying to achieve). Having said this I noticed that, in my

experiment, at ISO 3200 EV 0, shutter speed was 1/100. At ISO 6400 EV +1, shutter speed was also

1/100, but brighter. And the detail in both was the same. Here's what I've come to accept: in low light, if I'm

not concerned about shutter speed I can use a tripod and low ISO for long exposure and get good images .

But in the same low light, if needing a fast shutter, I can increase ISO; however, in reality the 7D is not up to collecting detail at high ISO in these conditions.

[dcstep]

<p>Tony, I think you've got it; however, I'd add that at lower ISOs you'll benefit from +EV (ETTR). It's "required" at higher ISOs, but it'll improve IQ at lower ISOs.</p>

<p>Pretty well, most agree, that the 7D poops out around ISO 1600. In certain conditions, like my shot earlier in the thread, you can use ISO 6400, but it's tough. </p>

[robert100]

Tony. Thank you, that is a superbly written explanation. You've experienced precisely what i have in the

couple of test-variables i've managed this week. Yesterday there was a small winter wren, which even though it

had moved out into the sun, i exposed at iso4000 and plus a full one ev. The Image would, with modest

sharpening etc, be 'acceptable'.......... unless pulled up at DPP's 200magnification and 'peeped at".... then you

can see there is chromatic noise still there in the little brown bird even when chromatic noise reduction is

applied at the full "20". But if I pull up about 1/4 of the full original frame as a crop, it is very, very, acceptable.

 

What I also found, though, is that there simply is a point in the color-temperature of the available light, below

which nothing is going to make a difference. Once the Kelvin temperature drops to a certain point the very 'air'

itself in the shadow of the deep forest is deep blue/purple, and you can't get enough light intensity and quality

to the sensor to give you anything to work with. Unfortunately, in my case, here in the rainforest, that's the

cool-color-temperature air I'm in a lot of the time. Back at the farm on the prairies, or out on the beach here at

the coast, it's not a problem.

 

The cool Kelvin temp blue-shadow air of the rainforest is, incidentally, why the true specialist "bird

photographers" like Glen Bartley who lives not far from me, in Victoria here on the Island, and who virtually

photograph nothing but birds, don't even spend time trying to get natural lighting to work here. Glen uses a 7D,

but a great deal of time here in the rainforest conditions, he has a canon 600 speedlite and a big beam-

extender hanging off the side of it. (way up high off to the side to avoid steel-eye)

 

The key I've picked up out of what you've outlined, is exactly what I found. That by boosting the iso, going to a

plus ev, getting a faster shutter speed out of it, gave me the same detail and an image with more workability.

Trying to get Iso6400 usable ? Not in "small" birds. Not at a workable distance for the glass I have at least (300

mm longest), because I have to pull up too tight a crop on a bird which is only two inches long and I'm 18 to

20 feet away. However, iso4000 will be usable. Which is a lot higher than the 1250 I was keeping myself to

before this.

 

And all of it, is really also dependent on the "kind" of photograph, the "subject material" of the photograph. IE,

bird photographs have to be really "clean".....'animal' photos have to be really 'clean'.......but a photograph of a

fence post or a farm combine or a heavy duty excavator, can have a lot more 'noise' in them without it really

affecting the way people perceive its quality.

 

But in addition to the little tests I've run as you have, I've also been flipping back through thousands and

thousands of my files the last few nights, just pulling up random images for a look-see. And it's true. All of the

ones which are the "cleanest" are the ones which were exposed at least a tad "to the right". Which, in fact, I

was doing in all those instances, to gain visibility into the shadow areas. What I have not been doing, is doing

that to "all" of my exposures. I also virtually never use any metering system other than pure "Spot" metering on

the precise point I'm also focusing on, because if it is what i want in focus, it is also what i want with the most

workable exposure. I quite often, when photographing landscape type features or botanicals, where I have a

static subject and the time to do it, use the dead center spot meter, center it and meter and focus on the

highlite area I want to be the most readable, then hit the 'exposure lock' button on the back of the camera,

recompose, and expose.

 

Your original posting certainly opened things up to a lot of input from people who have given us some good,

usable, advice. Thanks for opening it all up.

 

[robert100]

having to resize images to these puny jpegs makes them useless as a true reference for anyone, because

even if the raw once worked looks magnifico, once you downsize it this much and convert to a peg, it looks

like a watercolor anyway. But what the heck, i've puuled a crop out of one of the wren images and downsized

it to put it up here for a different reason than the noise. This turns out to be a superb "gain" for me specifically

by going to the higher iso of 4000 which i got by going to the right on this image, It wasn't the higher shutter

speed which was the big gain, it was being able to go to f8 instead of f5.6. This is on a tamron sp70-300, it's a

winter wren, a bird an inch and a half long, photo'd at a distance of about 17 or 18 feet away. I gained two

things. F8 gave me a larger DOF, which gave me more of the little critter in focus than just the front edge of its

eyeball....and....Look "behind" it. The background foliage, is roughly 20 to 22 feet behind the tiny birdie, Look

at the "Bokeh". The aperture of F8 not only gave me more of the bird in focus, it also changed the bokeh of

the "out of focus" background significantly from what i would have looked like at F5.6. The Tamron sp70-300

is very good for its price. In fact I own two of them, one mounted on the 7D, one on a 40D. But what it does

"not have", is decent Bokeh on a moderately-near background when exposed at F5.6. The Bokeh looks

"clunky". Getting to use the smaller aperture by going to the right, also gave me and improved 'out of focus'

background. Everything inside the frame, counts.<div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>What was your shutter speed on this shot Robert. It looks like bright sun to me, so I'm surprised that you need ISO 4000 to get to f/8. I would have guessed that at ISO 800 you could get f/8 and 1/1000-sec. Judging from that strong shadow (I would lift that a little and bring the highlights down a little), the sun is strong here.</p>

[robert100]

yup, it had just flitted up out of deep shadow to a grass/twig which was in a direct sun-ray, which at this time

of year at that spot up here on the mountain is coming across at a very low angle just barely peeking through

cedars at the horizon. 1/1000 of a second.

 

Don't forget, i really have not done anything with these images to make them "showable", I have not taken them over

into elements and done any of the detailed work I do to "publish" an image, it's just hit with the basic stuff in

dpp and a crop pulled out which i could toss on here by downsizing it. As far as "what else to do with it",

frankly I wouldn't even take this cropping over into elements to work with, i'd crop it totally differently.

 

here's another one, in this one it had shifted it's angle, taking the glaring sun highlight off its head and chest.

This one thus gives it a far more "balanced" on the bird itself of dark-and-lites of exposure and gives more

detail to work with. Of the two images, if I were to take them further, this would be the one I'd take to do it with.

 

This one was the same iso4000, 1/1000 second. and i bumped the av to f11.

 

As far as "bring up the dark shadows", that in fact is one major "fault" with the whole new garbage of the

"matrix metering" systems all the camera mfrs keep trying to get people to use, is that the whole theory behind

it is you should be able to "see into" every shadow area, and no bright areas should get "clipped".

 

That is a garbage approach to exposure. It totally defies the way your eye works. When you walk outside on a

sunlit day, there are going to be areas of dark shadow you can't see into. And there are going to be areas so

bright you can't look into them. That's the way the "real world" works. It's the way your eye works. This "mish-

mash" of everything being "seeable-into" is a fairy tale. And it is B-o-r-i-n-g. To have visual "impact" an image

needs - absolutely needs - the full range from deep deep darks, to bright bright brights.

 

In addition to being a photographer I'm also an artist, I work in acrylics. I've been teaching art classes for

years. I teach "the elements and principles of design". And it is the first friggin challenge every art teacher

speaks of having to try and get students to do.....is to lay down an area of rich, deep, deep, dark, and get a

full range of contrast into their work. It is students number one universal sin" they're afraid to actually squeeze

out a huge dollop of that expensive professional grade pigment and "do something with it. They almost all, start

out painting wishy-washy middle-toned boring junk.

 

You wanna have an interesting experience ? When i first came out to this island back in the late 80's, I had

sold my partnership in the photo studio back in Alberta. Where I had been very accustomed to having a full 20

inch processor in our very own in-house lab, which thusly, when I "bracketed" an exposure, gave me

"bracketed" prints to look at and judge where to go from. So, suddenly here I am, on this island with "no" lab

of my own. I bought a little Nikon 2 meg point and shoot. Took it to the beach, and to get used to it, ran off a

bunch of images on which I specifically took 3 exposures of every image....bracketed.......at '0', and plus one,

and minus one.

 

Took em to the dealer where I'd bought the camera, handed the card over to their lab and ordered a set of 4/6

prints. I go back and pick em up the next day. take em all out of the envelope to have a look at which exposure

setting gives the best results.............and I'm looking at an envelope of images in which all three of every

"bracketed" image............looks E-x-act-ly......Identically exposed. I went to the manager of the camera

department and said "this camera's exposure meter doesn't work". She looked at the images I was showing

her, and said "oh yah, the meter works fine.............but you had screwed up two of every three

exposures.....half of em were underexposed and half of were over-exposed.......so our technician who runs

the machine hits the "auto adjust" button, and she corrected them all for you. It's what we do for all the

amateur soccer-moms.

 

Do you know that I could not even get that "technician" to understand "why" i had deliberately "bracketed"

every image. She had no idea why anyone would even do that.

 

Do you know what I had to do in order to get "bracketed" prints ? I had to take the images, download them,

resize them, and create a "layered" image of them in which I put a one-quarter inch wide "border" around

each image, of pure, solid, black. Their "auto exposure adjust button" couldn't screw with that, I "forced" it to

give me bracketed prints.

 

There are two major flaws in the "normal everyday" approach to photography. One is this garbage of trying to

get "matrix see into everything metering". Your eye doesn't work that way in real life, you can't see into

shadow and into brightness "both at the same time". Your eye adjusts its "aperture" to the one you're looking

into, it can't do both at the same time. And the other fault, is DOF. A landscape image which is "all in focus"

foreground to background, is "un-natural" to your eye. Your eye has an incredibly shallow Depth of Field. You

can focus visually on one thing, and one thing only, at a time. Our approach to photography today is in total,

total, contradiction to the way we see things in person.

 

That is in fact the "magic" of the "artist" side of my profession. Is that artists, the good ones. learn and

understand and apply, all the principles and elements of design..........hard and soft edges.....light vs

dark....the color wheel, color complements etc. In photography, we have slowly been getting further and

further away from those, leading to "everything in mid tone everything in focus mish-mash junk". And that, is a

true shame.

 

I'd do a lot more work to this image to make it "publishable", but the two things I would not touch, are the deep

darks and the bright highs, Those are elements of the design, And they belong in this image. They are "the

reality" of what was there. They are what will give the final image "iimpact". They are the "art" in it.

<div></div>

[robert100]

you may find the time-line compression in that a tad confusing....I came to the island in the 80's after selling my

half the photo studio operation, but for the first few years here I still had my Linhoff 4x5 view camera. The

experience with the Nikon 2 meg pocket-jobby and not getting bracketed prints was the first digital i bought,

which was maybe 2003 or so....

[dcstep]

<p>Robert said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd do a lot more work to this image to make it "publishable", but the two things I would not touch, are the deep darks and the bright highs, Those are elements of the design, And they belong in this image. They are "the reality" of what was there. They are what will give the final image "iimpact". They are the "art" in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Due to the dynamic range limitations of the sensor, it is not presenting an accurate representation of what the eye sees. By not raising the shadows and lowering the highlights, you're artificially limiting the image to an inaccurate representation of the real thing. Of course, that's a choice you'll sometimes make, but just realize that your not starting with an "accurate" representation of what our human eyes see.</p>

[robert100]

David. You do realize what you are looking at here, right ? You're giving me advice on what you would do to

"make correct" an image which is not worth even working on. It was not intended to even be "taken" as an

image worth working on to do anything "public" with. This is a photograph I 'snapped off' of a one to one and a

half inch long bird simply because it was what happened to jump out of the bushes when i was out walking

around with my camera set at iso4000 and plus one ev in order to test whether going ettr would give me more

useable iso range.

 

This is a one inch bird, from 18 feet away, photographed with a four hundred dollar lens (which also has dust

inside it). There is nothing.............absolutely nothing........about this photograph which could ever be done

which would make it a 'useable' photograph, it's not a "good" photograph.

 

As our discussion on this thread was about trying to get useable higher iso's by getting above the noise, this

photograph does show me, that I will be able to get that. I applied chromatic noise reduction, and found,

happily, i was able to kill the floor noise.

 

I then took one (and now two) of the 18 meg image of the bird at iso4000 and plus one eve, took a cropping

out of it which is a "miniscule" portion of the overall image, to bring the little birdie up where it could be seen,

so people can see the chromatic noise is low........and......made the mistake of putting it up here.

 

The cropping I took out of the original photograph was not taken as even a "decent composition". I just laid the

cropping tool on the image, took a "two second wave of the lines to take a rough and sloppy" chunk of it which

had the bird in it......then I took that, converted it to a jpeg....and downsized it to a 'loadable' size. When I did

that, I actually found I was "over the size limit". So......I took the image and chopped another chunk off the left

side of it......checked it again.....and it was still over the size limit.........so I chopped another chunk off

it.....with no "design" in mind.....I was just lopping chunks off it left and right to try to get down to the "size

limit".....so I could post it here to show one thing....and one thing only: That yes, this will indeed....when I find

an image worth taking and doing something with.....allow me to use higher iso than I had been using.

 

You are giving me instruction on how to 'improve the overall look', of an image which does not have even the

initial basic merit to justify doing anything with. And was never intended to.

 

The chromatic noise level this shows is workable, That's the intent of showing it here. The "detail" in the

feathers, for example, is not 'workable'. It's not there. This is a jpeg, at medium quality, of one-fiftieth of the

original image. Nothing about it, could be be turned into a "usable" image. Look at the chromatic noise (the

absence of it) in the bird's body.. That's all this was posted here to show.

 

Thank you for your input. Always appreciated.

[dcstep]

<p>Robert, you said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...but the two things I would not touch, are the deep darks and the bright highs, Those are elements of the design, And they belong in this image. They are "the reality" of what was there. They are what will give the final image "iimpact". They are the "art" in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but I read that to say that you would NEVER adjust for shadows and highlights. Maybe I misread your intent. I know that the postings of the bird are unadjusted.</p>

<p>I'm was worried that you and some readers might think that the Raw file is "accurate", when it's not. There are serious Dynamic Range limitations vs. the eye and if you ETTR, the overall EV is going to be too washed out for pleasing consumption. </p>

<p>I want more people to think about their Raw files as a collection of the most data possible in anticipation of adjusting in Raw conversion to what the users' understand of what is "real" (we'll all disagree slightly on this).</p>

<p>One of my toughest challenges is shooting a vibrant pink or orange twilight (before or after the sun is up) and then processing it accurately to get the colors "correct" or "accurate". When you ETTR, the colors can be way less what the eye saw, but then it's easy to get the temperature wrong as you bring EV down and the colors start to pop. I spend a lot of effort trying to get this right and try to process such images immediately, while the sight is still current in my mind's eye. (I'll try to come up with a reference color while on-site, like "cotton candy pink" or "Broncos Orange" or "Florida Orange". I'll also take shots at 0EV that I use purely as color references.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert100]

you wanna have some fun ? Last summer I took a "red" pair of pvc gloves and photographed them (with a

40D) to do some monitor-tests with. I was looking at buying a new monitor, and was not seeing anything in the

stores which impressed me even a bit. I've been quite comfortable visually with what I get on my Toshiba

laptop, but i've had it for years and am "accustomed" to what it shows me. (and the second monitor I had was

a Samsung, which despite its reputation, I was never happy with).

 

Nothing I saw in the stores seemed similar. I had taken a handful of random photo files, loaded em to a flash

drive and carried em with me as a look-see, and nothing looked good. So, finally, I took the pair of red gloves,

photo'd em, then brought them in and sat them right here beside my laptop while I processed the photos, to

make sure I was getting the photos to give me an exact color match, to make sure i was comfortable with the

color it was giving me on the Toshiba, and then go from there.

 

Do you know, that sitting right here, with the gloves physically beside me, I was totally unable, using dpp with

the raw, and then adobe elements with tifs, to actually get a "true" color match on either of my monitors. Not

the Toshiba laptop, and especially not on the "high reputation" Samsung (which was theoretically, "perfectly

calibrated"). I was not able, no matter what i did, able to reproduce "on screen", the exact color of the gloves I

had physically sitting next to me on my table.

 

The one thing I did find, in a month of not-happily checking out monitors........was that despite the 'brand

names| on the front bezels.....99 percent of the stuff out there are using a color processor chip which comes

out of the same manufacturing plant.......and thusly.....none of them are any better than any other.

 

What I really wanted, was to find a combination tv/monitor I could be happy with having run 'backgound slide

shows" here while I was painting at my easel, so I could have a series of reference photos just running in the

background I cold glance over at . I found, by testing and then digging, that one of the very expensive high-

end tv/monitors i looked at (over a thousand bucks), had exactly the same color processing chip in it, as a

$248 dollar "store brand named" 29 inch unit. Not impressive.

 

In all my hunts, only one monitor, and only one size and model within the overall brand, actually seemed to be

good at what it claimed to do. It was a 21 inch Asus. But sit it side by side with the 19 inch of the same brand,

and the 23 inch of the same brand....and the one, lone, 21 incher, seemed "accurate".

 

Another thing to remember, is that not everyone can actually see the variances in color. IE, in painting with

oils or acrylics, to have pigments which give you a full workable range so you can mix clean non-muddy

colors, you need a "bluish red" and a "yellowish red", and a "yellowish blue" and a "reddish blue", and a

"bluish yellow" and a "reddish yellow". (because of the nature of painting and all the supports etc, this gives

you a broader working capacity than just primaries). And it can take months.......months............to get new

students to even be able to "see" the difference between a "blue-red" and a "yellow-red" for example. It's a

"learned" ability. The learning curve, time, is different in different people, some learn quickly, and some in

fact, never do. They never acquire the ability to see the difference. (and there can be physical reasons for

that, just because everyone has rods and cones doesn't mean they all are the same quality rods and cones)

 

We aren't machines. In humans, color is a perception. And it is a perception with major psychological

implications, not just differences in the 'physical properties of the wavelength'. Wanna read a good book ?

See if you can find an old copy of "The Luscher Color Test", the pocketbook version. The full lab-test thingy is

done with over a hundred color swatches, the pocket book shows you and discusses something like a dozen

or so. Just enough to get across a rudimentary and "basic understanding".

 

The successful artists I know, use the knowledge of the psychological impact of colors in their paintings every

time they pick up a brush.

 

 

 

 

 

[robert100]

incidentally, this is a side note to the topic, but it's something I've also gained from this thread. With the killing of

the website stuff and some comments by others like yourself, which got me paying attention to the fact you and

they post images to "flikr", i've looked at "flickr", which I had not before. And now see why people use it instead

of pnet. It's because you get away from this diddly-playing around at having to chop images down to miniscule

before loading them, over there you can actually load a whole big image. After all the random chop-chop-chop i was doing to get that little birdie up on here, and the frustration of it, I also appreciate the lead to "over there".

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks Robert. I use a calibrated NEC, that I'm quite happy with, but I think that I will find a subject so that I can do your test. Sounds like a simple, but revealing test.</p>

<p>With our RGB curve, we're blending primary colors and I could stand to learn more about that. For instance, I'll that my pink clouds don't have enough blue, so I add blue, but then I'll need to add some red and I'm off in the wrong direction, then I start all over again. I have less trouble with birds and animals and even flowers, but clouds can be really tough.</p>

<p>Here's a cloud that I struggled with for hours, earlier this year:</p>

<p><a title="Untitled by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/11745497996_fc469eee49_c.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

<p>Oh crap, that's before I started using sRGB for all images that would be posted online (almost everything) so this is Adobe RGB, which doesn't translate accurately on this site. Oh, well... the trials and tribulations of getting color "right". I understand the attraction that many have for B&W. ;-)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Robert said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>incidentally, this is a side note to the topic, but it's something I've also gained from this thread. With the killing of the website stuff and some comments by others like yourself, which got me paying attention to the fact you and they post images to "flikr", i've looked at "flickr", which I had not before. And now see why people use it instead of pnet. It's because you get away from this diddly-playing around at having to chop images down to miniscule before loading them, over there you can actually load a whole big image. After all the random chop-chop-chop i was doing to get that little birdie up on here, and the frustration of it, I also appreciate the lead to "over there".</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Flickr has some excellent photographers. Many people are turned off by the mass (millions and millions) of poor images, but if you find one good photographer and start looking at what they "Fave", it'll lead you to other photographers of quality.</p>

<p>It's hard to beat Flickr's 1 TB of free storage. They no longer offer a "Pro" membership, but with that I get unlimited storage. Alas, it's limited to JPEGs, so I can't back up my Raw files there. Still, I consider it a tertiary back-up. </p>

<p> </p>

[robert100]

re the sunset thing, don't be too surprised if the majority of those magnifico sunrise sunset images we see

posted everywhere don't have the enhancements done by playing with the "color curves" tools, especially not

the one in dpp. I started to start lookiing at approaches to them when I was back at the farm in "big sky"

country in 2010 and 11 where stunning sunsets and sunrises are a daily thing. I never "carried through with

my studies" and actually tried hands-on with it (I've got a few thousand sunrise/set images on file and the

"learn how" is still on my "to do" list, but the real work of harvest-time photos etc always got in the way). But,

what appeared to me to be the approach which was producing the best results, was an approach using

"gradient mapping" in photoshop (and my elements6 has the tool in it). I watched a couple of you-tube videos

on it, I recall one which was a wedding photo in which a gradient-map sky had been produced and put in the

background. I spent five minutes one night playing with it but never really got my hands/brain to the point they

understood how it works, and i've not had it as "number one" on the project list to get back to. Pop into you

tube, do a search of "sunsets sunrises gradient mapping" and see what you find in the way of instruction.

 

The farm in Ab is an amazing contrast to the specific locale I am in here on the Island, where I'm tucked deep

into stands of 70 foot tall cedars and below the rim of the mountain. Here, I seldom even get to see the sun,

period. At the farm, with an 8 foot high 12 foot wide window facing east across a half mile of nothingness, the

mornings you notice aren't the ones with spectacular sunrises, those are the "norm". The ones you notice are

actually the days when they don't happen. Same thing with sunsets. At the farm you can see it go down "at the

regional hour of the sunset". Up here on the mountain on the island, the sun is high enough above the tress i

finally get to see it around 1130 hours, and it disappears from my site-line, leaving me in deep blue shadow by

roughly 1530 hours in mid afternoon these days, even though it doesn't actually "set" for four hours after that.

I have zero view from here at my rv studio-trailer of either the sunrise, or sunset. I have almost wrap-around

glass, and an almost 360 degree view of a cold blue wall of cedars and leafless maples. It's like being on a

totally different planet.

 

re the Flikr thing. I haven't set up an acct yet because i haven't even ever set up a yahoo account and name.

But my understanding, if I read correctly, is that although they display all images as jpegs, I could actually

upload full sized tif files (which saves me the steps of downsizing to pint-sized, and the conversion step.

Yes/no ?

[dcstep]

<p>I don't know if Flickr converts TIFFs to JPEG or will store them as TIFFs and display as JPEG. I've got to catch a plane, but I'll experiment with it in a day or two.</p>

<p>About sunsets, just like portraits, I should start carrying a color card. I don't know why I never thought of that. It still may not be real easy, because the card's colors will be impacted by the red-loaded atmosphere. If I click the grey or white to get a match, then lots of reds will be removed, but then it might not match the actual scene. Still, it's worth playing with and it'll give me a constant reference.</p>

<p>I'm from Florida originally, but the "big sky" of Colorado has captured my heart. The clouds coming off the Rocky Mountains, combined with the sunset colors and "unreal". I constantly feel compelled to tell my Followers that those colors are real (at least as close as I can get them).</p>

<p><a title="Twilight Clouds Over Mount Evans by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7523/15751272781_4799047730_c.jpg" alt="Twilight Clouds Over Mount Evans" width="800" height="400" /></a></p>