Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
the histogram is aligned with the raw file not jpeg as everyone seems to think
It isn't, see how the red channel peaks in highlights for JPEG and in midtones for raw.
@DonaldB has written: @DavidMillier has written:I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
ππ€£Now your finally getting how they drive up post numbers π
Jims reply from another post is a good example
It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).
If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me. π€¨
what kind of workπ΅βπ«
Beautiful photos Jim.
I'll take looking at good photos over discussing theory all day long. :)
@knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras π i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones ππ€£
Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
@DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras π i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones ππ€£Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
do you think you can teach me how to shoot flowers ππ€£π€£
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras
Which histogram failed you? Are you saying that clipping isn't because you set the camera to clip but because some histogram tricked you? Maybe let's have a look at the raw file...
116k .0035 accuracy im happy with that.
Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
116k .0035 accuracy
Meaning?
@knickerhawk has written:Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
Your quote : Or even better, deep blue flowers.
ive never seen a deep blue flower and apparently nether has google.
@knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras π i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones ππ€£Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
do you think you can teach me how to shoot flowers ππ€£π€£
Perhaps, but your skill as a flower photographer isn't the dispute. It's your claim that the A6300's in-camera live histogram is based on the raw data, rather than the RGB/JPEG data, that's being questioned.
@knickerhawk has written:Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
OK, but I picked red flowers (aside from the accessibility issue) because of the relative difference in WB co-efficients. Blue flowers will have a bigger visible impact on the luminance histogram but won't red flowers have a bigger visible impact on the raw and RGB histograms? Or am I missing something?
@DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @knickerhawk has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:for the record the histogram
116K green pixels clipped?
perfect. because i had the slightest of zebras flashing.
No, because you've set the camera that way. Zebras are only an imperfect indicator.
oh no i didnt, i took the image based on the histogram not the zebras π i only checked the zebras,
so the histogram is NOT recorded from the jpeg file. you guys got it all wrong.Now take a shot of a bunch of red flowers "based on the histogram" just like you did for that prior shot and post the screen grabs for the in-camera live histogram and the Fast Raw Viewer histograms of the flower shot just like you did for the prior shot.
did that yesterday a red lunch box and a yellow leaf.
Btw red flowers are mid tones ππ€£Mid tones? That's a strange claim, but it doesn't matter what "tones" they are in the image as long as they're a significant presence in the scene so it's easy to identify where they are showing up in the histogram(s). I guarantee you will learn something useful if you follow through on the test and post your results.
do you think you can teach me how to shoot flowers ππ€£π€£
Perhaps, but your skill as a flower photographer isn't the dispute. It's your claim that the A6300's in-camera live histogram is based on the raw data, rather than the RGB/JPEG data, that's being questioned.
ive already posted my comparisons. You have a camera do the test yourself, why take my word.
@JimKasson has written:I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
Your quote : Or even better, deep blue flowers.
ive never seen a deep blue flower and apparently nether has google.
@JimKasson has written: @knickerhawk has written:Either would do just fine but I suggested red flowers because they're easier to find and DXOMark indicates that the red channel is weaker than the blue channel in the A6300. Donald is already avoiding the request, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
OK, but I picked red flowers (aside from the accessibility issue) because of the relative difference in WB co-efficients. Blue flowers will have a bigger visible impact on the luminance histogram but won't red flowers have a bigger visible impact on the raw and RGB histograms? Or am I missing something?
what difference does it make when there is a scene surrounding the subject. there would be no usefulness of the histogram other than the 2 ends in these situations.
@DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written:I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
Your quote : Or even better, deep blue flowers.
ive never seen a deep blue flower and apparently nether has google.
i shoot all those they are not deep blue to me. light them with off camera fill flash fire across the surface is the way to pull texture detail from them.
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written:I suggested blue because of its weighting for the luminance histo and the zebras.
Your quote : Or even better, deep blue flowers.
ive never seen a deep blue flower and apparently nether has google.
i shoot all those they are not deep blue to me. light them with off camera fill flash fire across the surface is the way to pull texture detail from them.
One more thing on which we disagree.
@DavidMillier has written:This passive-aggressive stuff of labeling me as stupid without actually saying it is getting a bit tiresome.
Kind of like the dismissing of someone else's honestly held views as pedantry.
@DavidMillier has written:You keep hinting I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating.
I say exactly what you're missing - that a goal and a means of achieving that goal are different things.
@DavidMillier has written:For example "You seem to think of it as any technique that gives a 'good exposure'" --- which is implying that it is nothing of the kind and I'm daft to think so.
No, it's just saying what you seem to think. I can't say for certain what you think because I'm not telepathic. So I just have to say how it seems to me, There's no insinuation that you're daft to think so.
@DavidMillier has written:And again guessing what you think I mean and ignoring what I tell you I mean.
That's not what's happening at all. I'm trying my best to interpret what you're saying and telling you how I interpret it. If that's not a correct interpretation of what you meant, then we have a communication issue, which is exactly what I've been talking about. If I get it wrong, just clarify what you meant.
@DavidMillier has written:There is no reason why you should persist in trying to get me to admit I have the wrong conception of what ETTR is.
I'm not trying to get you to admit that you have the wrong conception of what ETTR is. I'm just saying that we have different conceptions, and that has caused a miscommunication. Then I tried to understand what your interpretation is, but you didn't like that either.
@DavidMillier has written:My conception may or may not be correct, but it is sufficient for the task at hand. We want to use exposure settings that provide us with the maximum data and least noise in our files. That's my definition of "good exposure" - perfectly simple, perfectly unambiguous and perfectly straight forward
OK, but that's wasn't 'ETTR as I was interpreting it, and I think as many would interpret it. But if that's your definition of good exposure, I think you're missing some important things. A good exposure needs to be compatible with your pictorial and operational constraints. If the exposure you choose doesn't deliver that, you can't really call it a 'good exposure' - which I think was the point that I made several posts back.
@DavidMillier has written:
- Shoot raw
- Base ISO
- Give the sensor as much light as possible without saturating it.
- To give the sensor that much light choose aperture and shutter that maxes out the histogram to the right without creating a peak and blowing highlights.
The method used to achieve the desired exposure #4 above is often called ETTR.The method misses completely meeting pictorial and operational constraints. Keeping in base ISO is not always a good idea, You've now introdused the histogram, which is the core of what I understand as the ETTR method, which you seemed to be denying earlier. The histogram is often misleading for raw exposure, and there are other, often simpler ways of achieving this goal (for instance, spot metering off the highlights with appropriate offset or calibration of the meter).
@DavidMillier has written:That's a good term for what we are doing. And there is no harm in calling the goal of said exposure ETTR either. Anybody knows what is meant. One does not need to speak in precise terms to be understood. Context is sufficient to cover minor inaccuracies.
If you include the use of the histogram, yes. You shouldn't ever assume that 'anyone' knows what you mean, because they really don't, unless your communication skills are superb. Most of the communication errors here have been cause by failure to use precise terms. The context in no way covers inaccuracies and neither are they minor. Your interlocutor is not telepathic, so you need to say what you mean clearly, and if asked for clarification, give it.
@DavidMillier has written:let's talk about what you disagree with and skip all this unhelpful "lacking understanding", "making category errors" judgemental ad hom stuff.
Nothing I have said has been ad hominem. It's all been about what you say, not who you are. Things like 'category errors' are explaining why I disagree with what you say. What you appeared to be saying included a category error, therefore I cannot agree with it. That's how discussion works.
And I'm not responding to your added rather offensive request.
Ok, I think we've done this to death. I fold and am out of this.