>ken rockwell L I T E R A L L Y fucking shoots jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/photoshop/pushing-iso.htm
Ken rockwell literally uses a 5Dsr and shoots jpg set to Small
Why the hell isn't he just using an old rebel XSi then?
I shoot jpg. I really have no desire to do any post work beyond cropping and resizing so I think it would be a waste for me to shoot raw and then process them especially when 99.9% of my shots are pure garbage anyway
I just wish I had a camera with a sensor that took amazing jpegs. but alas..
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 07:37:32 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3456 Image Height 2304 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
You dont need a gorillion megapickles m8!
>>2835146
>ken rockwell L I T E R A L L Y fucking shoots jpg
>ken rockwell has L I T E R A L L Y trolled you
Could explain in part why his work is so mediocre.
>>2835281
I don't even want to start
>>2835201
nobody wants to see some guy's hairy ass you weird fucking faggot
He's an archivist but not a photographer.
>>2835281
once people marry and settle down they become bad at things
>>2835180
>I can make more pictures faster
Since when do you need a higher FPS for portraits?
>>2835146
Who is this guy? Given by reactions here, it appears he's famous and yet his photos suck dick. Why is this? I live under a rock btw.
>>2835469
no clue i guess he's just a meme
>>2835469
He's a gear reviewer with some funny funky ideas about cameras and how to use them that generally goes against how many of us (and the rest of the world) use them.
He's well known because he reviews a LOT of gear, especially older less expensive lenses that a lot of /p/ is using, and therefore had a good perspective on comparisons and quality.
He's laughed at because he cranks his saturation WAY up while shooting jpeg, has a fucking ridiculous smile, begs for money from his readers to pay for his "growing family", and also talks about where babies come from, and has a camera where the rubber is replaced with elephant foreskin *wink*.
>>2835474
holy shit
>>2835470
He's not a meme, believe it or not, he's one of the most listened to reviewers on the internet. He gives absolute shit advice and some of his advice makes no sense.
>Pros don't use lens caps
>I shoot small Jpegs with a 50 megapixel camera
And many other memes I don't even know about. Pic related is him and his growing family
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2835514
They all look like lizard people pretending to be human beings. Only his daughter actually looks humanoid.
>>2835339
I do.
>>2835514
To be fair lens caps do suck and should always be replaced by clear filters.
>>2835685
>buy expensive, precision manufactured lens so your images only go through the finest glass
>put a fucking clear filter over it because you're too lazy to carry a cap
God damn it.
>reviews tons of camera stuff
>still isnt a gearfag
Based k rocky
>>2835514
>>Pros don't use lens caps
I scoffed at this at first, but then I realized I don't put lens caps on any of the lenses I can store with the hoods on.
Hmm.
>>2835869
I'd rather just have the lens cap on when it's stored or in my bag. I don't like the idea of having anything rubbing against the front element. When I'm carrying it around, I don't use the lens cap
>>2835146
>everyone in this thread hating on ken
How is everyone's first day on /p/?
>saying ken is wrong
>can't prove anything he is saying is wrong
>say you have different opinions because he hurt your feelings
>pretending to know more about photography than a man who has shot more cameras than all of /p/ combined
>pretending to know more about photography than a man who has been shooting since before he was 12
>hating on a man who has one of the most successful photography websites in the world which he started as a hobby
>>2835918
>anyone shooting jpg
>needing to be "proved" wrong
>>2835919
>can't prove something wrong
>saying you don't need to prove it wrong
>anyone shooting raw
>needing to be "proved" wrong
>>2835921
>he doesn't know what lossy compression is
>>2835918
That moron said the nikon 10-24 was sharp wide open even in the corners.
He obviously never even looked at a single one of his images, because at 10 mm f/4 that thing is soft as fuck in the corners.
He literally says you should stop paying for food so you can buy more expensive camera lenses.
He's just an utter idiot.
>>2835925
You get an erection everytime you write "literally"?
.. i do
>>2835605
You're a weird fucking faggot.
>>2835922
>he doesn't know what file size and processing time is
>>2835925
>The only way to make it unsharp is to look in the very farthest corners at 10mm at f/3.5. Even there, it's sharp if you stop down a little.
So you are in perfect agreement.
>He literally says you should stop paying for food so you can buy more expensive camera lenses.
This is not only good advice for camera lenses, it's good advice for everything. Unless you are some undernourished third-world child you can afford to fast. Not to mention fasting is beneficial for your health. I skip a meal to get some film all the time.
>>2835998
>Unless you are some undernourished third-world child you can afford to fast.
what the fuck is going on in this thread
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 240 Image Height 226 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2012:02:09 19:43:18 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 240 Image Height 226
>>2836003
Some people can't eat cup noodles for a month so they can buy the lens they want for their camera. These are the people who say lenses are expensive and ask for the best lens for 100$ while stuffing their face with caviar.
>>2835146
he is right, and /p/ is full of autism
>>2835146
So this article is really just "using curves to fix under exposure" but calling it "pushing" to make it sound like some ancient wisdom from an old film guru
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (13.020111012.m.258 2011/10/12:21:00:00) (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:08:04 12:12:50 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 624 Image Height 351
>>2836048
implying ken rockwell doesn't have autism
>>2835514
t. Jared Polin
>Pros don't use lens caps
He's right you gearfag.
>I shoot small Jpegs with a 50 megapixel camera
He never said small, he said jpeg, which for a lot of pros who require their work to be up very quickly (sports photographers, events, news, journalist, etc) it's 100% true. They have to get the shot and get it up quickly. Even a lot of wedding, wildlife, and portrait photographers shoot jpeg.
He said he shoots small jpeg for his portraits because he doesn't need the resolution, which is perfectly fair.
>>2836735
Look at this post
>>2835180
Straight from Cockwells mouth, 12mp on his 5dsr.
I can understand some pros using jpeg, but Rockwell is not one of those people. He shoots portraits, landscapes and architecture. And NONE of it is on a tight deadline. Show me one serious wedding photographer or portrait photographer that shoots all their stuff on small jpeg. Only shitty ones will do that.
>He's right you gearfag.
LOL I'm a gear fag for using a lens cap? Just put the fucking lens cap on when it's in your bag. Just use it so you don't run the risk of scratching your lens
>>2836757
Hey Fro - no need to do all the clickbaity sensationalist misrepresenting of opinions here, you can't make money on /p/. Keep the schilling on Youtube!
>>2836761
Will do Jason Lanier, don't forget your fedora on the way out
Im warming up to the idea of shooting jpeg. I can preset post-processing on my camera, settings I was gonna apply to the raws on lr/ps anyways. And I can toggle between 4 of them with a dial. but there are some tricky shots that will require special attention in pp, for those I just switch to raw.
I think a mixture of the two makes a lot more sense than just raw or just jpeg. of course, Im not shooting pics for money, just personal snapshitting, so the only person ill disappoint if I dont nail the image processing is me. no pressure
I dont see the benefits of -small- jpeg though.
>>2835146
Thoughts on Ken aside, why would I want to do this process to my photos?
>>2836822
If you have a large dynamic range in the photo, err on the side of saving the highlights from blowing rather than saving the shadows from being too dark. Because one of those is fixable even in JPEG by playing with curves.
>>2836822
You wouldn't want to, this guy is an ass hat. There's literally no benefit to underexposing and bumping up. However, there is a benefit to over exposing and pulling it down. Ken Rockwell seriously must be fucking around with people so people like us will share it. Because this is terrible advice, and unfortunately some people will listen to him.
raw is superior to jpg in many ways. especially skin tone. if you underexpose skin in jpg to bring it back it gets very orange, in raw bringing up the exposure the skin tone stays true.
please shoot raw
>>2836830
Or you could, you know, get it right in the camera like someone with a $25 training lesson at a community college could do.
>>2836757
under what fucking circumstance does anyone shoot non-raw
>muh space
lmao it's 2016 it's cheap as fuck
what then, framerate?
>>2836836
>There's literally no benefit to underexposing and bumping up.
Uh, there's plenty of benefit to it.
>>2836851
The argument is that a "pro" takes so many pictures they don't have time to do anything except pull them right off the camera and ship them out to the client, or some shit.
Same reason he claims he uses P mode all the time, pros ain't got time for nothin else.
>>2836858
i guess pros are too retarded to use computers then
>>2836856
Not the way he's talking about it. What's a benefit? MAYBE a faster shutter speed if you absolutely need it
>>2836859
His growing family probably all have to take turns using his one computer, minimizing his time for post professing..
Except he also says he has plenty of time to deal with scanning film, so whatever Ken.
>>2836862
I'm sure he has his own fucking laptop or rig. He's just a lazy fuck and justifies his bullshit with "what the pros do"
>>2836860
No clipped highlights.
>>2836884
Yeah, but you can have crushed shadows. It's easier to recover highlights than it is to recover shadows, and it won't be as noisy either
>>2836901
Wat
>>2836901
>It's easier to recover highlights than it is to recover shadows
lol not even a little bit true.
>>2836901
Wait though I thought ISO invariance meant you could literally shoot ISO 100 at night, ignore the all black picture in the lcd, and recover everything in LR and nobody could tell you didn't shoot at 6400.
>>2836914
>>2836916
>>2836918
You guys are fucking stupid. There's more real data in the highlights than there is in the shadows. That's why when you brighten shadows, the noise becomes more apparent, it's because the strength of the noise signal over powers the data. But because there's more data in the highlights, the noise is less apparent.
Check this out. I'm just trying to help you out.
https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/
This is how I shoot all my photos now. I expose so that my highlights are almost blown out, to assure that I can get the most data in my scene without clipping highlights.
>>2836927
Nigger, exposing for highlights often means underexposing.
Lmao at you trying to show us the oldest fucking link on the internet about a subject we all know
>>2836929
That's not exposing for the highlights, it's exposing to the right. Obviously, these people don't know because they think you should do a middle exposure. That's not the case at all.
>>2836927
Oh but you said "almost blown", not blown. Which means you probably left important other stuff in shadows to keep those highlights. Which you'll probably fix in a manner not unlike what OP linked. (Though hopefully not in JPEG)
>>2836927
I'll recover my shadows by five and a half stops. You recover your highlights by five and a half stops, and we'll see whose photo looks correct.
>>2836918
You are correct. He is not.
>>2836947
That's not exactly what I'm saying. Imagine shooting at iso 100, with a bright sky and dark ground, like pic related, and you expose for the sky. When you recover the shadows, you will get far more noise from those recovered shadows. Almost like what >>2836918 is saying. It will look like you shot it at a higher iso, because of raising the exposure for the dark areas. But if you slightly overexpose your image, you won't have to pull the shadows up and you will have less noise in your image. And you can bring the highlights down to look correct.
>>2836942
Here, I did it for you
The one on the left was exposed "properly" the one on the right was close to blowing out the highlights. See how the noise in the shadows is much higher on the image on the left?
>>2836947
>>2836942
>>2836957
And just for reference, these were the two images before they were processed, Image on the left is the one with the recovered shadows (obviously) and the one on the right was over exposed
>>2836960
That's not overexposed by five stops.
>>2836960
>dat detail in the sky
much better
>>2836964
Those are unprocessed. Processed, they can look identical, except the overexposed one doesn't have noise in the shadow
>>2836963
Never said 5 stops. You expose to the point of ALMOST clipping the highlights
This image is the same image as >>2836957 except it's the entire image, so you can see that everything still looks correct, just no noise in the darkest shadows
>>2836969
first of all, they look mostly the same to me.
secondly, you need to share your raw files so people can replicate the result.
>>2836971
Sure. where should I share it?
>>2836971
You can also try it yourself if you've ever done bracketed images for HDR, just try to match them as close as possible
>>2836969
>You expose to the point of ALMOST clipping the highlights
lmao then you aren't recovering anything. the cognitive dissonance mang, shake my damn head.
>>2836979
No shit, if there's no information in the highlights aka, 255,255,255 or no info in the shadows, 0,0,0. There's not going to be anything to recover. But I'm fucking showing you, overexposing and bring the highlights down will yield better results than underexposing, and bringing the shadows up.
Fuck it, don't listen to me. Keep your noisy images, I really don't give a fuck, I'm just trying to help you, because you obviously don't know something pretty important
>>2836983
Fucktard, we've known about ETTR since you were in middle school. WE ALL KNOW ABOUT IT. That's not the issue. The issue is the retard (maybe it's you? who knows?) who said "It's easier to recover highlights than it is to recover shadows" which is blatantly false.
>>2836985
But it is, look at the image I posted!
Recovering the shadows creates extra noise, recovering highlights will not create noise.
The proof is right there. Of course I'm not talking about clipped highlights or black shadows. I don't understand where we aren't seeing eye to eye on this. I've shown you what happens with the two cases
>>2835995
Get a better computer then. There is absolutely no reason to shoot anything but RAW.
>>2836987
the other guy is being an autist.
basically if the exposure is beyond the sensors dynamic range up or down no detail can be recovered
the autist then just assumed that recovering from highlight means recovering from beyond the sensor dynamic range while recovering from shadow means getting details from underexposed areas.
>>2836987
You're not recovering anything in your photos, though. You're just bringing exposure slightly down. That's totally different from recovery, and that's where we're not seeing eye-to-eye.
We're talking about straight up "recovery", wherein you are pulling data out of the 12 or 14-bit raw where there would have been none in the 8-bit jpeg.
>>2837001
I'm talking about RAW files, and I'm talking about being able to recover more information from an image that's underexposed by 4 or 5 stops than an image that's overexposed by 4 or 5 stops.
Why is this relevant? Because occasionally, you'll need to underexpose an image in order to save the highlights, as highlights are much harder to recover and have much less latitude than blocked shadows.
This is all pretty straightforward, and I think you're only getting confused because this is your second week reading luminous landscape and you think you discovered some neat trick.
>>2836884
>wow all these 100% black shadows with no data to pull back are so much better
Silly
>>2837016
But I'm not talking about an image that's over-exposed by 4-5 stops, I'm talking about one that's over exposed by 1 or 2 stops. I promise you, if you try to recover shadows that are 5 stops underexposed, there will be nothing there, and will look terrible.
This is all I'm saying:
To get the highest image quality possible from your camera, expose so the highlights are almost 100% clipped. That way you are getting the most data out of your files, and get the highest quality shadows. I'm not saying that you can perform miracles, and pull information that's not there. Even shadows can be clipped, and have no information
>>2836957
>he one on the right was close to blowing out the highlights.
That's not five stops over-exposed and then recovered, that's ETTR
You must have specifically missed the part that said:
>I'll recover my shadows by five and a half stops. You recover your highlights by five and a half stops
>>2837261
>if you try to recover shadows that are 5 stops underexposed, there will be nothing there, and will look terrible.
Absolutely incorrect.
You are like two months new, thinking you've learned all the secrets to exposure.
ETTR is well known, and generally, in a high contrast scene, ETTR leads you to under expose most of your image to keep your highlights from clipping, and then bringing up your shadows in post later.
ETTR and then bringing down your highlights a bit is different than the five to six stops of shadow detail you can bring out in post.
>>2837290
>>2837292
Those are two different people.
This guy is saying you can recover 5 stops of shadow
>>2837016
>>2836998
>>2836985
>>2836979
>>2836963
>>2836942
I'm saying that over exposing or underexposing by 5 stops isn't possible. I'm simply talking about just over exposing to the point where the highlights almost clip
This is me:
>>2836957
>>2836960
>>2836969
>>2836983
>>2836987
>>2837001
>>2837261
>>2837296
I'm not sure what you're saying. ETTR leads to an underexposed image? look at this post here >>2836960
The image on the left is "Exposing for the sky" The image on the right is almost clipping highlights. I don't have to bring out any shadow detail, its already there. I just have to bring down the highlights. So what are you trying to say?
You realize 5 stops is the difference between 1/125 and 1/4 second? Your going to have an incredibly noisy image if you try to recover shadows that are that underexposed
>>2837309
>I'm saying that over exposing or underexposing by 5 stops isn't possible.
That's what everyone else is saying. You're wrong. You get MUCH more lattitude in shadows than you do in highlights. You CAN push 5 stops of shadow detail. You can NOT pull even 2 stops out of highlights once they've clipped.
So you do whatever you can to keep your highlights from clipping, and sacrifice your shadows on the scene, since later, you can rescue the shadows, but can't rescue the highlights.
>>2837326
We're obviously talking about two different things. I don't give a shit about recovering shadows, because the noise levels become horrible. I only care about recovering highlights, so that the shadows have the lowest noise possible
>>2837343
You are not "recovering highlights" you're exposing to the right (ETTR) which is something completely different.
Once highlights are clipped to 255 out of the sensor, you can not recover them. If only one or two channels is clipped, you can recover very minor detail, but color will be fucked up. So you do what you have to do in order to keep that from happening.
If your scene is only 8 stops of dynamic range, you can ETTR and pull the whole scene down and be happy, and that's what you SHOULD do. But if a scene is a lot more dynamic and you have to make a decision between blowing your highlights (your sample image is not blown highlights) or crushing your shadows, you should choose to preserve your highlights and crush your shadows.
>>2837347
same with shadows. If its down at 0,0,0, theres not detail to recover there. I never fucking said that you can recover clipped highlights, so why do you keep bringing it up?
I agree with your last paragraph, I've been saying the whole time to expose as bright as possible without clipping. But all you can fucking talk about is shooting dark ass images like this >>2837326
>>2837352
Because that's what everyone in this fucking thread has been talking about, you fucking mouth breather.
Under expose to keep your highlights from clipping, and then bring up shadows in post. That is fucking literally the entire fucking point of the fucking thread.
>>2837356
It's a low contrast scene. You didn't have to decide between highlights and shadows.
ETTR means don't clip your highlights, EVEN IF if means crush your shadows. Not that you should purposefully under expose every time.
>>2837356
>ou're TOTALLY right, I can barely see the ground!
If your entire scene fits into the natural range of the sensor, then you don't:
>>2837347
>have to make a decision between blowing your highlights (your sample image is not blown highlights) or crushing your shadows, you should choose to preserve your highlights and crush your shadows.
Guess that makes perfect fucking sense then, huh?
>>2837357
That's not a low contrast scene, Look I'll go shoot a photo right now, and show you that you can have properly exposed shadows and bright highlights
>>2837364
Sorry, my sensor has a wide dynamic range, and I don't have to chose between losing shadows or highlights
>>2837364
Is this high contrast enough?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 10:09:27 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837370
Then this doesn't fucking apply to you at all, so shut the fuck up since you would by definition, have no experience or idea what you're fucking talking about.
>>2837374
recovered highlights, after it was ETTR
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 10:09:49 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837375
>you would by definition, have no experience or idea what you're fucking talking about.
Definition? Definition of what??
>>2837374
Are there either crushed shadows or blown highlights? No? Then no.
>>2837377
The entire point is "If you're making the decision between highlights and shadows, pick highlights"
And you AREN'T making that decision, so this doesn't apply.
>>2837387
Under what situation would I need to pick? The picture I just posted is in broad daylight, with harsh shadow. What could be more extreme than bright sky and dark shadow??
>>2837386
What situation would I be in for a higher contrast scene?? A day lit scene shooting into a shadow. Do you want me to go use one of my canon cameras that has shitty dynamic range then?
>>2835998
I can't tell if this is high level bait or if you're implying that you can skip out on eating out/in excess to save some cash(to which I would agree). Probably Poe's Law in effect, but fuck, this thread lmao
>>2837394
Take a photo from inside your house in a room with only one or two windows, pointed out a window into a sunlit scene. For example.
>>2837401
Is this good enough? There isn't even sunlight coming directly inside my house
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 10:51:02 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 2.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837401
>>2837403
ETTR
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 10:50:54 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 2.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837403
>Is this good enough?
Doesn't seem like it. Seems like there's still enough light in the room that you aren't having to decide between highlights and shadows.
Are you dumb? or what?
>>2837411
That's what you asked for! That's why I'm fucking asking. What situation would I be in that I would have to choose?? I'm inside, without any sunlight inside, shooting outside to bright sun. What would be more extreme? I don't even know a situation where you'd have to pick.
>>2837370
Notice in the OP article, Kenny is using a Rebel XTi. A Canon Entry level APS-C camera released a full 8 years ago.
This entire technique may not apply to you even a little bit.
>>2837414
>That's what you asked for!
I can see from the reflection of the bowl in the dishwasher that there's another light source in the room, which brightens it, and lowers the contrast of the scene.
>>2837376
you got some clipped highlights in there, homie.
>>2837376
That looks like fucking shit. Why is it neon? Almost like there's not enough information in the highlights to get nice color tones...
>>2837421
Because it's low-elevation on a bright, sunny day in a colorful location.
Sometimes unappealing light is just unappealing light, not a camera error, not bad processing, just ugly light.
I don't know why this board struggles to understand that.
>>2837417
It's a skylight, you said two windows. I'll back up even more so you can be proven wrong for the 100th time.
Would you like to give me another absurdly contrasty scene to shoot since this one obviously doesn't suit your standards?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 11:10:23 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1335 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837426
You're proving that you can be pedantic by picking a scene that doesn't fit the requirements of exposure, but does fit my words. That's fine. Nobody is taking you seriously anyways, so if being a dick is entertaining to you, you should absolutely continue.
There are times when some people shoot scenes that have too much contrast for their cameras. When this happens, it is good practice to expose for the highlights. If you have never encountered this issue, and can't understand the concept, then you're free to leave, but to suggest that nobody has ever experienced it is to be a typical sony fag who can't comprehend the needs of other people.
>>2836996
Don't forget your huge memory cards too. Also don't forget to pay your monthly dues to adobe. While you're at it why not spring up for a digital medium format camera? Look into renting a studio too or you could build your own. Hire an assistant too and you're all set.
>>2837421
HAHAH what??? The grass isn't even close to being overexposed, there's plenty of information there. The grass is sort of back-lit, that's why it has the bright tone you see.
>>2837428
No, you're the one giving me the scenes to shoot, I shot within your parameters, and as soon as you saw that it wasn't proving me wrong, you shit yourself, and can't handle it. Or maybe the Sony DR meme is true??
>>2837426
Drug users kitchen
>>2837432
I suggested a situation that might have had high dynamic range. In your case, it wasn't. You know I've never been to your house, right?
>>2837433
Never done any drugs in my entire life. Just didn't do dishes this morning.
>>2837435
Hows this princess? Sun shining directly on white concrete, inside, no lights and no windows behind me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 11:31:13 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 2.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1278 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837446
And this looks acceptable to you, yes?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 11:31:13 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 2.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1278 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837455
Fantastic. Looks just as it does in real life. Grey concrete with some texture. Obviously I could go process the image more, but I just adjusted brightness to show you can shoot extreme subjects and not have to pick between shadows and highlights in most circumstances
>>2837456
What about that awful, garish foliage with no tonal range?
>>2837464
That's just a matter of processing it. Like I said, I didn't modify anything except the exposure. Not to mention, it's out of focus, so it's not like I can really show detail in it.
>>2837466
Feel free to prove it.
From the looks of it, you have clipping in at least one of your channels, which is why you have next to no tonal variation.
>>2837470
Here you go. As I said though, it's out of focus. Trust me, if the concrete isn't clipped, the grass and plants definitely won't be
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 24 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 12:23:11 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 2.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 681 Image Height 1521 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2837481
>he doesn't understand channel clipping
>trying to lecture like a dozen other people on exposure
>>2837376
>architecture
>f2.8
what is wrong with you
>>2837488
put your trip on moopco
>>2837464
That's called mid-day light, fauxtographer
>>2837488
>Says there channel clipping
>Can't even name which channel is clipping on green grass
>>2837490
>Architecture
What the fuck are you talking about? If you read the thread, that's obviously just an example image to show tones, not a masterpiece of architectural photography. I was just trying to get the brightest image possible at the lowest iso possible. So yeah, that's why it's 2.8. I'm just showing the tones
>>2837498
>trying to show off sensor
>shoots at 2.8 where aberrations, coma and unsharpness lives
shiggidity boopidity boop m8
>>2837435
>I want you to sit inside a box painted dark matte black and take a picture of the sun through a tiny hole
>Oh you can't expose for the entire scene? Tough luck pal. Looks like I'm right
t. retarded photographer
>>2837503
This isn't an argument about sharpness, it's about tones. Depth of field is irrelevant right now, and there is no CA in that image
>>2837507
>don't pay attention to my bad camera and lens, or my bad abilities as a photographer, I CAN BOOST MY SHADOWS
>>2837512
You didn't read the thread. Your argument is invalid. This is about dropping the highlights
>>2837513
not being in focus means less highlights to capture retardo
>>2837517
>>loses
>implying he didn't bite the b8
>>2837522
Highlights? The only places that were close to clipping were the sky and the bright part of the house across the street. Changing the focus a microscopic amount isn't going to magically make those even brighter or darker.
You can click one channel way before clipping the entire image to Pure White.>>2837529
Sent Sent
>>2837531
>I cant tell its clipped in the photo, but I can see it in the histogram!
literally blind
>>2837531
When the subject in question is white, and it hasn't turned pure white, it hasn't clipped. There's a pro tip for you. Photoshop's clip warning shows if any channel has been clipped, and there was no clipping on any spot in this image
>>2837376
C L I P P E D
L
I
P
P
E
D
>>2837376
>hurr durr i bought a meme camera that sacrafices everything, literally everything, for dynamic range
>le no dynamic range problems XD
simply epic
What the fuck is this thread about?
>>2837597
It's a Ken Rockwell thread.
We are discussing the merits of a Rockwellesque photograph
>>2837551
Circle the clipped part please. I'd love to see your magnificent eye point out the part that's clipped
>>2837580
Oh yeah, because it sacrifices resolution?? No.
It sacrifices quality lenses?? No.
It sacrifices what exactly?
Hurrr, MUH optical viewfinder! MUH uncompressed RAWS! MUH ergonomics!
Keep your out of date nikon and canons, I really don't care.
>>2837621
>shit autofocus
>shit lens selection
>shit famerate
>shit support
all in all, exactly what you expect from a meme, heavily shilled, company like sony
>>2837619
ya blew the white house and the white wall in your yard. just because you pulled them down to zone 8 or 9 doesn't mean there's any real info in there.
>>2837636
LOL what the fuck do you expect the sky to look like on the histogram? A beautiful curve spreading the entire length of the histogram? HAHA, okay bud.
>>2837622
a6300, fastest autofocus, canon lenses focus faster on the a6300 than they don on canon bodies, 11fps, and no clue what you mean by shit support.
A shitty $1000 camera is better than 90% of canon and nikon bodies
>>2837636
You seriously thought that was the wall of the white house? Are you retarded? you circled the sky, the white house is pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 144 dpi Vertical Resolution 144 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 15:54:34 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 568 Image Height 250
>>2837669
the sky has bad clipping in the blue channel as well, but the white house and the wall are badly, visibly clipped.
he should have exposed for highlights and not shadows.
>>2837672
Hahha jesus christ. It's not clipped, the sky isn't clipped either. Prove to me it's clipped in some way
>>2837678
Post the raw.
Or, you know, open your eyes.
>>2837690
I shouldn't have to post the raw, you have the photo there, you should be able to tell. So show me, where is it clipped, use your eyes and your finger tips to show me where it's clipped please. You're full of shit and you know it
>>2837696
It's clipped on the wall and the white building. You can plainly see it, and you're not going to post the raw because of it.
Your sheer cognitive dissonance amazes me, as well as your unwillingness to yield in the face of overwhelming proof that you're wrong.
>>2837699
Where do you want me to post the raw?
Why can't you just show me how you know it's clipped?
>>2837699
Thought you said the sky was clipped too? Don't you want to show me where the sky is clipped??
>>2837704
dropbox, mega, google drive, wherever is convenient for you.
a dead giveaway is that the entire wall clips as as soon you go from +68 whites to +69 in one big flat blob.
>>2837716
That means there's a range of tones there. If it was clipped, it would be an absolutely straight up and down part near the right, and that isn't there.
>>2837722
That's literally the opposite of what that means.
Still waiting on that raw.
N O
O
R A W S
A
W
S
what's he hiding?
it's like hillary and her speeches
>>2837736
Not him, but from my understanding, that line would indicate that there's a range of tones. How am I reading this wrong?
>>2837738
he's probably hiding the fact that, to keep the highlights from clipping, he had to under expose the inside of his house, and then push it up in post.
>>2837422
I think this board tries to apply techniques (their idea of the technique) to every fucking type of photo with no thought that maybe, just maybe, one type of photography has different criteria than another.
I guess we should all just go take black and white shots of homeless people
>>2838071
>black and white shots of homeless people
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stoneth/
What the fuck is going on here?
>>2838075
>Proving my memeing to in fact be correct
This place is such a fucking wasteland
I love when the threads about some random specific techniques collect all of the angry retards who never leave the house and do all of their photography in hypothetical sensor comparison terms, leaving the rest of the board in peace.
