UniWB - Is it worth the trouble? (Page 6): Incorrect. And you know it's incorrect because you said so yourself in this thread. Why are you saying otherwise now? Because it's the one...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

Yes it does as I just proved in my last post.

What have I shown you so far:

1. WB does not change the raw file (you should have already known this).
2. WB does not affect the meter reading. That's because it's looking at pending raw data, not the JPEG.
3. WB does not affect the highlight warnings.

Incorrect. And you know it's incorrect because you said so yourself in this thread. Why are you saying otherwise now? Because it's the one thing that makes UniWB useful and I pointed that out. It's what I used to demonstrate real value from a UniWB setting on my camera. I wouldn't find UniWB valuable either except for this one feature -- the camera's highlight clipping waring which I can get live. As you said, "They will show up sooner for Daylight than they do for UniWB."

That's a difference that can be manipulated to advantage. Prove it doesn't happen as you've incorrectly claimed here. Of course you could just quote yourself like I did.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

... As you said, "They will show up sooner for Daylight than they do for UniWB."

That's a difference that can be manipulated to advantage. Prove it doesn't happen as you've incorrectly claimed here. Of course you could just quote yourself like I did.

I have just proven that my previous statement was wrong in my last post for the Z7. An error in an earlier test mislead me.

I am willing to admit that I am not infallible. You aren't.

It turns out that they show up at the same time for all three cameras I tested when comparing UniWB to Daylight WB. That proves that they are based on the raw file.

You need to do some testing on your own and stop defending your position. Just take an image with UniWB where the warnings show up and then use a faster shutter speed until they go away. Now do the same thing with Daylight WB. Unless your camera was made on a different planet it will probably behave the same as my Sony and Nikons.

And please don't come back here until you can present some evidence that you have made the effort to test. Everyone is getting tired of your repetitious arguments.

If you can't present some evidence I have no more to say to you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

I have just proven that my statement was wrong in my last post for the Z7. An error in an earlier test mislead me.

Your original statement was correct. You're incorrect now. And this error is why your entire comedy of errors is a pile of BS.

The illustration below is clear. Only two things change between the two shots. 1. The obvious highlight clipping in the sky disappears when 2. The WB is switched to UniWB.

That change that you see in the behavior of the camera's exposure aids is a difference that can be manipulated to advantage by the photographer. It's just that simple and it's just that easy and you're proven wrong. (To your credit you were at one point right about your being full of BS).

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

... The illustration below is clear. Only two things change between the two shots. 1. The obvious highlight clipping in the sky disappears when 2. The WB is switched to UniWB. ....

Now show us the histograms from RawDigger to prove the sky is not blown out.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

Now show us the histograms from RawDigger to prove the sky is not blown out.

I'll take that as an acknowledgement of your error. The highlight clipping warnings are responsive to the WB setting on the camera. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS.

It's up to the photographer to use that information if they consider it valuable. I've already demonstrated it's value in use: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-4.html#12146668

The first of the two photos is exposed one stop more and do you see the highlights in the lampshade blown out?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I'll take that as an acknowledgement of your error. The highlight clipping warnings are responsive to the WB setting on the camera. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. ...

To stop cluttering up this discussion I will send you a PM with live comparison showing the RawDigger evidence.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

To stop cluttering up this discussion I will send you a PM with live comparison showing the RawDigger evidence.

I'm entirely happy that I've shown you the photographic evidence and you're proven wrong and the matter is settled.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I'm entirely happy that I've shown you the photographic evidence and you're proven wrong and the matter is settled.

The PM I just sent you proves you are wrong. If you don't read it I will post it here.

This show is over.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

The PM I just sent you proves you are wrong. If you don't read it I will post it here.

This show is over.

The PM you sent me proves you don't know what you're talking about.

The highlight clipping warnings are responsive to the WB setting because they're based on the camera JPEG processing which includes the WB setting. It's a pain to do this chimping photos but what works directly in the EVF of my X-T4 and SL will also work if you chimp a camera like the Z7.

In the first photo below chimping the Z7 you see auto-WB and the highlight clipping warning showing in the sky -- note the exposure and ISO. And then in the second photo with same exposure and ISO the highlight clipping warning is gone when the WB is set to UniWB.

So you remain proven wrong and completely full of BS.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

The PM you sent me proves you don't know what you'... (show quote)

That does not happen with my Z7.

I have never used Auto WB since it is a crap-shoot that depends on the color of the scene.

You haven't proven anything without showing the raw histograms.

Please respond via PM so we don't keep bothering everyone.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

That does not happen with my Z7.

It probably does. Try it using clouds or some other truly diffuse highlight that doesn't contain specular highlights. And even it if doesn't it's immaterial. Maybe you have a bizarre Z7. Maybe you don't have a clue how to use it. So what?

The point is that the common practice used by the overwhelming majority of camera makers is to generate highlight clipping warnings in their cameras from the information in the output JPEG and/or JPEG simulation in their EVF. You knew that to be a fact earlier in this thread. You were correct then because it is a fact. And that fact makes you wrong.

The only reason you now want to deny what you already said you knew is because you now realize that it makes you wrong.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

It probably does. Try it using clouds or some other truly diffuse highlight that doesn't contain specular highlights. ...

I already did that with the neutral target tests. It seems that your testing and my testing are not on the same page.

I already sent you a PM about the Df doing exactly the same thing as the Z7. I will send you the RawDigger evidence via PM.

Both cameras can't be "broken" in exactly the same way.

Let's move this conversation off line. It's getting tedious.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

I already did that with the neutral target tests. It seems that your testing and my testing are not on the same page.

I already sent you a PM about the Df doing exactly the same thing as the Z7. I will send you the RawDigger evidence via PM.

Both cameras can't be "broken" in exactly the same way.

Let's move this conversation off line. It's getting tedious.

All immaterial and all meaningless. Are the highlight clipping warnings in most cameras based on the camera JPEG data or EVF JPEG simulation (which includes WB)? The answer is yes. No need for further conversation and you remain wrong.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

No need for further conversation ...

That's the only thing you got right.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I checked the A7 II Zebras against my uniform neutral gray target. The camera was set to ISO 100 and f/4.

For all of the WB settings (AutoWB, Daylight, Shade, Cloudy, Incandescent, Flour:Warm White, Flour:Cool White, Flour:Day White, Flour:Daylight and UniWB) there were no Zebra warnings at 1/40s but they showed up at 1/30s. That makes it unanimous.

Because the subsequent blinkies flash at the same time as the Zebra warnings I did not bother to capture an image. They would have all produced the same raw histograms.

I skipped Flash for what should be obvious reasons if you ever used a flash.

I also skipped Underwater AutoWB because I have done my share of SCUBA diving. Underwater color film photography without a flash makes no sense beyond about 10 meters. It's difficult enough with the proper lighting equipment.

Since all of the cameras agree, none of them are "broken".