Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
UniWB - Is it worth the trouble?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
Apr 10, 2021 17:44:40   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
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".
I checked the A7 II Zebras against my uniform neut... (show quote)

Steve Perry posted a video on how to use high clipping warnings: https://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/blinkies-in-photography/
This is a direct quote: "The blinkies are based off of the embedded jpeg in the raw file and not the raw file itself."
So you're saying that Steve is wrong. Yes, no?

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 18:45:58   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Ysarex wrote:
Steve Perry posted ...

You can always find opposing opinions somewhere on the internet. Everyone should do their own testing and decide for themselves. I have.

When you said, "No need for further conversation" were you lying?

I will not respond to you and you have nothing more to offer here.

If you want to discuss this, send me a PM. Otherwise, start your own thread.

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 19:18:50   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
When you said, "No need for further conversation" were you lying?

"The blinkies are based off of the embedded jpeg in the raw file and not the raw file itself." -- S. Perry
That's a fact and there's no need for further conversation.

Because the highlight clipping warnings are based on the JPEG and/or simulated JPEG in the EVF they are responsive to changes in the camera WB setting. This has been adequately demonstrated: see here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-6.html#12149352 and here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-6.html#12149773 and there is no need for further conversation.

The demonstrated fact that highlight clipping warnings are response to changes in the camera WB setting has been correctly acknowledge by you; "They will show up sooner for Daylight than they do for UniWB." and there is no need for further conversation.

Any subsequent attempts by you to claim otherwise are so transparent that they're really sad and there's no need for further conversation.

The facts above make it clear that UniWB is able to provide the photographer with unique additional information while using the camera's exposure aids and that additional information can be used to advantage by the photographer. An example of that in use was provided: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-4.html#12146668 and there is no need for further conversation.

UniWB therefore is able to offer the photographer behind the camera unique additional information he/she can't get otherwise and as such has a use for those who want to take advantage of it and there is no need for further conversation.

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2021 19:38:31   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
selmslie wrote:
I checked the A7 II Zebras against my uniform neutral gray target. The camera was set to ISO 100 and f/4. ....

Here are the raw histograms from the brightest exposure that still shows no Zebra/blinkies.

1/40s

Don't be fooled by the coincidence of the three colors. This camera has no color filter array (the Bayer array). But RawDigger was not aware of that since I used the original raw file. If I had used the tagged DNG file it would have known that.



This would have been a more appropriate display for a camera with no CFA.

These results are the same as for Daylight WB and all of the others - about 1.3 additional stops of exposure available beyond this point.

But don't press your luck. It's a good idea to not use all of the 1.3 stops. The last 0.3 stops is not going to make a visible difference.

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 19:51:02   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
selmslie wrote:
When you said, "No need for further conversation" were you lying?

It looks like you were lying since you can't shut up.

Start your own thread. See if anyone pays attention.

Reply
Apr 10, 2021 19:58:47   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
Here are the raw histograms from the brightest exposure that still shows no Zebra/blinkies.

1/40s

Don't be fooled by the coincidence of the three colors. This camera has no color filter array (the Bayer array). But RawDigger was not aware of that since I used the original raw file. If I had used the tagged DNG file it would have known that.



This would have been a more appropriate display for a camera with no CFA.

These results are the same as for Daylight WB and all of the others - about 1.3 additional stops of exposure available beyond this point.

But don't press your luck. It's a good idea to not use all of the 1.3 stops. The last 0.3 stops is not going to make a visible difference.
Here are the raw histograms from the brightest exp... (show quote)

And I tested cameras taking photographs of real subjects: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-7.html#12150618 and there is no need for further conversation.

The demonstrated fact that highlight clipping warnings are responsive to changes in the camera WB setting has been correctly acknowledge by you; "They will show up sooner for Daylight than they do for UniWB." Your attempts to prove yourself wrong on that point are pathetic.

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 11:05:12   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
selmslie wrote:
Here are the raw histograms from the brightest exposure that still shows no Zebra/blinkies. ....

I just sent Ysarex the results of some more rigorous testing and a possible explanation of why we are both right.

The differences we are seeing appear to depend on how the UniWB settings are created.

The A7 II and Z7 that I tested required similar targets to create the UniWB setting. They both ended up with the Zebra or blinkies starting at the same exposure.

But the targets used to set up the Df and D610 are slightly more magenta. That shows up as a 1/3 stop difference in the exposure where the blinkies start.

If anyone expresses an interest in the details I will post them here. Otherwise we can call it a tie and be done with it.

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2021 15:17:34   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
I just sent Ysarex the results of some more rigorous testing and a possible explanation of why we are both right.

The differences we are seeing appear to depend on how the UniWB settings are created.

The A7 II and Z7 that I tested required similar targets to create the UniWB setting. They both ended up with the Zebra or blinkies starting at the same exposure.

But the targets used to set up the Df and D610 are slightly more magenta. That shows up as a 1/3 stop difference in the exposure where the blinkies start.

If anyone expresses an interest in the details I will post them here. Otherwise we can call it a tie and be done with it.
I just sent Ysarex the results of some more rigoro... (show quote)

No. You're just wrong.

Way back in the thread you slipped up and acknowledged that highlight warnings are responsive to the camera's WB setting: "They will show up sooner for Daylight than they do for UniWB." You were right. But then Oh crap! That fact undermines your original premise for the entire thread that UniWB is worthless. There you were pointing out the reason you're completely full of BS.

Oh crap! So you turned around and flat out denied it:
"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.
"

But you couldn't really get away with that -- it's too well known and too well documented that you're original observation was correct.

So now you're spending a couple pages raw diggering as hard as you can to try and claim it's not enough to really make a difference or depends on the color of the UniWB target.

And it's a pitiful thing watch but kind of funny too.

I use cameras like most photographers to take photographs. I don't use cameras to make graphs. The camera below is a Nikon Z7. All the information you need to prove you're full of BS is in the photos. The highlight clipping warning is on with daylight WB and the EC set to -.3. It goes off at -.7. When the camera is switched to UniWB the highlight clipping warning is still off at +.3. It comes on at +.7.

From highlight clipping warning on with daylight WB to highlight clipping warning on again with UniWB is a full stop difference. And that's consistent for both my Fuji cameras and my Canon camera and my Leica camera. This thread asks if UniWB presents any value for photographers. It's fair to assume that means photographers who make photographs with their cameras as in the illustrations below (not graphs).

The fact that highlight clipping warnings are responsive to changes in the camera WB setting is undeniable and provides the photographer with unique additional information using UniWB in conjunction with the camera's exposure aids. That additional information can be used to advantage by the photographer. An example of that in use was provided: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-4.html#12146668 and there is no need for further conversation.





Reply
Apr 11, 2021 16:38:13   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Ysarex wrote:
No. You're just wrong.
...
3. WB does not affect the highlight warnings.[/i]"
...

Are you really that thick?

I explained why that statement was correct for two of the cameras I tested and wrong for the other two. That went over your head. And so is the fact that the difference I found in two of the camera was only 1/3 stop, not enough to get excited about, and 0 stops in the other two.

You are incapable of presenting a legitimate example to back up your claim. Each one you have posted shows highlights in an area whose brightness is uncontrolled - a window where the light can easily change because the light depends on the weather. That's dishonest.

You can't back up your statements with any raw histogram evidence either because it would reveal that you are lying or that you are not smart enough to use RawDigger properly.

Since everyone else out there is probably more intelligent and honest that you are I will suggest that they refer to UniWB and ETTR: the Whole Recipe and their camera manual for instructions on how to set up UniWB on their own camera.

If they own one of the models I have tested they can use one of the targets posted below as a starting point. But they may need to adjust these using Paint or some other program if their display is calibrated differently from mine. I use Datacolor SpiderX Elite and re-calibrated my desktop last month.

But be forewarned. You will not be happy with the UniWB. It does not deliver on its promises of more correct or accurate information. It's an approach that would only appeal to a fool or a troll.

Sony, A7 II RGB=162, 64, 105
Sony, A7 II RGB=162, 64, 105...
(Download)

Nikon D610 RGB=121, 64, 96
Nikon D610 RGB=121, 64, 96...
(Download)

Nikon Df RGB=117, 64, 92
Nikon Df RGB=117, 64, 92...
(Download)

Nikon Z7 RGB=144, 78, 114
Nikon Z7 RGB=144, 78, 114...
(Download)

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 20:15:54   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:

You are incapable of presenting a legitimate example to back up your claim. Each one you have posted shows highlights in an area whose brightness is uncontrolled - a window where the light can easily change because the light depends on the weather.

OMG! What was I thinking! How foolish of me to rely on sunshine on a cloudless blue sky day. Now that you mention it I've heard of some idiot photographers who actually take photographs and don't use light meters. They claim all they need is sunshine -- some nonsense about sunny 16 or something. You believe that rubbish?

Listen to yourself shoveling utter BS. Those two photos are 2 minutes and 3 seconds apart taken on a totally clear day without a cloud in the sky. You're Mr. Sunny-16. Care to tell me how much the constancy of sunshine will change right after noon over the course of 2 minutes and 3 seconds? Can I get that in stops? Shame on you for suggesting I'm dishonest. Can you get any more lame?

Try your tests taking photos like photographers would take in the field. You want dishonest? Remember what you just sent me in a PM Mr. Sunny-16? "But sunlight in broad daylight is constant light source so all you need for testing is a target with a constant reflectance." Those window curtains have a constant reflectance and that test meets your specification for a controlled target and those photos prove you're completely full of BS.

The stats on the two photos are below. For the first photo taken with the WB set to daylight the highlight clipping warning came on in the upper left of the photo with the EC set to -.3. Two minutes and 3 seconds later without moving the camera or changing the lighting the highlight clipping warning was off with UniWB set and the EC at +.3. Refer here to see that in the actual camera: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-7.html#12152635

This post also proves you're full of BS: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-4.html#12146668 You want to tell me now that the daylight LED bulb I have in that lamp is insufficiently consistent over 1 minute and 22 seconds? BS!

You have no tests that are more controlled.

Real photos of real subjects prove you're wrong.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Apr 11, 2021 20:58:00   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Ysarex wrote:
... Real photos of real subjects prove you're wrong.

Are you serious?

Real photos suggest that, according to the UniWB histograms, you blew the highlights in the green channel. Are you that unobservant?

Now show us the RawDigger histograms so we can see which one is correct.

Reply
 
 
Apr 11, 2021 22:13:30   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
Are you serious?

Real photos suggest that, according to the UniWB histograms, you blew the highlights in the green channel. Are you that unobservant?

Maybe you don't recognize that the software there is NX Studio. Those screen shots were of the two raw files displayed in NX Studio. The histograms you see there are the result of applying the default camera processing to achieve the same result as the camera JPEG. They're histograms for the camera JPEGs. That's one of the reasons I used NX Studio to display those files. You really should have a better handle on this.

Of course the UniWB histogram shows a clipped green channel in the JPEG. And if you look real close you can see that the green channel is the only one clipped and that confirms that the highlight clipping warning didn't come on. It's takes two clipped channels to activate the warning. You can't really see it in the daylight WB histogram screenshot but both green and blue channels are clipped and that's why the warning flashed on.

It is proof positive of how UniWB can be useful for a photographer and it's proof you're full of BS. There's a 2/3 stop difference between those two exposures and the clipping warning came on for daylight WB and not for UniWB.

The green channel in the raw file is not clipped and the image processes with ease. Here it is processed and in a reasonable size -- nothing is clipped or blown out. So yes I'm serious and you're full of serious BS and there really is no need for further conversation.


(Download)

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 03:43:26   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Ysarex wrote:
Maybe you don't recognize that the software there is NX Studio. Those screen shots were of the two raw files displayed in NX Studio. The histograms you see there are the result of applying the default camera processing to achieve the same result as the camera JPEG. ...

Any raw converter will show a JPEG histogram of the raw file. That tells us nothing about the raw data.
Ysarex wrote:
The green channel in the raw file is not clipped and the image processes with ease. Here it is processed and in a reasonable size -- nothing is clipped or blown out.

Why should anyone believe you if you don't show us the raw data.
Ysarex wrote:
... and there really is no need for further conversation.

We can't even believe you when you say that. Just go away.

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 09:09:33   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
Ysarex wrote:
Maybe you don't recognize that the software there is NX Studio. Those screen shots were of the two raw files displayed in NX Studio. The histograms you see there are the result of applying the default camera processing to achieve the same result as the camera JPEG. They're histograms for the camera JPEGs. That's one of the reasons I used NX Studio to display those files. You really should have a better handle on this.

Of course the UniWB histogram shows a clipped green channel in the JPEG. And if you look real close you can see that the green channel is the only one clipped and that confirms that the highlight clipping warning didn't come on. It's takes two clipped channels to activate the warning. You can't really see it in the daylight WB histogram screenshot but both green and blue channels are clipped and that's why the warning flashed on.

It is proof positive of how UniWB can be useful for a photographer and it's proof you're full of BS. There's a 2/3 stop difference between those two exposures and the clipping warning came on for daylight WB and not for UniWB.

The green channel in the raw file is not clipped and the image processes with ease. Here it is processed and in a reasonable size -- nothing is clipped or blown out. So yes I'm serious and you're full of serious BS and there really is no need for further conversation.
Maybe you don't recognize that the software there ... (show quote)


Interesting composition

Reply
Apr 12, 2021 09:26:57   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
selmslie wrote:
Any raw converter will show a JPEG histogram of the raw file. That tells us nothing about the raw data.

So you were completely full of BS or clueless when you just said this in response to those screenshots in NX Studio: "Real photos suggest that, according to the UniWB histograms, you blew the highlights in the green channel."

I'm a photographer and when behind the camera in the field there's no copy of Raw Digger embedded in the camera firmware. The photos are the proof.

I would prefer not to feed your Raw Diggery sickness. But in the interest of putting an end to your stream of BS here's one last fix for you. I told you the green channel was not blown. I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. That's what you got now. You're to the point of making accusations and clearly not above that.

These two photos: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-7.html#12152635 prove that UniWB can be a useful tool as an addition to the camera's exposure aids. So too do these photos: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-4.html#12146668 They also prove that you're completely full of BS and you're wrong. And there is no need for further conversation.


(Download)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.