The pros and cons of shooting RAW versus JPEG
Jul 17, 2021 20:59:36 #
Ysarex wrote:
... Explain please how 1/180 sec. at f/11 for ISO 200 is Sunny 16 ...
Is not Sunny 16 but your EXIF didn't show the aperture:
That.s 1.33 stops brighter than sunny 16 which would have been:
If you could not figure this out it's your fault.
Now follow the links I provided and learn something new.
You can download the spreadsheet at https://www.scotty-elmslie.com/uploads/5/6/3/3/56337819/exposure_triangle.xls
Jul 17, 2021 21:09:44 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
Is note Sunny 16 but your EXIF didn't show the aperture:
Which is why I told you what it was when I presented the raw histogram. Which is why I said this in my first response to your original dumb comment; "if, heaven forbid, I was dumb enough to set a sunny 16 exposure (more than 1 stop less than the exposure I did set)....
But after I presented that info you said: "Sunny 16 (LV 14.67) got you within about one stop of blowing your highlights." No it didn't and you're confused and you're wrong.
Jul 17, 2021 21:16:07 #
Ysarex wrote:
Which is why I told you what it was when I presented the raw histogram. Which is why I said this in my first response to your original dumb comment; "if, heaven forbid, I was dumb enough to set a sunny 16 exposure (more than 1 stop less than the exposure I did set)....
But after I presented that info you said: "Sunny 16 (LV 14.67) got you within about one stop of blowing your highlights." No it didn't and you're confused and you're wrong.
But after I presented that info you said: "Sunny 16 (LV 14.67) got you within about one stop of blowing your highlights." No it didn't and you're confused and you're wrong.
That was misleading. You did not actually state the exposure setting.
Educate yourself before you post again. You are out of your depth.
Jul 17, 2021 21:26:18 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
That was misleading. You did not actually state the exposure setting.
I most certainly did as soon as it was apparent that you're confused: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-10.html#12402418
"Below is the histogram for my raw file. The exposure was 1/180 sec f/11 with the ISO at 200."
This mistake of yours comes after that post: "Sunny 16 (LV 14.67) got you within about one stop of blowing your highlights."
Jul 17, 2021 21:27:57 #
Hardly a significant oversight. It’s been cleared up. Now move on.
Jul 17, 2021 21:30:48 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
Wasn’t my mistake. You did not provide the actual exposure.
What do you call this: "The exposure was 1/180 sec f/11 with the ISO at 200." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-10.html#12402418
Jul 17, 2021 21:32:28 #
Ysarex wrote:
What do you call this: "The exposure was 1/180 sec f/11 with the ISO at 200." https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-10.html#12402418
I corrected my post. Now follow the links. Especially the one on reflectance.
Jul 18, 2021 01:48:17 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
I corrected my post. Now follow the links. Especially the one on reflectance.
I'll pass on the link following. As it seems I understood exposure well enough to not have followed your original dumb recommendation I think I've got this.
Jul 18, 2021 03:33:09 #
Ysarex wrote:
I'll pass on the link following. As it seems I understood exposure well enough to not have followed your original dumb recommendation I think I've got this.
You asked for references, I provided them and now you aren’t man enough to look at them. No, you don’t “have this”.
Jul 18, 2021 03:52:39 #
At some point the two of you are going to touch tips and be cool with each other....Until then...I have plenty of popcorn.
Jul 18, 2021 04:41:18 #
johngault007 wrote:
At some point the two of you are going to touch tips and be cool with each other....Until then...I have plenty of popcorn.
I think that Ysarex is being disingenuous.
It's likely that he actually followed some of the links I provided and it finally dawned on him that I know what I am talking about.
He's just too embarrassed to admit it.
Jul 18, 2021 07:54:20 #
Ysarex wrote:
Nice photo, but when I see it my eye is drawn to t... (show quote)
Yes - I see what you mean. That leaf needs some work. The flower is, in fact, pink and white. The following is the pic with leaf toned down. The choice would be cloning or simply removing - which ever, on this occasion, destroys my argument.
Jul 18, 2021 08:30:38 #
Delderby wrote:
Yes - I see what you mean. That leaf needs some work. The flower is, in fact, pink and white. The following is the pic with leaf toned down. The choice would be cloning or simply removing - which ever, on this occasion, destroys my argument.
As art there is nothing wrong with the image.
But there is no remedy for the technical issue, overexposure because it seems that the meter was responding to the dark background.
With digital you need to expose for the highlights. In this case it would have prevented them from getting blown out and it would have only made the background darker, if possible.
Jul 18, 2021 08:38:17 #
Delderby wrote:
Yes - I see what you mean. That leaf needs some work. The flower is, in fact, pink and white. The following is the pic with leaf toned down. The choice would be cloning or simply removing - which ever, on this occasion, destroys my argument.
Good job Delderby.
Not sure what your argument was that this destroys, but I need more evidence, like a couple graphs, maybe a pie chart, some convoluted quotes from unknown sources. Perhaps a web link or 30 from people that cut and paste the same wrong/misleading information over and over.
Any how, I don't have a 16 bit monitor available, nor an optical spectrometer but I like the result you achieved on that blown out leaf. Whatever you did, you would have had to do the same exact thing whether originally captured in raw or jpg, since a raw editor can't do jack with no information to work with any more than jpg can.
Jul 18, 2021 09:18:16 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
You asked for references, I provided them and now you aren’t man enough to look at them. No, you don’t “have this”.
I asked for a reference for specific BS you were shoveling and that you did not provide. Still waiting.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.