I don't understand why you want to lecture me on what (in your mind)
doesn't work when it's a technique I've been using for 7 years across 3
different digital cameras and 2 different scanners. It works for me and
I'm sorry you seem to have so much trouble with it. :-)
And I have no idea why DXOMark ISO ratings have any part of this
discussion. When I'm using ETTR for exposure control I don't care that
the nominal and actual ISO (whatever that is) don't match. Nor do I
care about ISO settings on flash meters nor about spot metering. ETTR
does away with all of that stuff and allows me to create the exposure I
like in post. You're still working in the film world or in a high
volume JPEG world. I don't go there any more and simply don't care any
more about those methods. Do I make ETTR mistakes sometimes? Yup, I
sure do. But it's not enough to convince me to do anything else. I
make mistakes there too.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/29/2014 8:37 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> OK, I'll accept that I'm 100% wrong if you'll accept my personal
>> statement that all of the wrong crap I'm doing still just happens to
>> work for me. :-)
>
> Just because a person hasn't experienced or recognized the problem
> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In my day job, I'm expected to
> know that enough about any given technology to avoid weaknesses that
> the specifications say don't exist. (I just got done dealing with that
> very issue with a massive top-grade, most-expensive fiber-optic system
> out there where the manufacturer said "well, yes, I know we said it
> could do that, but you should know that this technology never really
> works exactly as we say it is supposed to, so suck it up and spend
> another $250,000 on the turnup of that circuit because it only goes
> 600km between regens, not 6000km like we said it did. Sunspots, you
> know.) You have bought into the lie that the histogram is true and for
> what you've shot, it is true enough that you won't know any different.
> It's usually right, so it is a relatively accurate guide in most
> situations. But you would have to admit that there are certain
> circumstances where the results aren't quite what you expected. Right?
> Come on, I can't be the ONLY person on this list who has been
> surprised when that carefully shot ETTR image ended up as a tosser.
>
> All this rolls back around to the original point of discussion which
> is ISO ratings. Unless you are borderline insane, there is no way that
> even the most rabid OCD person is going to be able to use the DXOMARK
> ISO ratings and apply them to real life. It just isn't going to
> happen. And if you do, you certainly aren't going to do it with an
> in-camera meter, but most likely with a calibrated Sekonic Spot-Meter.
>
> The issue is that DXO's ISO ratings are for the saturation point of
> the sensor, but all in-camera meters are based on 18% (give or take
> depending on what you use as your midtone standard). While I
> appreciate what they have done in their testing, it still doesn't hide
> the fact that their ISO ratings have absolutely no application that I
> can think of in real life. Except for the limited applications which I
> already identified.
>
> But DXO's hands were somewhat tied because the manufacturers will game
> the midtone settings to apply curves to protect the highlights or
> shadows. This is well documented about the EM5, for example. (Yes,
> Moose, even Ctein wrote about it about the time he discovered some
> weird motion blurring that he couldn't explain). The saturation point
> measurement may actually be the only thing they could use. But the
> results of it are more for calculation of dynamic range than for any
> practical purpose. It's not something you are going to dial in on your
> ISO dial. (Oooo oooo DXO says that 100 is actually 125 so let's dial
> that in..... hmmm... why are my pictures all dark?)
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|