I know, so which sentences in what I posted are you saying are not true? 😎
May 9, 2023
810
-
-
ive just shot my white backdrop and my call is Fast Raw Viewer is screwed up .
-
So I will take that as you saying what I posted was all accurate 😄
-
A wise man once told me a bad tradesman always blames his tools and you are living proof of that 😄
Post something, anything that actually proves your opinion is even close to being correct.
-
Its just not the right tool for my jobs. as i said take your camera shoot a piece of white paper and set custom WB the re shoot the white paper full screen and take it into raw viewer and tell me what you get. it always says green is most prominent . its no use to me. I need programs that have lens corrections added, all lens have different colours.
-
Post something, anything that actually proves your opinion
is even close to being correct.
does not even come close to proving your opinion
is true.
You are slandering a product/app you clearly know very little about.
-
Sound strange to me if we're talking about the best raw exposure. Lens corrections would be applied in processing, not to the raw file (although Sony has been known to play fast and loose with the raw file).
-
its all smoke and mirrors , the best raw image exposure is what i already do. no one has posted any images to prove the raw histograms worth. so ive made the discission and have binned all the raw viewer programs. so no more raw histograms comparisons. they show me less than what i already have. Feel free to post 2 comparison images though, one that you have corrected by 1/3 of a stop, im sure we will all see the difference 🙄 but was all good fun experimenting.
-
That is your opinion but you haven't posted anything that shows you had the best raw exposure*
In this and other threads I have seen images that prove to me that raw histograms can be very useful.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
my a74 by default adds lens correction that cant be turned off.
-
I very much doubt that. You possibly do a raw image exposure you're happy with, but the best exposure for raw? Nothing like.
For non-critical users there probably isn't a lot of difference - but the 'best' is absolute. I can't be bothered to go after 'the best' for most of what I do - others can. People like Jim and Iliah have the knowledge and experience to work out what is 'the best' and develop a systematic route to it. There's no reason that you need to disprove anything, just that you're not really worried about 'the best' if it's too much trouble, like most of us.
Now if the camera manufacturers made it a bit less trouble... -
YAWN! Why dont you two get a life, or two? I have lost count of the threads here that you have polluted with repetitions of the same mantras. Luckily I never encountered you on DPR, but you seem unavoidable here and you sure know how to diminish my pleasure in reading this site, without adding anything significant to the sum of our knowledge.
David
-
It all comes down to what you shoot ,i shoot lots of portraits. best exposure ! use the best camera that has the best face metering system. for ambient lighting you can set the sonys zebras to 70% and expose the faces to them as well, but useless for fill flash. the video guys have extensive ways to shoot the ultimate exposure . still shooters dont use half the tools available they use.
-
No, it all comes down to whether you really want the 'best exposure' or your willing to settle for good enough. Remember, in raw 'best exposure' has nothing to do with the image lightness and everything to do with maximising information content. But in most cases the difference between 'best' and 'good enough' is visually not that big unless you're very critical.
-
Determine best . there is no best period.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm8D-7Z8pdo&t=97s -
I did, the exposure that maximises information capture. There is no other rational criterion for 'best' when it comes to raw exposure. Unless you define the criterion against which you're judging the word 'best' is meaningless.
That video is all about video shooting, and by implication processed rather than raw images - completely irrelevant to exposure for raw.
-
its perfectly relevant in the field . no one shots for max raw information in the field on the fly thats any different than shooting jpeg.
-
People do, so the statement that 'no-one shoots for max raw information in the field' is just plain wrong. In any case, whether or not people take the trouble for 'best' doesn't make it not 'best'. It just makes it not always worthwhile aiming for 'best'.
In any case, that video gives zero useful information on what is the 'best' exposure for raw. I'll not comment on whether or not it gives any other useful information.
