can you share some of your best custom simulation for Fuji X-T2?

[Ysarex]

I'm afraid not

Even on manual?? You've never steered me wrong but I find that hard to believe, unless it's one of the menu adjustments that specifically affects the raw file

Even on manual, yes. It doesn't matter how you make the exposure. Likewise the various camera settings that change the look of a JPEG have at most a minor effect.

Simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo. So we can take that fact and say, OK then more exposure. Trouble is there's the sensor threshold to deal with -- clipped highlights. It's like a cliff at the end of the road. Don't go over the cliff. Think of it as a game of chicken where the winner is the one who stops closest to the cliff edge. The loser either never even gets scared or, oh well.........

So the various camera manufacturers are chicken -- makes sense from their perspective and I'd do the same if I were them. They design the JPEG software and their camera's metering systems to generate a good (well-exposed) JPEG from a conservative exposure that stays a safe distance back from the cliff. To achieve their camera's good JPEG you have to expose well back from the cliff edge. Fair to assume a lot of photographers endorse that practice since the alternative is risking going over the cliff. How risk avoidance are we?

Here's an example using my X-T2. First the photo that I took and processed from the raw file:

Now here's the JPEG that the camera generates from that same raw file:

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter. The camera meter and the camera's JPEG processing software wanted a raw file with less exposure. This camera JPEG is overexposed and the highlights are clipped. It's a failure.

But the camera sensor was not overexposed and the raw file is not overexposed. I went right to the cliff edge but I did not go over. Here's the raw file histogram for that photo:

I placed the magenta line there to mark my sensor's highlight threshold -- the cliff edge. To get the camera to make a JPEG that isn't a failure I'd have to back that exposure down, by at least a stop. In other words I'd have to join with Fuji's engineers and chicken out. I don't want to do that because, simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo and I nailed this one.

What I'm describing here is camera make/model specific. You know I'm semi-retired and still teach college students. That gives me access to all their cameras so that over the course of the year I get my hands on all the various entry level cameras, a good smattering of the mid-level cameras and a few of the top end models and I'm able to test them. They're all chicken to one degree or another. They expose the sensor very conservatively to make a good JPEG. If I had to quote an average for them all I'd say 2/3 stop, but really leaning more toward a stop. From one perspective that's not a big deal and they're doing the right thing -- going over the cliff is terminal. The other perspective is how much you want to agree with this guy: "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." -- Michelangelo

Joe

P.S. To see what your camera does shoot raw + JPEG and when you get what you think is a really well-exposed JPEG look at the raw file in RawDigger. See how close that exposure is to your sensor threshold.

 

[smoke665]

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter.

I think we may be talking the same thing in a different way. If I'm shooting strictly manual, (speaking specifically K3II here) shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are constant for any file, whether I choose to save it to card as a Raw file or tell it to also create JPEG (Raw+). Granted it may or may not be a good JPEG as in your example, but the Raw file should still be as I shot it, the full sensor Raw data is still in there - including areas which lie outside of the presented JPEG. The exception might be a certain amount of NR applied dependent on the camera manufacturer and model.

Interesting side note, in researching this I found a posting by you in DP Review on "camera settings that change the raw file", from 2013. Apparently you don't like change because you were using the same profile picture way back then. LOL

 

[Ysarex]

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter.

I think we may be talking the same thing in a different way. If I'm shooting strictly manual, (speaking specifically K3II here) shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are constant for any file, whether I choose to save it to card as a Raw file or tell it to also create JPEG (Raw+). Granted it may or may not be a good JPEG as in your example, but the Raw file should still be as I shot it, the full sensor Raw data is still in there - including areas which lie outside of the presented JPEG.

Yes. Switching the camera to save raw+JPEG doesn't adversely effect the raw file. It's still saved as it would be if you shot raw only. The point I'm making is that exposure for the two is different. A good exposure for the camera JPEG will generally be an underexposure for the raw file and a good exposure for the raw file will generally be an overexposure for the JPEG. So what happens to most people who chose the raw+JPEG option is they adjust exposure to get a good JPEG and all their raw files are consistently underexposed. No fix for that.

The exception might be a certain amount of NR applied dependent on the camera manufacturer and model.

Interesting side note, in researching this I found a posting by you in DP Review on "camera settings that change the raw file", from 2013. Apparently you don't like change because you were using the same profile picture way back then. LOL

Yep, that's me. Don't spend too much time over at DPreview any more -- too many trolls over there. This is the best photo forum.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm afraid not

Even on manual?? You've never steered me wrong but I find that hard to believe, unless it's one of the menu adjustments that specifically affects the raw file

Even on manual, yes. It doesn't matter how you make the exposure. Likewise the various camera settings that change the look of a JPEG have at most a minor effect.

Simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo. So we can take that fact and say, OK then more exposure. Trouble is there's the sensor threshold to deal with -- clipped highlights. It's like a cliff at the end of the road. Don't go over the cliff. Think of it as a game of chicken where the winner is the one who stops closest to the cliff edge. The loser either never even gets scared or, oh well.........

So the various camera manufacturers are chicken -- makes sense from their perspective and I'd do the same if I were them. They design the JPEG software and their camera's metering systems to generate a good (well-exposed) JPEG from a conservative exposure that stays a safe distance back from the cliff. To achieve their camera's good JPEG you have to expose well back from the cliff edge. Fair to assume a lot of photographers endorse that practice since the alternative is risking going over the cliff. How risk avoidance are we?

Here's an example using my X-T2. First the photo that I took and processed from the raw file:

View attachment 139492

Now here's the JPEG that the camera generates from that same raw file:

View attachment 139493

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter. The camera meter and the camera's JPEG processing software wanted a raw file with less exposure. This camera JPEG is overexposed and the highlights are clipped. It's a failure.

But the camera sensor was not overexposed and the raw file is not overexposed. I went right to the cliff edge but I did not go over. Here's the raw file histogram for that photo:

View attachment 139494

I placed the magenta line there to mark my sensor's highlight threshold -- the cliff edge. To get the camera to make a JPEG that isn't a failure I'd have to back that exposure down, by at least a stop. In other words I'd have to join with Fuji's engineers and chicken out. I don't want to do that because, simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo and I nailed this one.

What I'm describing here is camera make/model specific. You know I'm semi-retired and still teach college students. That gives me access to all their cameras so that over the course of the year I get my hands on all the various entry level cameras, a good smattering of the mid-level cameras and a few of the top end models and I'm able to test them. They're all chicken to one degree or another. They expose the sensor very conservatively to make a good JPEG. If I had to quote an average for them all I'd say 2/3 stop, but really leaning more toward a stop. From one perspective that's not a big deal and they're doing the right thing -- going over the cliff is terminal. The other perspective is how much you want to agree with this guy: "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." -- Michelangelo

Joe

P.S. To see what your camera does shoot raw + JPEG and when you get what you think is a really well-exposed JPEG look at the raw file in RawDigger. See how close that exposure is to your sensor threshold.

Man, you look at all that? Amazing really.

 

[smoke665]

Man, you look at all that

Ok, I'll admit to a little OCD sometimes. LOL All kidding aside I erroneously assumed that if I saved a Raw+ to card that the JPEG would reflect the same exposure as the Raw, with all the menu enhancements off. Never considered the fact that the $%#$%$ camera was still going to change it. Even after Joe pointed it out I had to verify it myself by comparing the histograms,

 

[Ysarex]

I'm afraid not

Even on manual?? You've never steered me wrong but I find that hard to believe, unless it's one of the menu adjustments that specifically affects the raw file

Even on manual, yes. It doesn't matter how you make the exposure. Likewise the various camera settings that change the look of a JPEG have at most a minor effect.

Simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo. So we can take that fact and say, OK then more exposure. Trouble is there's the sensor threshold to deal with -- clipped highlights. It's like a cliff at the end of the road. Don't go over the cliff. Think of it as a game of chicken where the winner is the one who stops closest to the cliff edge. The loser either never even gets scared or, oh well.........

So the various camera manufacturers are chicken -- makes sense from their perspective and I'd do the same if I were them. They design the JPEG software and their camera's metering systems to generate a good (well-exposed) JPEG from a conservative exposure that stays a safe distance back from the cliff. To achieve their camera's good JPEG you have to expose well back from the cliff edge. Fair to assume a lot of photographers endorse that practice since the alternative is risking going over the cliff. How risk avoidance are we?

Here's an example using my X-T2. First the photo that I took and processed from the raw file:

View attachment 139492

Now here's the JPEG that the camera generates from that same raw file:

View attachment 139493

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter. The camera meter and the camera's JPEG processing software wanted a raw file with less exposure. This camera JPEG is overexposed and the highlights are clipped. It's a failure.

But the camera sensor was not overexposed and the raw file is not overexposed. I went right to the cliff edge but I did not go over. Here's the raw file histogram for that photo:

View attachment 139494

I placed the magenta line there to mark my sensor's highlight threshold -- the cliff edge. To get the camera to make a JPEG that isn't a failure I'd have to back that exposure down, by at least a stop. In other words I'd have to join with Fuji's engineers and chicken out. I don't want to do that because, simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo and I nailed this one.

What I'm describing here is camera make/model specific. You know I'm semi-retired and still teach college students. That gives me access to all their cameras so that over the course of the year I get my hands on all the various entry level cameras, a good smattering of the mid-level cameras and a few of the top end models and I'm able to test them. They're all chicken to one degree or another. They expose the sensor very conservatively to make a good JPEG. If I had to quote an average for them all I'd say 2/3 stop, but really leaning more toward a stop. From one perspective that's not a big deal and they're doing the right thing -- going over the cliff is terminal. The other perspective is how much you want to agree with this guy: "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." -- Michelangelo

Joe

P.S. To see what your camera does shoot raw + JPEG and when you get what you think is a really well-exposed JPEG look at the raw file in RawDigger. See how close that exposure is to your sensor threshold.

Man, you look at all that? Amazing really.

It's my job to look at all that. When I walk into a classroom I'm supposed to know how it works.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

I'm afraid not

Even on manual?? You've never steered me wrong but I find that hard to believe, unless it's one of the menu adjustments that specifically affects the raw file

Even on manual, yes. It doesn't matter how you make the exposure. Likewise the various camera settings that change the look of a JPEG have at most a minor effect.

Simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo. So we can take that fact and say, OK then more exposure. Trouble is there's the sensor threshold to deal with -- clipped highlights. It's like a cliff at the end of the road. Don't go over the cliff. Think of it as a game of chicken where the winner is the one who stops closest to the cliff edge. The loser either never even gets scared or, oh well.........

So the various camera manufacturers are chicken -- makes sense from their perspective and I'd do the same if I were them. They design the JPEG software and their camera's metering systems to generate a good (well-exposed) JPEG from a conservative exposure that stays a safe distance back from the cliff. To achieve their camera's good JPEG you have to expose well back from the cliff edge. Fair to assume a lot of photographers endorse that practice since the alternative is risking going over the cliff. How risk avoidance are we?

Here's an example using my X-T2. First the photo that I took and processed from the raw file:

View attachment 139492

Now here's the JPEG that the camera generates from that same raw file:

View attachment 139493

My exposure for this photograph was +1.67 stops above the zero indication on the camera's meter. Whether I got there using the camera in manual or auto doesn't at all matter. The camera meter and the camera's JPEG processing software wanted a raw file with less exposure. This camera JPEG is overexposed and the highlights are clipped. It's a failure.

But the camera sensor was not overexposed and the raw file is not overexposed. I went right to the cliff edge but I did not go over. Here's the raw file histogram for that photo:

View attachment 139494

I placed the magenta line there to mark my sensor's highlight threshold -- the cliff edge. To get the camera to make a JPEG that isn't a failure I'd have to back that exposure down, by at least a stop. In other words I'd have to join with Fuji's engineers and chicken out. I don't want to do that because, simple fact: The more you expose a digital sensor the better the signal and therefore the better the photo and I nailed this one.

What I'm describing here is camera make/model specific. You know I'm semi-retired and still teach college students. That gives me access to all their cameras so that over the course of the year I get my hands on all the various entry level cameras, a good smattering of the mid-level cameras and a few of the top end models and I'm able to test them. They're all chicken to one degree or another. They expose the sensor very conservatively to make a good JPEG. If I had to quote an average for them all I'd say 2/3 stop, but really leaning more toward a stop. From one perspective that's not a big deal and they're doing the right thing -- going over the cliff is terminal. The other perspective is how much you want to agree with this guy: "Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." -- Michelangelo

Joe

P.S. To see what your camera does shoot raw + JPEG and when you get what you think is a really well-exposed JPEG look at the raw file in RawDigger. See how close that exposure is to your sensor threshold.

Man, you look at all that? Amazing really.

It's my job to look at all that. When I walk into a classroom I'm supposed to know how it works.

Joe

I think it is very interesting and informative.