Granny Isabella's Iris

[Ysarex]

The owner of the house next to ours is I believe 93. She's had irises in the backyard since we moved in 24 years ago and they're still there and they've migrated across the fence to our yard. They're an old and plain cultivar but I'm very fond of them. Got a break from gardening and managed to take a few snaps.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

Nice colors and that second one is great!

 

[annamaria]

Love the second one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

These are nice. My Mom grew Irises.

 

[Ysarex]

Nice colors and that second one is great!

Love the second one.

These are nice. My Mom grew Irises.

Thanks all, glad you it.

Smoke, considering your earlier question from this week. Take the 2nd photo as an example. There's nothing about the light (extremely flat overcast) or the subject brightness that would indicated anything other than a normal metered exposure. Had I taken the photo then following the camera meter indication (zero meter) I could expect a well exposed JPEG.

Instead I exposed at +1.3 stops above the meter's zero point. Here's the photo above set side by side with the JPEG SOOC (on right).

I'll call that JPEG overexposed. The highlights aren't clipped but it has a blown red channel. And here's the histogram for the raw file.

I added the magenta line to indicate the sensor's highlight threshold. I could have squeezed another 1/3 stop of exposure onto that and I should have. So a perfect raw file exposure would have been at +1.6 stops above the meter's zero indication. So this is my new Fuji X-T2 and this is consistently what I've been getting. A different camera manufacturer/designer will be different, but they're all chicken to some degree.

A further note: In the case of this photo it really does matter. It was gloomy outside to the point of on/off drizzle. I had a tripod but it was windy enough that I had to get the shutter speed up. Arguably into the macro range I shot at f/8 but would have preferred to shoot at f/11. So I'm in a forced raise the ISO situation -- I took the photo at ISO 3200. If I had gone with the camera's meter and targeted their JPEG processor I would have been reducing a high ISO raw file exposure by at least a stop and that is a seriously bad idea.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

Nice colors and that second one is great!

Love the second one.

These are nice. My Mom grew Irises.

Thanks all, glad you it.

Smoke, considering your earlier question from this week. Take the 2nd photo as an example. There's nothing about the light (extremely flat overcast) or the subject brightness that would indicated anything other than a normal metered exposure. Had I taken the photo then following the camera meter indication (zero meter) I could expect a well exposed JPEG.

Instead I exposed at +1.3 stops above the meter's zero point. Here's the photo above set side by side with the JPEG SOOC (on right).

View attachment 139806

I'll call that JPEG overexposed. The highlights aren't clipped but it has a blown red channel. And here's the histogram for the raw file.

View attachment 139807

I added the magenta line to indicate the sensor's highlight threshold. I could have squeezed another 1/3 stop of exposure onto that and I should have. So a perfect raw file exposure would have been at +1.6 stops above the meter's zero indication. So this is my new Fuji X-T2 and this is consistently what I've been getting. A different camera manufacturer/designer will be different, but they're all chicken to some degree.

A further note: In the case of this photo it really does matter. It was gloomy outside to the point of on/off drizzle. I had a tripod but it was windy enough that I had to get the shutter speed up. Arguably into the macro range I shot at f/8 but would have preferred to shoot at f/11. So I'm in a forced raise the ISO situation -- I took the photo at ISO 3200. If I had gone with the camera's meter and targeted their JPEG processor I would have been reducing a high ISO raw file exposure by at least a stop and that is a seriously bad idea.

Joe

Very, very, informative. Time to experiment. What software is that?
Man, I would love to work with you for a day....

 

[Ysarex]

Nice colors and that second one is great!

Love the second one.

These are nice. My Mom grew Irises.

Thanks all, glad you it.

Smoke, considering your earlier question from this week. Take the 2nd photo as an example. There's nothing about the light (extremely flat overcast) or the subject brightness that would indicated anything other than a normal metered exposure. Had I taken the photo then following the camera meter indication (zero meter) I could expect a well exposed JPEG.

Instead I exposed at +1.3 stops above the meter's zero point. Here's the photo above set side by side with the JPEG SOOC (on right).

View attachment 139806

I'll call that JPEG overexposed. The highlights aren't clipped but it has a blown red channel. And here's the histogram for the raw file.

View attachment 139807

I added the magenta line to indicate the sensor's highlight threshold. I could have squeezed another 1/3 stop of exposure onto that and I should have. So a perfect raw file exposure would have been at +1.6 stops above the meter's zero indication. So this is my new Fuji X-T2 and this is consistently what I've been getting. A different camera manufacturer/designer will be different, but they're all chicken to some degree.

A further note: In the case of this photo it really does matter. It was gloomy outside to the point of on/off drizzle. I had a tripod but it was windy enough that I had to get the shutter speed up. Arguably into the macro range I shot at f/8 but would have preferred to shoot at f/11. So I'm in a forced raise the ISO situation -- I took the photo at ISO 3200. If I had gone with the camera's meter and targeted their JPEG processor I would have been reducing a high ISO raw file exposure by at least a stop and that is a seriously bad idea.

Joe

Very, very, informative. Time to experiment. What software is that?
Man, I would love to work with you for a day....

Software? The photos are processed using Capture One. The histogram graphic is grabbed from RawDigger.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex I hadn't really thought about this until that first thread. I have a preset in LR that automatically bumps the exposure up on import so it was out of sight out of mind. Then your comments started me thinking about data I was failing to record. So now I've switched to exposing to right of center on the camera or using the handheld meter to sample the scene and arrive at an exposure.

I would love to work with you for a day....

I'd like to kidnap him for several days to pick his brain.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex I hadn't really thought about this until that first thread. I have a preset in LR that automatically bumps the exposure up on import so it was out of sight out of mind. Then your comments started me thinking about data I was failing to record.

Yep -- data. Call it data because bottom line is that's what we're dealing with working with digital. And then this simple rule applies: more data is better than less data. Just remember that your data container has a fixed size and if you grab more data than will fit into the container:

That's what RawDigger is for. You can get a real look at the data you've collected and see it relative to the cliff edge.

So now I've switched to exposing to right of center on the camera or using the handheld meter to sample the scene and arrive at an exposure.

I would love to work with you for a day....

I'd like to kidnap him for several days to pick his brain.

I'm flattered.

Joe

 

[weepete]

Nice shots Joe, I particularly like the way you've retained the colours but kept the contrast. Good explination as well, I'll need to have a look at that raw digger as I think I'm hitting the highlight more than I'd like in my shots. That's the first time I've heard of the term though, just going by what I see ehen the whites are retained in the histogram but still look blown in the final cut.

 

[Ysarex]

Nice shots Joe, I particularly like the way you've retained the colours but kept the contrast. Good explination as well, I'll need to have a look at that raw digger as I think I'm hitting the highlight more than I'd like in my shots. That's the first time I've heard of the term though, just going by what I see ehen the whites are retained in the histogram but still look blown in the final cut.

Thanks. Not sure I understand to what term you're referring. Anyway, there's different types of histograms that don't all show the same thing. RawDigger is designed to let you see the raw file histograms for each channel.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Love that car going into the water graphic! It reminds me of an early 1940's American car, or a 1960's-era French Citroen!

Love the way you preach the gospel about over-exposing one's raw captures, in order to later get a better finished image.

Pretty doggone amazing to know that that image was made at ISO 3,200 and turned out so well; I recall the days when ISO 400 digital was often unusably noisy without heavy noise reduction being applied!

 

[smoke665]

over-exposing one's raw captures, in order to later get a better finished image.

Point of order, the gospel is to take it to the edge without going "over". Kinda like life