Re: Nikon D300 HDR out of the camera !!


"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0o91a5-ol1.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Focus <focus@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iimu95-u7l.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Sosumi <sosumi@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Amazing detail in shadows with ActiveD-lighting, without blown
highlights

Nothing that post-processing couldn't do, given a shooter who
knows what he does.

Yes, with 5 or 6 pictures, bracketing and a hdr program...

A shooter understanding what he does (or at least can follow
orders), a single shot, no bracketing and any reasonably competent
RAW converter is sufficient.

Unless you are saying that the camera does something between
turning electrons into RAW data ... are you saying that?


That's the whole idea: doing it without post processing..

Since the camera does the post processing in that case.

*I* feel that the drywasher inside looks too ... flat.

But *you* were not there and *I* was. It's very, very accurate in color
and
everything else.

Your eyes accomodate.
You build up an image picemeal (starting with saccadic movement).
Your post processing includes an extremely advanced AWB, mixed
light handling and dynamic range handling.
Added to that comes the brain as a storage medium.[1]

There's a reason why people who take colour management seriously
and truly understand it, do not use not their own eyes but hardware
to measure colour.

I believe you that the image, after processing by your brain, *is*
very accurate in colour and 'everything else' compared to your
processed and compressed recollection of the scene. Since I
seriously doubt your monitor can put out the same luminance as
the sun on the white-washed building, this accuracy is at best
'relative'! (strike one)

Now let us add in the fact that everyone's brain is a bit different
(not to mention ones' eyes), and "sees" differently. (strike two)

Finally, the introspective capability of ones visual qualities is
absurdly low. Ever notice your own black spot outside a test?
See how the brain re-composes and processes the visual data?
(strike three)


Shows how well the D300's 3D tracking focus works and a picture showing
details of a seagull.... shot straight at the sun !!

DOF as percentage of the distance of the gull and had you been
tracking it before it entered the sun?
(As in: 'Sure the camera didn't track it before and then used
the last setting?'.)

The purpose of tracking is to follow the subject and keep it in focus, at
any cost.

Not at 'any' cost. Killing anyone who might hamper the focus
is usually considered excessive.

So who cares how that happened?

Your claim is that the camera tracked the gull against the sun.
I content that your image does not prove in the least that that
happened. Good tracking is when you start having things (like
fence posts or tree limbs, for example), interfering ... and the
camera still doing the right thing.

If my dog spoke English, would you argue that it didn't speak German?

If I saw your dog and heard English spoken, I'd not assume your
dog spoke English as first, second or third explanation.
Not for an English Mastiff and _certainly_ not for a German
Shepherd.

More important to me was the fact that the camera could take a picture of
a
seagull while looking into the sun.

Uh, why not?

It proves that the camera sees more then
the human eye. I know I didn't see anything at that moment....

This proves --- if it proves anything --- at most that *that*
camera, with *that* lens, at exactly *that* situation, could
accomodate faster than your eye could.

Please, do learn a bit about logic, it's so much easier for the
rest of the world.

The only logical conclusion I come to, is that you would argue with a
statue...


--
Focus


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon D300 HDR out of the camera !!
    ... Since the camera does the post processing in that case. ... Your eyes accomodate. ... I believe you that the image, after processing by your brain, *is* ... the sun on the white-washed building, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: eyes?
    ... the eyes are basically a sophisticated camera, and no camera results in a ... there is no reason we should see a picture around us, ... why do we end up with a picture outside of us, when then eye and brain ... The eyes receive input, the retinas do some minimal processing, then ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: slightly Off Topic
    ... because you do not seem to know this camera. ... You cannot damage your eyes looking at an LCD. ... the sun to you image sensor is not problematic, However, and this is ...
    (alt.graphics.photoshop)
  • Re: eyes?
    ... We don't see with our eyes, we see with our brain. ... the eyes are basically a sophisticated camera, and no camera results in a ... there is no reason we should see a picture around us, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: UV and Eyes
    ... No. Sun is necessary for the eyes. ... >>wear sunglasses more than necessary because the brain likes everyday light ... > I think the brain does just fine behind sunglasses. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)