Nikon D300 HDR out of the camera !!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Sosumi, Mar 2, 2008.

  1. Sosumi

    John Sheehy Guest

    That's typical of conversions. The RAW data blows out very rarely in the
    red channel; it is only the attempt by the converters to render very
    saturated reds that blows them out.

    Many a digital photo with red flowers has been severely under-exposed to
    prevent a blow-out, unnecessarily.

    John Sheehy, Mar 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    Yes, with 5 or 6 pictures, bracketing and a hdr program...
    That's the whole idea: doing it without post processing..
    But *you* were not there and *I* was. It's very, very accurate in color and
    everything else.
    The purpose of tracking is to follow the subject and keep it in focus, at
    any cost.
    So who cares how that happened?
    If my dog spoke English, would you argue that it didn't speak German?

    More important to me was the fact that the camera could take a picture of a
    seagull while looking into the sun. It proves that the camera sees more then
    the human eye. I know I didn't see anything at that moment....
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    I think that's one of the problems in the world today: too many masters, too
    few pupils ;-)
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
  4. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    He should get a D300 or D3 and see what a
    That's funny, it hasn't done shit for your photography.

    He's been teaching me how to be a
    Talk about a monumental task. You have a top of the line camera and lessons
    from a pro but your photos look like they were taken by a ten year old with a
    cheap point and shoot, how do you explain that ?

    If you're lucky he might have some room for you too.
    XxYyZz, Mar 4, 2008
  5. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    So beyond any doubt, you do much better. So show us your stuff, instead of
    criticizing others in a childish way.
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
  6. Sosumi

    Pboud Guest

    You know, I have to admit this "put up or shut up" approach is *very*
    refreshing.. Much better than a lot of the other NGs I see.

    Pboud, Mar 4, 2008
  7. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    If you don't care to read what I post put me in your killfile.
    XxYyZz, Mar 4, 2008
  8. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    That's what I thought: all talk no action. But I wont put you in the 86
    file... yet. Just curious what other "contributions" you are going to
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
  9. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    Ah yes, the old "I wont put you in the 86 file... yet". What's that you
    say, "all talk and no action"

    Why the name change Sosumi ? And why change your name just to comment to
    XxYyZz, Mar 4, 2008
  10. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    Oh, your ego is playing tricks on you if you think I changed my nick for
    you, LOL.
    No, just got tired of the old one. Used it for many years, time for a change
    in changing times ;-)
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
  11. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    No ego problem here, just an honest question. It's just coincidental that
    the first time I noticed your new name was in your reply to me.

    You also stated "No, just got tired of the old one." I think that's the same
    excuse D-Mac uses. :)
    XxYyZz, Mar 4, 2008
  12. Sosumi

    Focus Guest

    Maybe you also don't read Dutch newsgroups?
    I don't know what a "D-Mac" is. A very big Big Mac?

    Any way, I feel you're one of those guys who will allways want to have the
    last post.
    So go ahead...
    Focus, Mar 4, 2008
  13. Yes, he's one of the regular sock puppets we have on here. Asking him to
    show some of his wonderful images will fall on deaf ears. Its best we don't
    see them anyway since he'll be embarrassed to the point of self inflicted

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 5, 2008
  14. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    Next to your crap photos anyones would look good.
    XxYyZz, Mar 5, 2008
  15. 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?

    Since the camera does the post processing in that case.
    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)

    Not at 'any' cost. Killing anyone who might hamper the focus
    is usually considered excessive.
    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 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
    Uh, why not?
    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.


    [1] Ever tried the 'place the right sized sun disk into this
    near-sunset image'? Ever seen how most people choose a
    sun several sizes too large?
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2008
  16. Then I'm sure you can top this one with any one of your mediocre snaps? Did
    a fashion show today, so this is an outtake and not one of my better shots.


    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 5, 2008
  17. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Well, if there were more people like him and less like you,
    Rita, with your rather anal repetitive photos ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2008
  18. Self Portrait ??
    Atheist Chaplain, Mar 5, 2008
  19. Sosumi

    Mike Guest

    Don't be so hard on yourself, Rita. That photo was a perfect visualization of
    your photographic abilities.
    Mike, Mar 5, 2008
  20. Sosumi

    XxYyZz Guest

    Looks like a photo of Rita's lunch. Get while it's still warm.
    XxYyZz, Mar 5, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.