Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About davidrodkeller

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Additional Info

  • Camera Model & Brand
    A bunch of stuff that isn't helping my efforts to retire
  1. All of that, including the inaccuracies, is irrelevant to my comment. Well, I guess asking a question about 14-bit processing after I had already made an unprompted answer could be considered relative Again, what a company puts on the market is not limited by what they are capable of putting on the market. If I look at Canon and Nikon's respective lineups, it all makes sense......except where Canon has incorporated higher processing without greater dr sensor. I suspect this was done entirely for speed to service their long, fast, glass customer base. MkIII meets that niche quite nicely I think. People on both sides of this fence seem to drink the Kool-Aid in gallons
  2. Dirty data, whether it's the result of sensor blooming on the high end or underexposing on the low end remains the same. 14-bit processing just places a greater scrutiny (levels/gradation) on it. This is analogous to what happened when we used 10, 12 and 16 mp cameras with lenses designed when 4, 6 and 8 mp cameras were the hi-end. Suddenly what we once couldn't see now came into a sharp focus, and some of it we didn't like much. It changed how we shot and changed what lens we shot with. Example: 12-24mm nik behind a dome. 14-bit.......essentially, in the case of sunballs, it will heighten the evidence of fringing on the high end as well as the evidence of noise on the low end. Plus it will preclude using underexposure as a workaround for the same two issues. Better processing will require cleaner capture data if the proportional distributions remain the same (Canon has not indicated they have changed). Sunballs or the popular workarounds when shooting sunballs do not deliver cleaner data. I cannot see how greater scrutiny on dirty data makes the image better. I can see how 14-bit and higher processing will make us shoot in a way that minimizes what we now consider acceptable. I can also see why it is better. I just don't believe it will make certain shoots improve without first being captured on a sensor with higher dr. Sunballs is one of those image types. I won't bore anyone with further comments on this subject
  3. Why? I don't think the mkIII represents advancements that most other manufacturers, and certainly Nikon, don't already have in the bag too. I think *when* we see cameras and advances or evolution has more to do with marketing than it does with when or how the company applied new or advanced technologies. These two companies are way more similar in what they are capable of than their decidedly different product goals and marketing targets would otherwise make one believe. It would not surprise me if Nikon doesn't incorprate higher bit processing in future bodies until they have a sensor capable of reducing blooming without a greater reliance on gates. In the end you can make better, more accurate, efficient and effective cameras, but what good does it do if the lens products don't keep up? Both Canon and Nikon are past that point already and need to play catch-up with their optical offerings.
  4. Perhaps it wasn't you who said 14-bit will appreciably improve sunbursts. My apologies for the inaccurate cite. That specific rule or determination is the result of how the software applies the collected data. Your example of underexposing would be fine if the cameras applied data to lower levels using the same protocols they use for upper levels. And at the risk of stating the obvious: if the camera applies half of captured data to the highest exposure, half the remaining to the next highest, half the remaining to the next highest, and so on down the line it is clear that if we want to capture most image data at underexposed values we will not be working with anything close to clean or sufficient data. You just can't stretch that thin dirty data in post without ending up with very high levels of noise and other unpleasing results specific to digital capture. That's one of the problems with sunball shots, the sunball itself is using up so much of the total possible data that there is very little left for the more pleasing exposed areas of the image. Underexposing only exacerbates the problem. But yes, it would be fair to conclude that many of my personal rules for digital capture are the result of the insufficient dr of cameras on the market as well as the data spread currently used. Your Canons and my Nikons are equally guilty of both. No current camera proportions data differently at this point in time, including the mkIII.
  5. VOA is not an option for citizens of **all** countries, so check. The passport photos are no longer required, the copies of visa are not required, you just need 3 copies of passport picture pages. The boat will collect 100 bucks for park fee. I've visited Raja 3 times, my 4th is in two weeks, and these things, save the money, have changed a couple times over those 4 trips. And except for the money no one has ever asked to see or collect the photos or copies at the time they were "required". In my experience Papua is a moving target and one should attempt to get the most current info rather than accepting what any of us experienced during our last trips, regardless how recent.
  6. I don't have a lot of hard fast rules when shooting digital, but one of them is that I don't underexpose by 2 stops for the purpose of bringing it back up in post. Expanding thin (left) data just doesn't work. My preferences is to always compress thin data and stretch fat (right) data. Plus my suspicion is that 14-bit processing will accentuate the problems inherent in stretching thin data. It's going to let you really see how little data was applied for the lower levels. I agree with you that coupling greater than 12-bit processing with a sufficiently hi dynamic range sensor is the holy grail for these really high contrast shots, but in the case of sunbalss I don't see any benefit from 14-bit processing alone.
  7. I understand why we get what we get, but here is my thinking: why would 14-bit processing eliminate or mitigate blooming and the resulting visible fringing? Or why better defined and gradated color fringing (which probably won't be the reality anyway) is an improvement. As we know better defined errors or failures are one of the pitfalls of digital capture. I just notice that Canon has made no claim to the effect that the sensor has been enabled to bucket more charge. And that is what we are really looking for, at least those of us who do find sunballs/burst on current digital systems displeasing. I recognize that Herb, Paul and a few others disagreed with my earlier assertion that sunballs/bursts from current technology are bad (I may have said crap ).
  8. I read that, but I also read the sentence about increased noise and you cannot have both. Stretching left data and compressing right data will deliver better highlights but generates a noiser image. You can do that in post now. Because they don't talk about actual capture advances, I suspect HTP is really just a metadata tag generated by the camera software rather than a true expansion of the camera's capture ability. It's probably a very nice adjustment for the given example but white dress highlights doesn't quite replicate the drastic contrast of an underwater sunball/sunburst. Please keep in mind that my comment was in response to suggestions that 14-bit would be of some cure to sunball/sunburst ills. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the available literature to indicate that blooming and then the resulting visible fringing have been mitigated.
  9. If I understand Canon's comments on this camera, all that is happening is more levels of gradation per color within the same dynamic range. This will decrease the need for interpolation or increase it's accuracy either in camera or in converter, but I don't see why it will cure an ill whose major cause is close dynamic parameters. That's not to say it isn't a vaulable evolution for other reasons though.
  10. Please, this isn't meant as a rant against Ikelite products. Ike was such a mercurial and lovable presence on forums and boards that predate Wetpixel by more than a decade, that he gained something of a free ride because divers (before uw-photo lists/boards existed Ike was on scuba boards talking about his dive lights) and photographers were so happy to have someone from the industry speaking to them directly. Consequently it isn't often anyone is comfortable speaking up about Ikelite's deficiencies. I am not even now. But I believe your question is relevant only if the strobes perform reliably after the initial repair. In the case of all my strobes this did not happen. I would hardly have much concern about Ike products if after the initial repair they performed reliably from that point on. I note that the apparent premise for your question is closely aligned, intended or not, with my opinion that the purchasing public is too much of a beta group for Ike products. And just as a point of consideration, rather than a statement of proof-positive: Ike has a well deserved reputation for excellence in service response (which is not necessarily the same thing as excellent service, and if you've had a failed strobe fail again after repair you know what I mean). Of course one then mus ask why we are all so familiar with their service record? Is it possible that some of that service wouldn't be necessary if sufficient quality, at purchase, was more uniform? Again, this is not a rant but rather a simple exchange of experience. In some ways Ikelite's service reputation counter-balances their quality issues but some people just don't have the money or time to see their way through the difficulties troubled ike strobes can present. So it doesn't seem right to not mention my own circumstances where Ike strobes are the point of conversation or inquiry. If I had more confidence in Ike strobes I would use them, and recommend them, because I very much like the quality if light they produce. In my view it is better than Sea & Sea, though the photography of a Doubilet would trump that opinion without breaking a sweat
  11. My Ike strobes, 2- SS200's and 2-DS125's, have never been reliable and have been back to Indy far too many times in my book, so I no longer use them. But it is pretty obvious to me that I am the exception (unless others like me are reticent in speaking up about Ikelite). I sometimes believe the purchasing public is more of a beta group for Ike products than is necessary, though I acknowledge my strobe experience may have soured me a bit In any event, if you decide to go with Ike's note that there are advantages and disadvantages to proprietary batteries. Cost for backups and weight for travel are the one's that matter most to me but may not be an issue whatsoever for others.
  12. Paul and Eric,I never perceived this as a film vs. digital debate. That description implies far more than what has actually been discussed here (outside of the guy who took a few pokes at Mustard). But when it comes to these two formats most opinions are all or nothing. For some reason it is difficult for film shooters to agree that digital offers some major photographic advantages and for digital shooters to admit that film continues to manage some situations better than digital does.....so in the end it is a "Film vs. Digital" debate rather than a simple discussion regarding specific truths. It's a shame it always ends up this way. But film people fear digital and digital people are uncomfortable with the ease their system allows them. Fear and guilt....the perfect recipe for defensiveness.
  13. I not sure what that is in response to, but I never made the assertion that anyone, including myself, should shoot film because it renders sunbursts better than digital.
  14. Eventually the money saved from film purchase, for an active digital photographer, trumps all comments about costs even if one is using a paid for film system. I shoot, D2x and Seacam (my Seacam ports and accesories from F100 setup all fit D2 housing), but savings resulting from no film purchases are very close to paying for those two pieces. Film cameras never get to the point where they "pay you back" in a similar way. In fact it could be argued that the longer a film shooter waits, the more money he pays for his digital system even considering lowering prices for digital bodies. But I understand money is not the only, or even most important, matter for you.
  • Create New...