From: Floyd L. Davidson on
"Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote:
>DRS wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> Obviously there *is* a huge volume of information
>>> available in a histogram; and very little of it has
>>> anything at all to do with setting exposure. E.g., the
>>> *contrast* information does *not* help set exposure.
>>
>> Nobody ever said it did. That straw man with you are obsessed has been
>> exploded several times. The only thing setting contrast to minimum does
>> (in this context) is expand the histogram so that it more accurately
>> depicts the dynamic range in the Raw image so that the photographer can
>> make a more informed decision about what if anything to *subsequently* do
>> to the exposure. Everybody can see it except you and that is the only
>> claim that has been made for it (except by you).
>
>Floyd is arguing with the demons in his head (and losing).
>
>Is there anything else left to discuss amongst the rest of us?

Another article from Wibla with *nothing* but gratuitous
insults.

But what purpose is there in hurling insults at someone
just because you are unable to understand the topic well
enough to digest technical discussion about it? You've
demonstrated that you can't even measure the difference
between the so called headroom of RAW data over JPEG,
yet you want to argue the fine points of histogram
accuracy???? That is an absurd contradiction.

Neither you nor DRS were even able to analyze a couple of
fairly simple histograms; so just were *do* you get off
with these insults?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> What about saturation? Reducing saturation seems to give more detail to
> the edges also.

That could be a side effect of chromatic aberration. Do you notice it
when there's no chromatic aberration?

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Chris Malcolm on
Wilba <usenet(a)cutthisimago.com.au> wrote:
> DRS, I really admire your patience and tolerance.

> As a rule I try not to be _too_ insulting, but in this case I have to say,
> Floyd, you are ASTONISHINGLY thick and childish for someone who often sounds
> very intelligent. I can't recall the last time I've seen such a stupendous
> display of belligerant idiocy. You really are a champ.

It can be very educational arguing with Floyd when he's right. It's a
tedious and pointless exercise to argue with him when he's wrong.

--
Chris Malcolm
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Wilba <usenet(a)cutthisimago.com.au> wrote:
>> DRS, I really admire your patience and tolerance.
>
>> As a rule I try not to be _too_ insulting, but in this case I have to say,
>> Floyd, you are ASTONISHINGLY thick and childish for someone who often sounds
>> very intelligent. I can't recall the last time I've seen such a stupendous
>> display of belligerant idiocy. You really are a champ.
>
>It can be very educational arguing with Floyd when he's right. It's a
>tedious and pointless exercise to argue with him when he's wrong.

Technical discussions are *always* tedious and pointless
to people who do not want an education. And that is the
illogical way some people decide another is "wrong".

If it's tedious and pointless, it's above your level of
comprehension and is not something to _argue_. Only if
it is enlightening and you can see the point of each
detail is adversarial argument reasonable.

Of course on Usenet one of the major indications that a
topic is over somebody's head is when they resort to
gratuitous insults (such as you quoted above).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: To The Clueless on
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:53:32 +0800, "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au>
wrote:

>
>DPreview's tests of the 450D show around 1 to 1.5 steps between the JPEG and
>raw curves on the highlight side
>(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page21.asp - "RAW headroom"
>section). Combine that with the typical -1/3 to -2/3 exposure compensation
>required to get a good ETTR histogram with that camera, and you have
>something in the region of two steps headroom, similar to my experience.
>They said they got "perfectly usable results" even with -3 or -4
>compensation in PP, but I can't vouch for that.

Proving yet again that DSLRs can't get it done properly in the camera to
begin with. If your RAW editing can easily outdo the JPG that the camera
creates from that RAW data, then there's something seriously wrong with
your camera, or more likely, there's something seriously wrong with you.

I use P&S cameras that also provide 12-bit RAW data. Except for a
fractional margin of more detail from the RAW data (useful only at very
rare times), nearly the exact same dynamic range is contained in the RAW
data as is presented in the camera's native JPG file. If your camera can't
also provide that then there's something seriously wrong with your whole
photography paradigm.