whatever gengh said.wat tokking you?
Please explain "choked the exposure".
simply dialed down the exposure, given similar settings.
whatever gengh said.wat tokking you?
Please explain "choked the exposure".
left is w/o filter, right is w filter. The histrogram with filter is more shifted towards the middle. Still get a peak at on the left but the peak on the right is gone.
i give up.
GOOD LUCK with your nd filter dynamic range reduction.
maybe you'll win a nobel prize. take it from me though, i've worked with a lot of things to do with cutting down the amount of light intensity through the lens, e.g. ir filter, nd filters.. none of them do what you think they will do.
but hey, maybe it'll float. have a nice day - you can go ahead and be bullheaded. not going to bother.
OF COURSE the peak is shifted towards the middle, one photo is overexposed, one is not. it's as simple as that, not rocket science. but you can go ahead and think that it is. have a nice day.
It's ok. I can see in the first place you don't understand where this is coming from.
It's ok. I can see in the first place you don't understand where this is coming from.
left is w/o filter, right is w filter. The histrogram with filter is more shifted towards the middle. Still get a peak at on the left but the peak on the right is gone.
ND filters function to scale the intensity, hence dynamic range, of a scene. Which means dynamic range can be compressed.
I welcome you to do this test and post screenshots of both histograms here. My money is on the fact they will be almost identical.
Your test is not a controlled test. What you need to do:
Get your hands on a 4 stop ND filter. Borrow one or something.
Find a test subject, best if bright white, against a dark background. Something inanimate. Set up your camera on tripod.
1. Meter the scene. Note the aperture, shutter speed and ISO.
2. Turn to M mode, and apply the settings from #1. Fire a shot.
3. put on the 4 stop ND. Now apply a 4 stop increase in exposure to compensate for the ND. Fire a shot.
Compare the histogram from both pics.
I welcome you to do this test and post screenshots of both histograms here. My money is on the fact they will be almost identical.
To be logical in this theory, lets analyze the behaviour of ND. Neutral Density reduces the light per area into the lens. If you have isolated 3 light source (1lumen, 20 lumen and 100lumen) both will be cut equally by x factor depending on the ND value.
2) Dynamic range is not reduce in theory because all 3 lumens are reduced equally. BUT the first light of 1lumen may disappears bec it is too faint to enter. So what you have achieved making certain area into darkness but the dynamic range is still the same.
3) If you take pic without ND in this case, both 20L and 100L will become a ball of light. Overexpose in their area causing clipping. But the 1L do fine. ND will make 20L fair but 100L smaller ball. (*camera setting is fixed)
4) Now still with ND, if you jack up the shutter time to increase the intake, 20L will brighten and 100L will get worse. 1L may be faint instead of non.
5) In reality, the histogram will change if some lightsource disappeared (as in the 1L) from the sensor, what is bright gets dimmer. However we should not forget that camera meter if not fixed; will average out again.
In conclusion, DR is not reduced but reduces clipping of some bright area. Preventing underexpose overall is not applicable
in case archrival is going to dispute my settings, here are the files OUT OF CAMERA, without HISTOGRAM, so that he can look at it himself to satisfy his own rocket theory....blah blah blah
Don't need to go on rampage, night86mare.
watch it guys ............ keep the discussion civil and to the point
in case archrival is going to dispute my settings, here are the files OUT OF CAMERA, without HISTOGRAM, so that he can look at it himself to satisfy his own rocket theory. ...