How do you increase exposure time?

[With The Birds]

Hey Peter, DNG files are an Adobe creation to provide a sort of across the board open standard for image files. I can open them in Lightroom or Aperture and they process just fine. After editing, I convert to .jpg, and either print or store the images.

Do you keep the original DNG's? Or at least your prized few or many? Would seem preferable to have the original files if you decide to do some further processing, esp compared to working with jpg's

 

[With The Birds]

Not really. For me to be 100% sure, I would need to see it for myself. You're saying a P4 can out perform my Nikon D810 on a Benro Tripod with an Arca Swiss head. I would ask for EXIF data but that can easily be copied. Here is a shot I took over Helsinki. Exposure time 15 minutes. Yes, I am being a bit cheeky but in my opinion, you are not going to get very sharp images at 8 seconds in a hovering, vibrating, wind moved, propeller washed drone. We will have to agree to disagree.

Was this a 15min exposure? If so what ISO? I'm sure you would have got less noise at a higher ISO with less shutter time. Please tell us it wasn't the 810... The images I have seen from them are ridiculously clean.

 

[Peter Galbavy]

Thanks, I know what DNG files are. I meant, more clearly, that I normally post-process my CR2 files in Canon's own DPP software - which I find convenient for the level of adjustments I make - and that finding a non-Adobe DNG tool to my liking is still an ongoing process. I am not buying into Adobe's new business model of renting software, thanks.

 

[Peter Galbavy]

Do you keep the original DNG's? Or at least your prized few or many? Would seem preferable to have the original files if you decide to do some further processing, esp compared to working with jpg's

Keep everything. Storage is cheap. DNG (raw) files are the "negatives" and can always be re-processed later with new software or more mature usage as we learn. JPGs are the prints / Polaroids and are only useful for presentation.

This debate is about 20 years old, BTW

 

[With The Birds]

Keep everything. Storage is cheap. DNG (raw) files are the "negatives" and can always be re-processed later with new software or more mature usage as we learn. JPGs are the prints / Polaroids and are only useful for presentation.

This debate is about 20 years old, BTW

That was my point.

 

[deltalimatango]

With the birds, I was being cheeky. Of course that's not a D810 shot. I shot it with my P4. Maybe I was not clear in my post.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[deltalimatango]

Peter, I hate Adobes biz model. I was gutted when Apple abandoned Aperture. It was much better than LR and was a real DAM and had a real database rather than this folders crap used by LR.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[With The Birds]

With the birds, I was being cheeky. Of course that's not a D810 shot. I shot it with my P4. Maybe I was not clear in my post.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

I was genuinely curious. I learnt a little from astrophotography and low light/long exposure work. If your approaching a minute TV increasing ISO and stacking frames (median blend) gives cleaner images than longer at lower ISO. Exposing to the right also helps a lot with reducing artifacts in the darker areas. No doubt Nikon has the lead in high ISO and DR. I'm not sure about the glass. Pro series canon vs Nikon you won't reliably pick one as better.

 

[Cactus Wren]

I shoot Canon and have a decent choice of L glass. It's great stuff, but like all things unless you are in the very top percentile of professionals (which I am NOT) the difference between Nikkor and Canon L is going to be insignificant for the same class of lens (prime, zoom, aperture etc.). My favourites, for sheer image quality out of camera are the 200mm f/1.8 L (old, wonderful sports lens) and the 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS. Friends with Nikon get some great shots too in similar conditions.

When it comes to my P4 I am still getting to grips with the settings and have not spent enough time with the DNG files, but I am really impressed with its still and video quality considering the physical challenges of keeping the camera stable and the size of the optics.

I've got that 100mm f/2.8 L. It is a phenomenal lens.

 

[Cactus Wren]

Hey Peter, DNG files are an Adobe creation to provide a sort of across the board open standard for image files. I can open them in Lightroom or Aperture and they process just fine. After editing, I convert to .jpg, and either print or store the images.

I'm a Mac user, so I'm completely unfamiliar with DNG, or anything Adobe, for that matter. I do the majority of my processing using Canon's proprietary RAW processing program. I generally prefer to be a minimalist when it comes to editing files - I'll crop and adjust lighting/white balance as needed, but I generally do no more than that, although I will occasionally use apps 'Tonality' or 'Color Strokes' to get nice b/w perspectives.

Not sure what Apple was thinking to basically discard Aperture. I do have a PC with LR, but I've never used it. If you're used to Mac's way of doing things, LR can seem counter-intuitive at times.

 

[deltalimatango]

Cactus, you have my heart mate. . I too use a Mac and loved Aperture. I begrudgingly moved to LR and it is simply bloatwate. Have a look at MacPhun plugins and at Affinity. Affinity is a 64 Bit app written from the ground up. Your fans never pop on.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Peter Galbavy]

I've got that 100mm f/2.8 L. It is a phenomenal lens.

You can genuinely - or at least I can - take 1:1 macro shots outdoors purely handheld (with enough light). I love the IS on it.