Lack of contrast sample (2 Viewers)

Raw files right out of the camera, especially exposed so far to the right, are always a bit disappointing. It is just raw data, after all, what you work with. The processed image is the thing to look at, and yours look good to me.

All out of the camera lacks always some contrast, but I must say I haven't seen that my scope lack contrast more than my oly zuiko50-200

To my experience it has more to do with angle to the sun, midday sun etc.


heres one dove unprocessed (resized only) and 1:1 crop of the unprocessed and two processed. the unprocess need some contrast to me, but not much.(a matter of taste of course)

iso500, 1/160s, em-5, celestron 80ed

I'm with you on this one Roy. I don't see any reason to use astroscoping or digiscoping on birds that are close by. IMO, regular cameras and telephoto lenses are much easier to use, do a better job and are not too expensive.

To me, digiscoping and astroscoping are the poor man's long guns, when used at 30-50X magnification. For this use, they are unbeatable, given the price - the photos you display in post no.13 are good examples. A Canon 600mm II lens with a 2X Extender gives about 40X on an APS-C sensor camera but is worth 13,000$ without camera. I just can't afford it, and even if I could, I'm not sure I would...

Something to check is to see if something inside the scope is too reflective. This will often be the case in cheaper extension tubes for example. Look into the light through your telescope with everything in place except the camera (no eyepiece either).

Not sure what you're doing but every photo I take straight out of my camera would be comparable to the middle one in the first three you posted. Never ever had anything like the first image. I use a lot of baffling throughout my extension tubes and I never found flocking the tube to make any difference compared to how it came out of the factory.

Paul.

Roy C said:

I am not quite sure why some pics are worst than others with regards to the lack of contrast (probably a bit more severe when using a tc) . also not sure what causes this in the beginning but either way it is easy enough to correct although I suspect this must cause some loss of the dynamic range.
What are other folks take on this?

Click to expand...

Problem can be light coming through DSRL optical viewfinder while mirror is in upper position. Mirror is semi translucent (aproximately 60% ) and in some exposures combination ( small aperture, angle of light) substancial amount of light can brighten image. That happens to me while using LV or cable release.
Solution is to keep eye close to viewfinder or protect with special cap (I had one with Olympus E-520) or just use hand.

To me it looks loke a bit of an ETTR overdose.

Paul Corfield said:

Not sure what you're doing but every photo I take straight out of my camera would be comparable to the middle one in the first three you posted. Never ever had anything like the first image.

Paul.

Click to expand...

It is because I shot in RAW and use the ETTR (expose to the right) method of shooting to ensure that I get the best dynamic range possible out of the sensor. Baring in mind that at least 80% of the tonal range is contained in the brightest 20% of the image anything less than shooting to the right (without blowing the whites) cannot capture the full tonal range.

I could easily meter so that the dial is on zero or even a slight -Ev so that the image did not look 'washed out' but that would mean I would miss out on a lot of the bright tones and when I push in processing to brighten up any noise would be amplified. Far better to get the bright tones right and then correct the black level where there is not much of a tonal range anyway.

It is well know among bird photographers that even when shooting one of the very best DSLR lenses and using RAW the "out of camera" should look somewhat washed out - this ensures that you get the very best dynamic range out of your Cameras sensor.

As opposed to shooting in jpeg it is essential that RAW images are processed as I am sure that you know only to well. When shooting in RAW It is what your images look like after processing that counts and not what you get straight from the Camera.

It should be noted that when it comes to correcting the levels (as I know you always do from previous post's) I rarely have to touch the white level as it is correct because of ETTR.

DanC.Licks said:

To me it looks loke a bit of an ETTR overdose.

Click to expand...

It is certainly shot right up to the right side of the histogram Dan which is what I always aim for. Overdoing the ETTR can only happen if the highlights are clipped - providing you do not 'blow' the highlights then ETTR can never be overdone. In fact most top bird photographers I know of purposely aim to slightly clip the whites/highlights (which can be brought back when shooting in RAW) that way they know they are getting the very best out of their sensor.

Providing you are shooting in RAW I would go as far as to say that if your image looked good straight from the Camera then you must be doing something wrong!!! RAW shots are just that, RAW data without any correction to sharpening level, contrast and saturation settings, colour temperature / white balance etc. It is absolutely essential that you correct all these things in process when shooting in RAW As opposed to shooting jpeg where the Camera processes these things for you.

I would much sooner spend 10 seconds or so correcting the levels (in my case mainly the black level) knowing that I am getting the best tonal range possible for my sensor at the given ISO than sacrifice that just because it may look better straight from the Camera.

Example of a Canon 800mm ETTR here, not much different to yours. http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/05/29/ettr-revelation/

Paul.

Paul Corfield said:

Example of a Canon 800mm ETTR here, not much different to yours. http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/05/29/ettr-revelation/

Paul.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been trying to say when you ETTR Paul, you are bound to get that washed out look to some degree. I know that Art Morris is a great advocate of ETTR as are most of the top bird shooters.
I guess I wrongly assumed that most folks on here would shoot to the right and so understand what I was on about (admit I am crap with words though lol).

I will admit that the sample image I posted was an extreme example but I purposely selected it to show just how easy it is to correct the black point while still retaining maximum tonal range.

Obviously shooting with a tc attached is bound to lower contrast somewhat with any lens but in my experience the contrast achieved with the the Astroscope is somewhat less than a good quality DSLR lens (which is what I would expect).

Roy,

One question and one comment:

If you ETTR to the limit on purpose, why do you complain that your images are washed out ?

IMO, if you "purposely aim to slightly clip the whites/highlights", you are going too far and destroying valuable information in your picture - when it is clipped, it is gone for good, and it cannot be recuperated in post processing. The only exception would be small spots that are clipped in non critical areas of the picture - clipping those allows you to preserve dynamic range.

Regards
Jules

JGobeil said:

Roy,

One question and one comment:

If you ETTR to the limit on purpose, why do you complain that your images are washed out ?

IMO, if you "purposely aim to slightly clip the whites/highlights", you are going too far and destroying valuable information in your picture - when it is clipped, it is gone for good, and it cannot be recuperated in post processing. The only exception would be small spots that are clipped in non critical areas of the picture - clipping those allows you to preserve dynamic range.

Regards
Jules

Click to expand...

Jules, I do not complain about the 'out of camera' RAW's being washed out as I know that it is bound to be if you shoot to the right. I was merely trying to show how easy it is to correct the 'washed out look'.

One of the beauties of shooting in RAW is that you have a bit of leeway when it comes to exposure (I would estimate that ACR for instance can recover up to 1/3 of a stop or even slightly more of overexposure). When I shoot birds for instance, it is only the bird itself that I take notice of blinkies - the fact that other parts of the image may be blown is of no concern and they can easily be selectively toned down in processing. You can meter for the whole image in which case the bird will rarely be correctly exposed or you can get the bird right and deal with the backround in post - that is the way I prefer to shoot.

Roy C said:

//...but is a good example of the lack of contrast you can get 'straight out of the Camera' with the SW80ED (at least with my set-up).

Click to expand...

I appologise for not reading to well.
I was wrongly under the impression you thought the sw80ed gave you lack of contrast. Now I understand this was done on purpose with the ettr-method (of which I now have learned what it is).
And after looking at the link Paul gave us of the canon 800mm, I don't see nothing wrong with your method or results as they look quite similar.
will try it out some day.

Roy C said:

Jules, I do not complain about the 'out of camera' RAW's being washed out as I know that it is bound to be if you shoot to the right. I was merely trying to show how easy it is to correct the 'washed out look'.

One of the beauties of shooting in RAW is that you have a bit of leeway when it comes to exposure (I would estimate that ACR for instance can recover up to 1/3 of a stop or even slightly more of overexposure). When I shoot birds for instance, it is only the bird itself that I take notice of blinkies - the fact that other parts of the image may be blown is of no concern and they can easily be selectively toned down in processing. You can meter for the whole image in which case the bird will rarely be correctly exposed or you can get the bird right and deal with the backround in post - that is the way I prefer to shoot.

Click to expand...

Roy,

Yes I know about ETTR and I also try to over-expose, but only a little, about 1/3 stop, sometimes a little more when I have extreme differences between shadows and highlights. I try to avoid blinkies, except the occasional small bright spot, the classic example being small stars on the chrome of a car under bright sun.

The picture in your first post is an extreme case; IMO, it is too much, but I am no expert, far from it... I respect your opinion; if you like it like that and are confident you can recuperate it with a levels adjustment, that's ok with me.

If it was better to over-expose RAW files to a point just before clipping, why don't cameras do it automatically and then correct the levels internally in software in order to improve dynamic range ?

Regards
Jules

Yeah I was under the impression this was a complaint too but I see it's more about ETTR. I shoot in RAW all the time but not ETTR because most photos I take are just experimenting with optics. I rarely keep any of the photos I post here. It's something I'll keep in mind for the future though.

Paul.

ETTR, like all "good" things, must not be overdone. The risk of actually losing detail goes up the further you push it, not to mention the risk of blowing highs. There are many experienced pros who do not believe in ETTR, and they have their reasons. +0.7EV is more than enough to ensure detail in the shadows of a modern sensor. Your picture looks more like +2 or even more.

Personally, I think the consistent high quality of Roy's images demonstrate that he has a good system for his exposures. The thread started with an example for discussion, it provoked that and has served to show that people have different views and techniques and of course everyone is entitled and should have their own views.
Personally I think I will try going more to the right than I currently do, that is normally 1/3 stop, gradually and see if it improves the amount of detail in my images.
Thanks for starting the debate Roy, I have watched it with interest.

Phil

DanC.Licks said:

ETTR, like all "good" things, must not be overdone. The risk of actually losing detail goes up the further you push it, not to mention the risk of blowing highs. There are many experienced pros who do not believe in ETTR, and they have their reasons. +0.7EV is more than enough to ensure detail in the shadows of a modern sensor. Your picture looks more like +2 or even more.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean Dan but it is nowhere near +2Ev (whatever that mean!). If you save the file and have a look at the Histogram you will see that the exposure on the bird is not blown whatsoever. It maybe that some of the background is slightly overexposed but that is is completely irrelevant to me as I am only interested in correctly exposing the bird itself. Ev + or - does not even come in to it. The reason why the sample shot looks washed out is because it is exposed ETTR and the black level is not right - it is then a ten second job to correct the black level. I could have easily set the exposure so that the black level was right and the RAW image did not look washed out but then I would be missing out on a fair chunk of the Cameras tonal range in the bright areas. When shooting in RAW it is the final processed imaged that should be of concern and not what the RAW image looks like straight from the Camera.

Shooting to the right is not to do with ensuring detailed in the shadows but more to do with getting the best tonal range which means ensuring that you do not underexpose. Remember the majority of the tones produced by a DSLR are in the brightest end of the histogram. If you do not push your exposure up to the right hand side you are missing out on so much on the dynamic range of your Camera, the further you are away from the right the more tonal range you are losing .This is completely different from overexposing but just ensuring that the histogram is pushed as far to the right as you dare.

When using this method you do not just dial-in some + Ev as that in itself is completely meaningless. For a start it would depend on what metering mode you are using - Evaluative, partial, centre weighted, spot or whatever will all give different exposures. What it is all about is using the Cameras histogram to make sure that you ETTR without overexposing the bird, depending on the metering mode you are using you may have to set the exposure to Ev+1/3, Ev+1 or even Ev-1 it all depends on what it takes to ensure that you are exposing to the right side of the histogram. Sorry for repeating myself but ETTR is not about overexposing an image but more to do with making sure that the image is not underexposed (especially the bird with regards to bird photography).

If you just set your exposure as an example to Ev +2/3 for every shot then that is a a sure way to bugger up the majority of your exposures - you may get a few right but the majority would be either under or over exposed. In some situations you may have to dial-in some -Ev to acheive ETTR.

For anyone who wants to know more about ETTR There are loads of web sites out there that can explain it far better than me.

hampers said:

Personally, I think the consistent high quality of Roy's images demonstrate that he has a good system for his exposures. The thread started with an example for discussion, it provoked that and has served to show that people have different views and techniques and of course everyone is entitled and should have their own views.
Personally I think I will try going more to the right than I currently do, that is normally 1/3 stop, gradually and see if it improves the amount of detail in my images.
Thanks for starting the debate Roy, I have watched it with interest.

Phil

Click to expand...

ETTR wasn't mentioned till post No.9 which is why some (including me) got confused as to the intitial point of the discussion. I think the thread should have been started with ETTR as the subject from the outset. Apart from that I've learnt something new from Roy's posts.

Paul.