Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Standardization of testing settings on 5D mkII
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:08 am    Post subject: Standardization of testing settings on 5D mkII Reply with quote
I'd like to assemble a group of photographers that would mutually comply to the agreed 5D mkII settings.
For manual focusing lenses testing purpose. And comparable results of course!

I found it's really great to shoot with the same lens and camera with the same settings. This way many distracting variables are removed and one really can see the difference in lens performance.

I would propose jpeg shooting to make it as simple as possible.

What do you think about other settings? Fixed WB only (no auto)?

I also wonder which resize program to use. It makes much difference when comparing sharpness. Smaller the uploaded photo dimensions bigger the chance program resize algorithm can fake sharpness.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If I had to test, not only I would use fixed white balance using grey card 18%,
but also manual metering of incident light.
And ISO 100, tripod with remote control and mirror lifted
A serious test should also not rely on resizing, but always offer the full size image.
(with small resize only for thumbnail use)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I suggested many moons ago that the top photographers here should agree to produce a sticky for an agreed shot/shots so we all could see if our monitors were calibrated properly Question Unless all monitors are the same how can you properly judge anyone photo Question
Reminds me of my son's partner who said recently "my shots looked terrible", and I replied "of course on your cheap dell laptop, your shots look crap on my Mitsubishi 22" CRT Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:49 am    Post subject: Re: Standardization of testing settings on 5D mkII Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:

I would propose jpeg shooting to make it as simple as possible.

What do you think about other settings? Fixed WB only (no auto)?


I would argue for raw for the simple reason that WB adjustment and conversion can then always be re-done as desired… If you really wish to standardize then this could even be done so that the raw files are shared and one person does all the conversions (or every person into this does all the conversions, that would probably be the most useful because then everyone can see what data they would have had to work with in their own workflow, much more telling than any processed shot).

Also if you use fixed WB then there will be differences due to different lighting, better would be to include a grey card in the photo and correct WB in raw conversion (not with camera's custom WB). But still there will be differences because not everyone has the same light, same coloured walls, same objects in the room, etc.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku, what you're saying could only be discussed in theory. Even for my own usage i still found raws too awkward. OK, that is my own problem Smile. Jpegs really simplify standardization since there are so many raw conversion programs and everyone likes his own. You cannot standardize variables in different programs. That is just impossible. I think it's easier for testers to shot jpegs then to use the same RAW conversion program.

I agree fixed WB would be much influenced by different lighting but that is also good right? I in fact don't like default WB on mkII but for purpose of testing and comparison it would still suit fine.

Totally avoiding resize could really be good idea Orio. What about shooting medium size jpegs in that case (though i always feel sorry to lose quality of some accidentally successful photos shooting this limited way - i guess the same feel those who are opposed to jpegs).

Anyway though i addressed standardization i didn't mean classic brick wall, wrist watch, bottle of Cognac testing here. Shoot what you like just submit photos that have variables for comparison reduced "only" to lens in question.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Jpegs really simplify standardization since there are so many raw conversion programs and everyone likes his own. You cannot standardize variables in different programs. That is just impossible. I think it's easier for testers to shot jpegs then to use the same RAW conversion program.


Easier, perhaps, but not very meaningful in my opinion. Best way to actually standardize is to have one person convert the raws for everyone (i.e. everyone participating in this uploads their raws to some shared Dropbox or whatever), or instead of standardizing the conversion everyone downloads everyone's raws and compares in their own workflow. This means the results cannot be easily posted online but if the purpose is to help other 5DmkII owners see what they would have had if they had shot with another lens, it is in my opinion the only way. Someone else's JPEG is always affected by what workflow they use—straight out of the camera JPEG may be fine for you if you don't like raws but it wouldn't mean anything to me since I never shoot JPEG.

(Of course I don't have a 5DmkII either.)

Pancolart wrote:

I agree fixed WB would be much influenced by different lighting but that is also good right? I in fact don't like default WB on mkII but for purpose of testing and comparison it would still suit fine.


Well, different lighting can also have different spectral components; this is very obviously true with fluorescent lights (including energy saving bulbs), LEDs, etc. This means colour rendering can be very much affected even if the WB is set “correctly” for that light, i.e. it will not be possible tell much about the colour rendering of the lens. The light source should be standardized to the sun. =)

Pancolart wrote:

Totally avoiding resize could really be good idea Orio. What about shooting medium size jpegs in that case (though i always feel sorry to lose quality of some accidentally successful photos shooting this limited way - i guess the same feel those who are opposed to jpegs).


Is it possible to shoot raw+JPEG on 5DmkII? If yes, do that and get both.

Pancolart wrote:

Anyway though i addressed standardization i didn't mean classic brick wall, wrist watch, bottle of Cognac testing here. Shoot what you like just submit photos that have variables for comparison reduced "only" to lens in question.


If the subject varies freely then I don't see much point in trying to standardize things. Especially if people shoot what they like, then why would anyone want to "waste" potentially good shots by shooting at some standard settings, instead of shooting at the settings they like… This is also why I think sharing raw files will be the only practical way of getting some material for comparison (and everyone will have to download the raws and compare by themselves).


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Jpegs really simplify standardization since there are so many raw conversion programs and everyone likes his own.


But then with JPG the camera becomes decisive (every camera makes JPGs in it's own way, some do much AA, some less, some none, some sharpen much, some sharpen less, some none,
some apply strong saturation, some don't, et c.), and there are many more cameras around than RAW programs, so if standardization is your goal JPG is a definite step in the wrong direction.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't want this to become jpeg promotion subject.

I wanted to compare results. I think there is a path between total artistic approach (many members shoot and post-produce like crazy, me too sometimes) and brick wall testing. I've seen it done on Pentax forum. We have agreed about jpeg settings on camera. We took photographs of similar subjects. The difference with the same lens were subtle.

I found it cool to compare subtle differences. It's impossible to achieve it without consensus about camera settings (or RAW conversion program if you like).


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It sound like a nice idea but not one I think you could ever achieve, although I do agree that any comparisons should be made with RAW files so that there is no in camera processing.

Even testing 2 different lenses on the same camera settings by the same user but under different lighting conditions give results that bear no comparison.

Try it for yourself, use the same lens to take shots on a nice bright sunny day and then identical shots on a dull day and I guarantee that you will be more impressed by the lens on the sunny day.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You cannot compare RAW file. You have to convert to Jpeg. So, choosing DSLR's internal processing engine is the easiest, the fastest, the most most distributed possibility. It's limited in control - true, thanks god Smile. It's of lesser quality then RAW - yes, but still very acceptable for net evaluation. WB sucks - true, nothing to add there Smile.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
how to select jpeg on the 5DII, I have this camera 2 years, I look all the menus but could not find it Razz


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't agree on jpg, I expressed my objections in the message before and I think that they have not been addressed convincingly.
There is much more variations between in camera jpgs than between different raw converters, especially if the contractors
of this standard testing agree to use always the same values inside the RAW converters.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
You cannot compare RAW file.



Why not?

I've been comparing RAW files for years, I didn't know it wasn't possible.

If you need to look at 2 files at once and your RAW converter software can't handle this then convert to uncompressed TIF,
that way you haven't altered the image as you would have done with JPG
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1