[surfar]

I think its a wonderful piece of technology.

Its the $$$$$tart of the new tech, more to follow!

[normhead]

According to the Author, the image was shot in RAW and at ISO100. Therefore, and with respect to the DR characteristics of the camera, the exposure curve would most definitely be due to processing.

Or lighting. All it takes to blow out your highlights and shadows is lighting that goes beyond the DR the camera sensor can capture. That is actually much more common than you would think. Typical day light can provide a 20,000:1 contrast ratio. Your came sensor can't get anywhere near that. Anytime you have harsh lighting like this photo, with dark unlit shadows, you can exceed the DR the camera can capture. That's helpful when you don't actually want to see what's in the shadows as in some elements of this image, but not helpful when you lose subject detail as in the black hair of the subject.

Once you realize the camera cannot capture the full dynamic range of your scene, you are left with a few choices. Multiple exposure and HDR, expose to the right, or expose to the left, or as in the posted image, pick a half way spot, with some over exposed highlights and some loss of shadow detail. The guy behind the camera makes that decision. It's more likely to happen at high ISO's with reduced DR, but it can happen with harsh lighting as well, as in the posted photo.

[JohnBee]

It is not coming too early, most reports are consistent that when they saw the overheating icon, it was indeed very hot at the bottom just around a small spot where the lens is mounted..
I dont have a A9, but I did have several Sony devices (Vaios, PS3,PS4, Xperias) and these always had overheating issues, to the point to being useless. You would be surprised the number of Sony toys overheating (even Pro cams), searching on Google, and the (1) standard Sony statement would be a useless firmware, after that they would usually say its the user lack of understanding their devices, and a $150 charge for an after warranty fix..I know this by experience, I got 3 boxes for the damn ps3..

It would appear that the latest FW has fixed this:

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 06-06-17 at 09:38 PM ----------

...That's helpful when you don't actually want to see what's in the shadows as in some elements of this image, but not helpful when you lose subject detail as in the black hair of the subject.

Without seeing any evidence of shadow recovery I'm left thinking the results in this case are likely due to curve adjustments.
As for sensor limitations I'm just not seeing any evidence of that in this particular scene. ie, here's another image from the same shooter using the same camera and ISO setting without any signs DR limitations;


click image for full size
.

[normhead]

It would appear that the latest FW has fixed this: SONY A9 FIRMWARE UPGRADE OVERHEATING TEST! LETS TRY AGAIN! - YouTube

---------- Post added 06-06-17 at 09:38 PM ----------


Without seeing any evidence of shadow recovery I'm left thinking the results in this case are likely due to curve adjustments.
As for sensor limitations I'm just not seeing any evidence of that in this particular scene. ie, here's another image from the same shooter using the same camera and ISO setting without any signs DR limitations;


click image for full size
.

You are kidding right?

[Sliver-Surfer]

My god, do I actually have to take a copy of this images and circle and label the blown highlights and detail-less shadows for you? Well you've finally convinced me, no good can come of this A9 worshipping discussion. The question "How is this possible" The answer is put it in your editor, and crank the contrast up until you've blown the highlights and buried the shadows in blackness." It used to be one of my favourite techniques in black and white film photography. It's not about whether or not you like this image, it's about do you need an A9 to do it.

Here are the Blown areas in red and Clipped blacks in blue(Exactly How I described the exposure)


---------- Post added 06-06-17 at 10:33 PM ----------

Here is what I said in my post about the exposure

The photo is a near perfectly exposed low key image. There are no blown highlights there. And the only shadows with no detail is a small portion of the background and a small portion of the hair and that info may have been removed in post. That being said, you can tell it is not done with a modern FF camera. Your image is a very good image IMHO. I like the punch that those old Pentax cameras have.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Here are the Blown areas in red and Clipped blacks in blue(Exactly How I described the exposure)


---------- Post added 06-06-17 at 10:33 PM ----------

Here is what I said in my post about the exposure

None of the image data shown there has anything to do with what is clipped or the DR of the raw file from the camera, We are viewing a Jpg rendering processed to photographers liking. They have decided the clipping of the DR in the shadow areas by choosing where the black points of the RAW is clipped and reduced to that jpg image, the right clipping has more to do with how they dealt with exposure and the final image brightness select as by the raw converter and any photo editing done after the fact,
So I have no clue to as how Norm can say that there is limited DR in the from the camera.

One of the tell tail signs of a camera with limited DR is not evident in the image provided by photographer ,this can be found in any shadows that have been lifted and as it looks there is very little lifting done or this evidence of limited DR would be seen very easy.

---------- Post added 06-06-2017 at 08:32 PM ----------

I used ACR's highlight clip warning indicator


According to the Author, the image was shot in RAW and at ISO100. Therefore, and with respect to the DR characteristics of the camera, the exposure curve would most definitely be due to processing.

PS, I checked the RAW files from the a9 to compare with those of the K-3 for example, and found no distinguishable differences in shadow or highlight characteristics between them. And so I'm thinking the a9 sensor will do just fine as a general photography type tool. ie, I perused the a9 albums on Flickr and found numerous professional images of all genres.

And there's the points we have to look a tt he raw data and see how the DR falls within the exposure selected by the photographer. going by the jpg image we are bound by how that image was processed in a raw converter and how much of the DR of the sensor was compressed into a jpg image. For a correct analyses of what the sensor can provide we really need to know how much the raw file was pushed, I am not see any evidence that would show us that the camera was DR range limited for that image other than the clipping points of the DR when reduced to a jpg image.

[Sliver-Surfer]

None of the image data shown there has anything to do with what is clipped or the DR of the raw file from the camera, We are viewing a Jpg rendering processed to photographers liking. They have decided the clipping of the DR in the shadow areas by choosing where the black points of the RAW is clipped and reduced to that jpg image, the right clipping has more to do with how her dealt with exposure and the final image brightness select as by the raw converter and any photo editing done after the fact,
So I have no clue to as how Norm can say that there is limited DR in the from the camera.

One of the tell tail signs of a camera with limited DR is not evident in the image provided by photographer ,this can be found in any shadows that have been lifted and as it looks there is very little lifting done or this evidence would be seen very easy.

Yes I stated that the details could have been removed in post. My original point was that the image was not poorly exposed as normhead stated and that it is a typical example of a Good Low key image.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I used ACR's highlight clip warning indicator


According to the Author, the image was shot in RAW and at ISO100. Therefore, and with respect to the DR characteristics of the camera, the exposure curve would most definitely be due to processing.

PS, I checked the RAW files from the a9 to compare with those of the K-3 for example, and found no distinguishable differences in shadow or highlight characteristics between them. And so I'm thinking the a9 sensor will do just fine as a general photography type tool. ie, I perused the a9 albums on Flickr and found numerous professional images of all genres.

When we start to get more data on the sensor and see sony's intent with the sensor and what it is designed for, the more we can see that the DR of the sensor was engineered for the intended use as exposure limited action camera. As such we see the characteristics that one would need as an action oriented camera, very high DR for very low exposures.

It was really only Nikon and Canon that designed this very propose built sensors based in their action camera bodies, it nice to see that sony has stepped up to the market and maybe we will see such a sensor show up in the market for other companies to use. Nikon and Canon has not made this technology available for other camera manufactures to utilize, maybe sonys will change this.

---------- Post added 06-06-2017 at 09:00 PM ----------

Yes I stated that the details could have been removed in post. My original point was that the image was not poorly exposed as normhead stated and that it is a typical example of a Good Low key image.

Sorry I missed this, It is also worth noting that for a lot of shooting the limiting factor now that we have to deal with is not from the sensor but lens flare and ghosting with extreme shadow lifting. As it sits the newer sensors have almost captured near 100% of the light that a Bayer design sensor can capture with very little read noise introduced from the camera its self so I would like to see the option of having a sensor for times that I use a smaller exposure while retaining a higher DR when needed.

[surfar]

It just WONT over heat!

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 06-07-17 at 08:18 PM ----------

and the electronic shutter does nearly 10/10!

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

This guy has his full review up on YT now...its interesting and accurate.

[JohnBee]

It just WONT over heat!

After seeing many video's on this, I truly believe there are defective units out there that are overheating.
ie, some shooters are still getting overheating and shutdowns within 10mins of use after upgraded the FW, and so it's looking as though Sony may have some defective units out there.

and the electronic shutter does nearly 10/10!

While I personally think electronic shutters are the future of photography, it doesn't look as though they are quite ready to replace the legacy shutter just yet - it will come no doubt, but it's looking as though more development is needed to get the job done.

With that said, and with respect to the quote-unquote, reviewer, I'd add that anything that isn't discredited must be a big deal cause he just seems to hate everything

.

[surfar]

he just seems to hate everything

He doesn't hate Fuji !

His overall review is good, praise for the outstanding features....and he runs down some stuff that just isn't up to par.

[normhead]

You guys are so funny. So, it's Ok with you guys that the hair is clipped? ANd you can't see the side of her face is one totally blown highlight. I don't need your software to see where a photo is blown or clipped. Clipped means so bright subject detail is lost. The side of her face, parts of her socks, part of her hair is completely black with no detail at all.

I see this with my eyes. You guys and your software. "Don't trust your eyes, here's what the machine says." I do begin to understand some of your choices though. You don't care what your eyes see, you just care about what the machine says. What a way to live.

I guess you guys haven't developed the skill of looking at a photo and understanding when you've lost detail, it's a skill you've left to the machine.

Just way too funny. You can't see any detail in the girls's hair because the guy wanted it that way." No you can't see any detail in the girl's hair because the image is either under-exposed or over processed. Take your pick. Or you can't see the girls hair because the photographer like splotches of black rather than hair on people's heads.

The issue in blown highlights etc. is loss of detail, not what some computer says.

I don't really care if you guys "get it", it's basic photography from week one in the studio of any photography course.

[JohnBee]

So, it's Ok with you guys that the hair is clipped?

See: what is low key photography

With that said, here are a few examples of such shooting styles to help you get up to speed on things;



With that said, and perhaps a better way for you to come to terms with this would be to consider the high-key method, which most often implies contrasting subjects against what looks like a blown out ambient (from a technical stand-point). Though it remains that these techniques(high /low key) have been widely used and recognized within the photography industry for a very long time.

I see this with my eyes. You guys and your software.

With respect to individual monitor profiling and the likes, it's best to take measures to properly identify such things before drawing conclusions. One good example of this is when 30bit displays came into the scene, so many photographers(myself included) came to see just how much of the gamut we were missing. And so, I'd recommend taking the safe route when others do not share in the same conclusions insofar as on screen exposure clipping is concerned. To which I'd add, and with respect to the image in question, it would appear that the photographer processed the image with highlights in mind as the only apparent blowouts that were coming-up on my screen are on a small portion of the right sock. Whereas the face and fabric etc. are all showing color information (on my own screen that is)

You can't see any detail in the girls's hair because the guy wanted it that way." No you can't see any detail in the girl's hair because the image is either under-exposed or over processed.

That's correct. And so this is more a matter of coming to terms with photo processing(styles) than of proper technique. Though I can see where someone might feel this way given the amount of shooters out there who tend toward technical conformance's rather than artistry. ie, landscape photography for example will tend toward the technical side

Whatever the case, and as I'm sure you can appreciate, the good news is that there's always more to learn in the wonderful world of photography

- hope this helps

[normhead]

I admire your confidence guys, explaining to a photography teacher what low key is. You're making a mistake here. You are trying to discredit me with distraction rather than looking at the image to see what I'm talking about.

Look how clean those images directly above look compared to the one you posted before.

I understand exactly what low key is, I've been doing it for 50 years.
If the image you posted was an attempt at low key it's failed miserably. Way too busy, blotchy over exposed out of focus areas, in the foreground. It's the work of an amateur and doesn't really do the camera justice. I'm sure it can do better. That's all I'm saying.

In a lecture hall, I'd be happy to put these images up on a screen and go over exactly why some of the images you posted are good examples are good low key, and point out where some of them fail. IN school low key was my "thing."

But the image you posted has mistake after mistake.

The first image above is perfect low key done well. Great use of negative space, a high contrast illumination of the subject. The others are more problematic. But are we discussing high and low key images or the A9?

But as stated before, you can do those images with a cell phone. You don't need a $5000 camera to take that type of image. I was looking for an image that could only be taken with an A9, if there is such a thing. People in the thread have said there is. I'd like to see one. Even in the movie Winder posted, in one section the guy points out the D5 got the same image the A9 did. (And I may well have captured the same image using a K-3 or K-1 had I been there.). So where is the image you have to have an A9 for?

I used to give my students an assignment where they did high an slow key images with a Panasonic point and shoot, and with a K-1000 and B&W film.

Let's get back on track here.

And if you want to do the high/low key photography thing let's start a thread. I just love that stuff.

[JohnBee]

I admire your confidence guys, explaining to a photography teacher what low key is.

I'm sorry to hear that.

If the image you posted was an attempt at low key it's failed miserably. Way too busy, blotchy over exposed out of focus areas, in the foreground. It's the work of an amateur and doesn't really do the camera justice.

I don't think so, and apparently hundreds of other people share in the same view. In my view, the image is a well executed blend of framing, composition and processing. With that said, have you accounted for the effects of image compression from the Facebook upload system?

To which I'd add, if we can establish that the a9 doesn't suffer from such things as shadow blotchyness, then why conclude this to be anything more than a part of the conversion process? ie, I don't think many people will look at the grain on this image to determine IQ.

But are we discussing high and low key images or the A9?

We are discussing whether or not the choice of processing is warranted.
To which I'd add, it would appear that your counterargument is an appeal to authority - see: appeal to authority

But as stated before, you can do those images with a cell phone.

Prove it

And I may well have captured the same image using a K-3. So where is the image you have to have an A9 for?

That would be a strawman, as I recall, the issue in question was whether or not the a9 could keep-up with the competition.

And if you want to do the high/low key photography thing let's start a thread. I just love that stuff.

At this stage, I'm trying to figure out why you're refusing to acknowledge that the photographer chose to process the image as a low key image. And perhaps more to the point, why you'd refuse that the highlights are not blown in the image based on what you're eyes and screen are telling you, as opposed to what others are telling you. Which seems like a very odd position for a photography teacher to uphold or maintain under the circumstances.