Sony A9 Officially Announced Today

normhead · 06-07-2017, 06:55 AM

Quote:

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.

As person who's seen examined and grading thousands of low key images, in my humble opinion, it's a failure (as a low key photo). It's a nice snapshot of someone's kid.
But if you want to go with the opinions of hundreds of people who don't have the same experience it's no sweat off my back.
It's just bad. So bad, that as a low key image, I thought it was just a bad exposure. Sometimes an image is so bad it's hard to discern what the guy was trying to do. That image qualifies.

Darn, you removed the one really good low key image. As I said, the rest are problematic. Commercial shots, not really art. Commercial shots being shots done to satisfy a client. Art being a model who has no say in the outcome and is just used as a prop to express an artistic vision. Sometimes the two can overlap but other times it's one or the other.

Last edited by normhead; 06-07-2017 at 09:36 AM.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-07-2017, 07:25 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 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.

I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo.

**Rondec** · 06-07-2017, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo.

I think it's a fine image, I just don't know what it shows. It looks like it wouldn't take a huge frame rate, auto focus points or high dynamic range to capture it. It just seems like a waste to take photos like that with an A9.

normhead · 06-07-2017, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo.

And I'm pretty sure you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but maybe time to just drop it no? It's not important. No one cares what you and I are "pretty sure" of.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-07-2017, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think it's a fine image, I just don't know what it shows. It looks like it wouldn't take a huge frame rate, auto focus points or high dynamic range to capture it. It just seems like a waste to take photos like that with an A9.

I don't think it is very relevant to the thread either. But it is a well taken and PP'ed Image

---------- Post added 06-07-17 at 02:33 PM ----------

Originally posted by normhead

And I'm pretty sure you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but maybe time to just drop it no? It's not important. No one cares what you and I are "pretty sure" of.

Look. Oh my god Annie Leibovitz and her camera are 10x as bad clipping as The K20 and its user. Good thing there were no Blown Highlights, she might lose her Photographers guild Card.

MarkJerling · 06-07-2017, 03:58 PM

Norm and Surfer: Please stop bickering.

**Mikesul** · 06-07-2017, 07:37 PM - **1 Like**

Thank you, Mark.

Ian Stuart Forsyth · 06-07-2017, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

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)

Oddly enough low key photography seldom need a lot of DR to capture the full tonal values intended for the scene when displayed, the places you need DR is where you have HDR scenes where you want to lift or for the better word shift the DR captured in the raw that are located in shadows and place them in the mid tone zones for the displaying device, be it print or screen.

With low key photography you seldom lift or shift any of the shadows,if anything you are setting the black point very high up in the top end of the DR data a cameras sensor can capture. This is due to the fact that we are using high contrasts to convey the scene.
Most of the time we see clipping in LKP it was the intent of the photographers processing to use the full range of the tonal gamut of the display device to convey their artistic eye. There is no written law that it is Wrong to having 0,0,0 and 255,255,255 any where in the final image

With LKP many like to clip and place any reflective surfaces at 255,255,255 as they would look unnatural as gray or off white, this can included any reflected light from the shiny surface of flat black ca,r to the glistening found in black hair and even how skin natural creates micro reflective surfaces from harsh light sources.

Even when using controlled lighting for work you can see how skin acts as a shiny little surfaces that can reflect light just like a silver surface

The only time we do not what to see any clipped data is in the raw file in areas where we want to contain some light data for processing , heck there is also no written law that the raw file must contain all of scenes DR at the top end with no clipping if the photographer chooses there to be clipping. Placing the exposure such that there was no clipping in the reflective surface of the lips would be a waste DR of the raw file, it was best to use that DR for the areas where I what the camera to capture the most amount of data from the scene above

surfar · 06-07-2017, 10:38 PM

Yes, every camera produced now can do plenty of good things....BRAND doesn't matter, buy what does the job!

Sliver-Surfer · 06-07-2017, 10:41 PM

Look how astonishing the High iso video is..Class Leading

Youtu.be

surfar · 06-08-2017, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer

ook how astonishing the High iso video is..Class Leading

yes, what the A9 does well is great....but its still a 3K camera at best....AS angry points out in his review.

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

Youtu.be

surfar · 06-09-2017, 06:54 PM

Youtu.be

**clackers** · 06-13-2017, 01:04 AM

You Tube

surfar · 06-13-2017, 02:56 AM

Biggest problem of the A9 cant be fixed right now because its fixed @ U$$$$$ 4500!

**clackers** · 06-13-2017, 04:54 AM

Know how you feel, Surfar. I, for example, drool at the 645Z.

06-07-2017, 11:27 AM	#410
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Rondec I think it's a fine image, I just don't know what it shows. It looks like it wouldn't take a huge frame rate, auto focus points or high dynamic range to capture it. It just seems like a waste to take photos like that with an A9. I don't think it is very relevant to the thread either. But it is a well taken and PP'ed Image ---------- Post added 06-07-17 at 02:33 PM ---------- Originally posted by normhead And I'm pretty sure you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but maybe time to just drop it no? It's not important. No one cares what you and I are "pretty sure" of. Look. Oh my god Annie Leibovitz and her camera are 10x as bad clipping as The K20 and its user. Good thing there were no Blown Highlights, she might lose her Photographers guild Card. Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 06-07-2017 at 12:49 PM.

06-07-2017, 08:41 PM	#413
Ian Stuart Forsyth Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Somewhere over the rainbow Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,531	Originally posted by JohnBee 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) Oddly enough low key photography seldom need a lot of DR to capture the full tonal values intended for the scene when displayed, the places you need DR is where you have HDR scenes where you want to lift or for the better word shift the DR captured in the raw that are located in shadows and place them in the mid tone zones for the displaying device, be it print or screen. With low key photography you seldom lift or shift any of the shadows,if anything you are setting the black point very high up in the top end of the DR data a cameras sensor can capture. This is due to the fact that we are using high contrasts to convey the scene. Most of the time we see clipping in LKP it was the intent of the photographers processing to use the full range of the tonal gamut of the display device to convey their artistic eye. There is no written law that it is Wrong to having 0,0,0 and 255,255,255 any where in the final image With LKP many like to clip and place any reflective surfaces at 255,255,255 as they would look unnatural as gray or off white, this can included any reflected light from the shiny surface of flat black ca,r to the glistening found in black hair and even how skin natural creates micro reflective surfaces from harsh light sources. Even when using controlled lighting for work you can see how skin acts as a shiny little surfaces that can reflect light just like a silver surface The only time we do not what to see any clipped data is in the raw file in areas where we want to contain some light data for processing , heck there is also no written law that the raw file must contain all of scenes DR at the top end with no clipping if the photographer chooses there to be clipping. Placing the exposure such that there was no clipping in the reflective surface of the lips would be a waste DR of the raw file, it was best to use that DR for the areas where I what the camera to capture the most amount of data from the scene above Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 06-07-2017 at 09:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony A9 $6799	surfar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	04-02-2017 01:51 AM
Sony A9 to be a DSLR-Like Camera with Unlimited RAW Burst: Report	Sliver-Surfer	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	04-07-2016 07:13 PM
D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	557	02-25-2016 04:39 AM
New Sony A7II and A9 with IBIS	Clavius	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	206	12-12-2014 05:37 PM
Sony A7 and A7r Officially Announced (Full frame supporting K-mount adapter!)	Adam	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	152	04-23-2014 01:48 PM

06-07-2017, 06:55 AM	#406
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: 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. As person who's seen examined and grading thousands of low key images, in my humble opinion, it's a failure (as a low key photo). It's a nice snapshot of someone's kid. But if you want to go with the opinions of hundreds of people who don't have the same experience it's no sweat off my back. It's just bad. So bad, that as a low key image, I thought it was just a bad exposure. Sometimes an image is so bad it's hard to discern what the guy was trying to do. That image qualifies. Darn, you removed the one really good low key image. As I said, the rest are problematic. Commercial shots, not really art. Commercial shots being shots done to satisfy a client. Art being a model who has no say in the outcome and is just used as a prop to express an artistic vision. Sometimes the two can overlap but other times it's one or the other. Last edited by normhead; 06-07-2017 at 09:36 AM.

06-07-2017, 07:25 AM - 1 Like	#407
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by 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. I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo.

06-07-2017, 07:32 AM	#408
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo. I think it's a fine image, I just don't know what it shows. It looks like it wouldn't take a huge frame rate, auto focus points or high dynamic range to capture it. It just seems like a waste to take photos like that with an A9.

06-07-2017, 09:28 AM	#409
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer I'm pretty sure you should probably get a better monitor. Or if it is good monitor get it calibrated. You are the only one that thinks there is something wrong with that photo. And I'm pretty sure you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but maybe time to just drop it no? It's not important. No one cares what you and I are "pretty sure" of.

06-07-2017, 03:58 PM	#411
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Norm and Surfer: Please stop bickering.

06-07-2017, 07:37 PM - 1 Like	#412
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	Thank you, Mark.

06-07-2017, 10:38 PM	#414
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Yes, every camera produced now can do plenty of good things....BRAND doesn't matter, buy what does the job!

06-13-2017, 02:56 AM	#419
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Biggest problem of the A9 cant be fixed right now because its fixed @ U$$$$$ 4500!

06-13-2017, 04:54 AM	#420
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Know how you feel, Surfar. I, for example, drool at the 645Z.