What is the benefit of bracketing

[Chairman]

In the S2 tip list sticky, BowerR64 said
What is the benefit of bracketing? i dont quite understand what good it is?

Can you explain why it would be used?

Exposure bracketing is useful when you are taking a shot where the exposure could be hard to determine. Rather than take the shot and photoshop it later, if you turn on exposure bracketing the camera will take three shots - one "correctly" exposed, one slightly underexposed, one slightly overexposed. If the correct exposure turns out to be not quite so correct after all, chances are good that one of the other two shots will be about right.

Focus bracketing is used in manual focus mode and is a similar concept - when you press the shutter button the camera will take a shot at whatever focus you have set, then two more shots focusing a little way either side of where you set. Greatly increases the odds of your manually focused shots being sharp :)

Hope that helps

Gary

[cpm440vee]

It also easily hogs up a lot of memory so an empty memory card or a big memory card is a must.

[BowerR64]

Why does it need to take 3 seperate shots for the exposure bracketing?

I dont see the need.

If you shoot a shot why cant it process inside the camera over or under 3 ev? the only way it would be useful is if its on a tripod.

The way it is now 3 seperate shots will be different with different exposures. It seems silly.

The focus bracketing seems more useful.

[Chairman]

You don't need the three shots to be absolutely identical unless you're planning to merge them in photoshop - most of the time close enough is good enough, so provided you don't move yourself or the camera it's fine.

It only becomes a problem when you take the shot while the camera is moving, e.g. from a car.

I don't know why exposure bracketing with the S2 needs three seperate shots instead one shot saved three different ways, that's the way my D100 works and the way I would have expected the S2 to work, which is why I posted it in the S2 sticky.

Gary

[JTL]

Why does it need to take 3 seperate shots for the exposure bracketing?

I dont see the need.

If you shoot a shot why cant it process inside the camera over or under 3 ev? the only way it would be useful is if its on a tripod.

The way it is now 3 seperate shots will be different with different exposures. It seems silly.

The focus bracketing seems more useful.

To take one shot and "process" it three times in camera, it would need RAW image capture. The RAW data is the data recorded directly from the sensor. Once this data is recorded, it is a relatively simple task to manipulate it....in camera or out. The manipulations to the data after conversion appear exactly as if the shot was captured that way in the first place.

The S2 does not record in RAW format. To handle RAW the first thing that's needed is a very large buffer. Then addtional electronic components. If Canon were to add these things, the price point would reach the low-end of SLR price-points. Also, you would be crossing over into a whole different market segment of buyers who would just get an SLR to begin with. So, you see why this is the way it is, right?

I don't know why exposure bracketing with the S2 needs three seperate shots instead one shot saved three different ways, that's the way my D100 works and the way I would have expected the S2 to work, which is why I posted it in the S2 sticky.Expecting a $350.00 consumer camera to perform like a $2000.00 SLR? That's a new one...even for me! We would call that an unreasonable expectation in the vernacular. :rolleyes:

[ktixx]

Bracketing is a technique specifically designed for post processing. It is not a technique for motion or for rapidly changing scenery. The technique is made to get proper, even exposure from landscape type shots. You need to have a tripod and even when you have one you still need to rotate/adjust the images to match perfectly. Once you have done that you can use digital gradual filters or the Merge to HDR feature in photoshop to get a nice image. If people think pro's always take one picture and it is perfect you are crazy. A lot of the time the best photographs are a combination of a few and have gone through a good deal of post processing. This is not cheating or dishonest - it is just another form of the art.
Ken

[BowerR64]

To take one shot and "process" it three times in camera, it would need RAW image capture. The RAW data is the data recorded directly from the sensor. Once this data is recorded, it is a relatively simple task to manipulate it....in camera or out. The manipulations to the data after conversion appear exactly as if the shot was captured that way in the first place.

I would rather have that then video record. I bought a digital camera not a digital video camera.

[JTL]

I would rather have that then video record. I bought a digital camera not a digital video camera.Then you bought the wrong camera...that's not the camera's fault...

[Chairman]

Bracketing is a technique specifically designed for post processing.
Really ?

I have photography books going back to the 1960s which talk about exposure bracketing.

Back then if you'd cocked up the exposure in the camera you could tickle it in the enlarger, if only parts of it were wrong you could do wonders with a cardboard circle on a stick or a sheet of card with a hole in the middle, or a sheet of card with no hole if you just wanted the sky brought up.

Back then there was no such thing as "post processing" as people understand it today.

But there was bracketing.

Gary

[JTL]

Really ?

I have photography books going back to the 1960s which talk about exposure bracketing.

Back then if you'd cocked up the exposure in the camera you could tickle it in the enlarger, if only parts of it were wrong you could do wonders with a cardboard circle on a stick or a sheet of card with a hole in the middle, or a sheet of card with no hole if you just wanted the sky brought up.

Back then there was no such thing as "post processing" as people understand it today.

But there was bracketing.

GaryDarkroom techniques are post processing. And, I for one, don't miss the dark(room) days for one second! :) I have finally lost all my nostalgia for the old days. You're right, of course. I (and countless others) use to combine different B&W film exposures for dramatic effect or to deal with blown highlights or bring up shadows. (we also dodged and burned by hand)...we didn't call it "post processing"...but it was post processing none the less...

Ken didn't say that bracketing was a technique only for digital post processing...he just said post processing...so his statement is as valid now as it would have been in the sixties...:)

[BowerR64]

Then you bought the wrong camera...that's not the camera's fault...

No i got the right one, just not a feature i would of chosen.

I got it because it was canon, had a movable lcd, takes AA batteries and has a 12X zoom.

[Chairman]

Touche ! :D

Now for another thought I had ...

The S2 does not record in RAW format. To handle RAW the first thing that's needed is a very large buffer.

Expecting a $350.00 consumer camera to perform like a $2000.00 SLR? That's a new one...even for me! We would call that an unreasonable expectation in the vernacular. :rolleyes:
There has to be a point somewhere in the cameras workflow when the 1s and 0s from the CCD are converted into a jpeg image, even if they don't pass through a RAW stage - and if the camera is processing a set of 1s and 0s once to make a jpeg why can't it process it three times to make three jpegs ? Is it just a lack of internal memory to store the 1s and 0s ? It's not a problem, I'm just curious.

Ultimately it's not about how the S2 compares with a DSLR - it's just an observation that the camera's software doesn't do something the way I thought it would, which affects the conditions under which a feature may be used - so is worth noting.

Gary

[JTL]

No i got the right one, just not a feature i would of chosen.

I got it because it was canon, had a movable lcd, takes AA batteries and has a 12X zoom.

Deep down, I agree with you. I think we should be able to get all of the features we want...from IS to high ISO to RAW...all at a reasonable price (sub $500). But the maketing departments at the manufacturers have a different view of the world. We are being "pushed" into easily identifiable market segments.

I think that the recent sales jump of low-cost dSLRs has done irreparable harm to the rest of the digicam community. The loss of Canon's "G"-line and "Pro"-line are two of the latest casualties...

[BowerR64]

What does the "effects" in the camera do? is that post processing? the black and white effect, sepia, vivid and the others.

[JTL]

Touche ! :D

Now for another thought I had ...

There has to be a point somewhere in the cameras workflow when the 1s and 0s from the CCD are converted into a jpeg image, even if they don't pass through a RAW stage - and if the camera is processing a set of 1s and 0s once to make a jpeg why can't it process it three times to make three jpegs ? Is it just a lack of internal memory to store the 1s and 0s ? It's not a problem, I'm just curious.

Ultimately it's not about how the S2 compares with a DSLR - it's just an observation that the camera's software doesn't do something the way I thought it would, which affects the conditions under which a feature may be used - so is worth noting.

GaryOh, no doubt you're right. It's technically possible. As far as just processing the jpeg 3 times...yeah...I think (but really don't know...maybe one of our engineer members does)...it's just a matter of the firmware (a program to do the work), a processor and the buffer space. But those thing add cost.

Also, I think that leaving out RAW (which they did on the S80 as well...the S70 had it!) is both a cost issue and a marketing/segmentation decision.

[JTL]

What does the "effects" in the camera do? is that post processing? the black and white effect, sepia, vivid and the others.Well now you're really getting into the stuff! :D

Sure...they're using up precious processing cyles and ROM for a "gimmick" when they could have used them for something more useful (although I'm sure a lot of people like the gimmicks...it would be interesting to see a survey of owners).

I've written Canon (and Fuji) letters...as polite as I could make them... concerning their boneheaded marketing decisions. And I'm sure others do that as well. They occasionally listen to consumers. I would write Canon if I were you (you'd save me another stamp! :D ). You have a good point.