And that makes the next stop from 8 will be 8x1.414=11.31, rounded 11. The 2 factors don’t need to be rounded: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64.
Also keep in mind these are nominal figures based on the focal length. Focusing on infinity gives focal length = image distance.When focusing nearby the image distance is getting bigger. Then you should use the image distance and not the focal length. Nikon is doing that in their camera’s. That’s important when shooting makro.
George
I went back to KEH and ordered the newer one, in EX+ condition. I’ll send the other lens back. I liked “light and small”, but what you pointed out pushed me over the edge. It’s still 10% off, until midnight, their “Black Friday sale”.
Thank you for all the info.
Interesting! It indeed brings out details I would find too blue in the color version
I agree, the choice of B&W is an excellent one. Yes, you lose the colours but the image is so much more interesting, detail wise.
.
Like it – and based on your pic I added a couple LAs for some ‘mystery’.
Of course, what adds additional confusion to this discussion Is the light transmission characteristics of a lens, as I’m sure that you’re aware.
Measured in t-stops, it indicates how much actual light Is transmitted to the sensor, while f-stops are a more theoretical indicator of the exact amount of light transmitted.
As an example, when I last checked a few years ago a number of the 35mm f/1.4 prime lenses then availsble had a t-stop closer to 1.8. At the time I owned a Canon 35 mm f/2 USM IS prime lens which had a t-stop of 2. That means, when shooting them wide open these f/1.4 35mm lenses transmitted closer to 1/3 stop more light then my f/2 lens even though their maximum aperture was a whole stop wider. In my experience most lenses seem to have a light transmission t stop that passes less light than suggested by the maximum f-Stop.
Of course, the difference in the amount of light transmission does not affect depth of field.
Mark
yes, see here Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED - DXOMARK → Transmission !
Apart from this f/1,8 to be more of a marketing thing, it’s a fine lens and also quite flare resistent
( ‘replaces’ the 1000gr heavy 14-24 mm when on the go ).
Measuring with modern camera goes through the lens. The light meter measures the actual amount of light. It’s more a problem with external light meters. Beside that I remember from early days and an hand held light meter I had to correct that when using a telelens(=more glass).
The changing of the f-number is not related to the absolute amount of light but to the changing of the relative amount.
George
I just got involved in a discussion thread in the Leica Forum, wondering why users there were unhappy with the way Adobe processed their images. Here’s one:
Good grief!!!
Guaranteed that I will never use Adobe again. The final image isn’t the photographer’s image - it is Adobe’s image.
I’m shocked.
All raw developers apply whatever magic its developers deemed necessary to the files. Adobe has been in business for a long time and does a few things that other apps don’t or do differently. I see no need to get exited, specially in view of a) the things we can do with our images, no matter what the starting point might be and b) that these things can be defined as presets and applied per default.
Imo, the important thing is to learn the tool(s) one wants or needs to use and stop to waste energy for things beyond our control or influence.
PS: In Lightroom, I can define default presets or preset overrides per camera body like e.g. using dcp profiles derived from measuring each camera individually. I see this as one of the advantages of Lr over DPL. In other areas, DPL can make things easier than Lr… A screwdriver might not be the most appropriate tool for driving nails. 
If I select “no corrections”, what will DxO PhotoLab do with my files? I assumed the answer was “nothing”. It certainly doesn’t automatically try to improve my images.
I mean setting the preset for new raw images to #5, no correction.
Mike, RAW data is just that. Sensor data. It is not a “picture” per se. It must be interpreted by a RAW converter to produce a picture. Each RAW converter(including PL6) uses their own interpretation that the developers think will make the picture look good. This is why opening a RAW file in different RAW processors will give different-looking results even with “no corrections” applied.
This is really a great photo @RvL . Here’s my interpretation. Sorry but I can’t include a DOP file as I always go through a DNG intermediary file before finalizing.
How did you manage to change the color cast on the tree? Local adjustment and change the hue?
Mike, you have already flipped around several default presets, until we agreed that the “2 - DxO Optical Corrections only” was the best, as this doesn’t make any changes to tonality, exposure, etc - just the corrections for your lenses.
Now, DxO’s version of this is what is known as a full preset, in that it attempts to reset all sorts of settings as well as applying the optical corrections. I found this to be a “hazard” if I ever needed to apply all the optical corrections after having made other edits.
So, I created a partial preset, which only applies the optical corrections and doesn’t touch anything else.
Here is the file, which you can add to your list of presets and select as the default for all new files…
Optical Corrections only.preset (1,4 Ko)
But, as @rrblint says, all software applies what it considers necessary when reading a RAW file. If you had selected DxO’s “1 - DxO default” preset, you would see all sorts of changes that are intended to help beginners see an “average” adjustment but, which often isn’t suitable. It may be that Adobe use such a preset and the author of the post hadn’t realised they could change it in Adobe like we can in PhotoLab.
Actually, when it comes to de-mosaïcing RAW files, all software tends to use its own algorithms, so you are never going to be without some influence.
I like what DxO does (especially the noise reduction) and, for me, that is all that matters.
My question is, does this “raw converter” simplify translate something the computer can understand into something our eyes understand, or does it do anything to “improve” the translation.
Or, to ask another way, if I put a green filter on my lens and take a photo, will I get back a green translation (I hope) or something that has been enhanced?
In the first instance, if I were to convert binary numbers into ordinary numbers, what I “see” would be different, but both would have the same result for me to use, perhaps in an email. Is this what a “raw converter” does?
https://fixthephoto.com/best-raw-file-converters.html
From this page:
https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/editing/raw-file-converters/
“A good raw file converter will allow you to correct errors in exposure, adjust brightness levels to ensure both highlights and shadows contain detail, remove colour casts and, generally, make your digital photograph look as much like the original scene you photographed without losing any of the fine tonal nuances that make the difference between an excellent digital picture and a poor one. And, because all adjustments are done on your own computer, you have much more processing power at your fingertips than the camera can possibly provide.”
This is what I hoped you meant - the raw converter will help ME improve the image, but it won’t do any improving on its own.
Makes sense, just like taking the same photo using different films will give different results.
Thank you. I didn’t understand this very well before.
Unless you convince me otherwise, I will leave the setting at #2 so the only thing DxO does when it imports my image is to make optical presets because of limitations in my camera gear.
Since I’m already doing the optical presets, why would I want to do this? What other things does it change? Why would I not want to do them manually?
Yes, control points(quite a few actually) with hue adjustment. It was kind of tedious.
This preset is the most minimalist I could create. It does absolutely nothing apart from the essential optical corrections. The DxO preset does a lot more in the way of resetting all sorts of other stuff, which, if you applied it accidentally, could undo a lot of work.
Thanks, @Wolfgang - I’ve got two 20mm Nikon lenses arriving this week, both purchased from KEH with their 10% off Black Friday sale. I’ve got an older manual focus lens (light and small) that @Joanna feels is not appropriate for my D780 (although Ken Rockwell seemed to mostly like it), and this newer 20mm which you approve of - which also gives me auto-focus, but it is bigger and heavier than the first one. I expect to return the older lens. and keep the better and newer model. I don’t expect to use it very much, but who knows. I’ve read a 20mm is not a lens to buy just to cover a wider area - but is excellent in making use of the wide angle for shots like what Ken showed on his website.
