equipment DOES matters! - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/31/2005 03:23:18 AM · #1

sorry for the dramatic subject...

i was reading on cameras (digital and film) and there was a topic on dynamic range. it is said that even on today's higher end digital cameras, the dynamic range capability is still sub-par to conventional colour films; while black & white films far surpass any dynamic range of a digital camera.

but it seems the point isnt discussed much in the digital world. its a conspiracy! ;)

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

08/31/2005 03:33:11 AM · #2

Originally posted by shadow:

..but it seems the point isnt discussed much in the digital world. its a conspiracy! ;)

That's cuz' we gots Photoshop - our secret weapon! Shhhh.

aaronb532

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

08/31/2005 03:40:31 AM · #3

Acually, it get's discussed quite often over at DPReview.com

//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=14780480
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=14783946
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=14812335
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=14787662
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=14803197

I could go on but thats just what a quick search brought up in the last few days.

08/31/2005 03:58:24 AM · #4

Originally posted by aaronb532:

so from the threads you posted, it seems that those blown-out areas are actually recoverable using photoshop? I dont really get it. If its already saved into a file as a "white patch" then how will the details in that area be recoverable? dodge n burn?

08/31/2005 03:59:00 AM · #5

Originally posted by shadow:

Looking at specs on paper and looking at the finished prints can often be fairly contradictory. Show me film that can match what I can do with a 1D II or a 1Ds II and I will give you your choice of the two. There is an awful lot of information in a digital image. Play around in PS with Curves and Shadow/Highlight to see what I am talking about.

08/31/2005 04:29:51 AM · #6

Originally posted by shadow:

Shoot in RAW, not JPG.

08/31/2005 05:12:08 AM · #7

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by shadow:
so from the threads you posted, it seems that those blown-out areas are actually recoverable using photoshop? I dont really get it. If its already saved into a file as a "white patch" then how will the details in that area be recoverable? dodge n burn?

Shoot in RAW, not JPG.

even RAW is a file created from the camera. I'm just questioning whether or not the sensor on the digital camera is able to detect details in those blown out areas? or a strong glare from the sun, for instance? I'm just curious.

08/31/2005 05:27:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by shadow:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by shadow:
so from the threads you posted, it seems that those blown-out areas are actually recoverable using photoshop? I dont really get it. If its already saved into a file as a "white patch" then how will the details in that area be recoverable? dodge n burn?

Shoot in RAW, not JPG.

I'm just questioning whether or not the sensor on the digital camera is able to detect details in those blown out areas? or a strong glare from the sun, for instance?

Not always. If the image is shot in Raw there is a lot more latitude, a lot more information and a lot more room for ajustment. That doesn't overcome grossly blown out or underexposed images, but it is more forgiving then film.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/31/2005 05:53:03 AM · #9

i remembered the article mentioned something about the range or light ratio (damn memory) where colour films are like 1:16, B&W films are 1:18 (higher is better), the human eye can detect like 1:17 and lastly, digital camera sensors can only go to about 1:10 or 1:12 on high end cameras.

interesting, isnt it?

Message edited by author 2005-08-31 05:53:39.

owen

Canon EOS-40D

08/31/2005 06:06:03 AM · #10

Originally posted by shadow:

As far as I know for my camera the RAW format has 12 bits of information whereas the jpg only has 8 bits and monitors and printers only output 8 bits. I only shoot in RAW now as I can change the exposure by a fair amount before exporting to Adobe in 16 or 8 bit TIFF (Lossless format). You can even shoot underexposed by 2 stops in order to get faster shutter speed or smaller aperture and proper exposure is recoverable. The same adjustment in exposure is not obtainable in photoshop when you only have the jpg image to work with. The only problem is bigger files, fitting less pictures on your card, less shots in burst mode and longer processing times but it is definitely worth it.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/31/2005 06:12:39 AM · #11

Originally posted by owen:

You can even shoot underexposed by 2 stops in order to get faster shutter speed or smaller aperture and proper exposure is recoverable.

I wouldn't make a habit of that. That sounds like a good formula for noise. It is much better to use you ISO settings as much as possible. It may sound like it should, but the two don't equate to the same thing.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

08/31/2005 06:41:47 AM · #12

I believe dynamic range is talking about uhhh, dynamic range here. Wouldn't this by definition be the difference in light between the darkest and lightest subjects that can be captured?

I can't see how ISO would affect this in any way. Detail would either be lost as shadows or as blown highlights if the dynamic range was surpassed.

My neighbor teaches me a ton of stuff about cameras. He shot pro for 10 years, doing a lot of weddings and typical stuff, but also got to do a fair bit of assisting some real masters doing some really big prints with medium and large format.

Nsbca7 is certainly someone who has a lot of experience and knows what he is talking about when he says about what can be done with shooting.

On the other hand, guys with a lot of experience also get to know quite well what their equipment will do and will choose their shots quite differently. Oftentimes, they will simply gloss over the shot which is untakeable because of the excessive span in dynamic range.

What I have heard is that the dynamic range in a human eye is about 13 stops different, Some film is around 4-5 stops, Digital 2-3 stops and slide film considerably less still.

I have nothing to verify this, but that is what my neighbor said to me.

If you are really interested in dynamic range, check out the review on DPreview of the Fuji S3 Pro.

Another trick that can be useful if the subject isn't moving is to tripod mount and take multiple images, layering in PS.

Message edited by author 2005-08-31 06:42:57.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/31/2005 06:52:08 AM · #13

Digital is a moving target. People who insist that digital has less dynamc range than film don't know what the most modern DSLRs are capable of. The high-end Canons, specifically the 1DsMkII and 1DMkII, will certainly best color slide film, by a wide margin, when it comes to dynamic range. Color negative film has a wider latitude, but digital has surpassed it as well. There are some B+W specialty films that have extremely wide DR, and they might still be beyond what a top-end DSLR is capable of, but not by that much.

Prof_Fate

08/31/2005 09:48:17 AM · #14

Originally posted by eschelar:

What I have heard is that the dynamic range in a human eye is about 13 stops different, Some film is around 4-5 stops, Digital 2-3 stops and slide film considerably less still.

I have nothing to verify this, but that is what my neighbor said to me.

i have heard 7 on film, 5 on digital and 4 to 5 on slide. Since you can push a RAW image +/- 2 stops, digital should be capable of 9 stops. At this time that is alot more work, but it could easily be automated..there are actions for everything these days.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/31/2005 09:53:27 AM · #15

Cool. That sounds great! Do you have any information on the abilities of the human eye?

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/31/2005 10:17:20 AM · #16

Originally posted by eschelar:

FWIW, Chuck Westfall has stated that the sensor in the 1D Mark II has a dynamic range of 9 stops.
(Chuck is Canon's Director of Media & Public Relations.)