[wim]

First, you're not the only one who worked with the zone system. I did so, too, and it was a huge boost to learn it for me. Pictures improved a lot.

To zone system belong various techniques to reduce or increase the tonal range of film. Such as overexpose and develop shorter for situations with general low contrast like foggy landscapes. Or underexpose and develop longer, preferrably with a softer developer for high contrast scenes. If I recall correctly? Or was it the other way round? I never went very deep into this + 1 or -2 stuff although I read Henk Roelfesema's books as well as Ansel's. I had two film magazines on my Mamiya, but some memories I also wanted to catch in colors. Today I would be very happy if I had had a bigger DR.


Now, I see statements like "no one needs more than x f-stops" like a very unreasonably set yet unneccessary limit. Sure, different people, different approaches, but as long as there are bigger contrasts around in nature, I have to ask "why not take advantage of sensor improvements" and instead stick to film era limits? Any good reason for that? I'm just asking because I can't think of a single one.


All dodging and burning or playing around with tonal curves can only improve the recorded data. Be it on film or sensor: lost or unrecorded data simply can't benefit of post production refinements because it's not available in the first place. Recovering highlights only works within the limits of captured highlights. Lost ones remains lost!


And if it still remains unclear, what I say, here's one of thousands examples what higher DR can do: <a class="bbc_url" href="https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9895055303/this-eclipse-photo-shows-crazy-dynamic-range-of-today-s-image-sensors">https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9895055303/this-eclipse-photo-shows-crazy-dynamic-range-of-today-s-image-sensors</a>

 

Note that I said that I personally do not need it. I am quite capable of recovering what I need, as long as I expose according to the principles I set for myself. If I ever do need HDR, it generally is of static subjects, and in that case I can always shoot an HDR sequence. IOW, the lack more than 10 or 12 stops of DR has never limited me personally in any way.

 

The question rises, BTW, what you do or do not want to lose, from a highlight POV - and yes, that is a personal choice, a deliberate one for me. It is impossible to retain all highlights when the environment shows you a DR of say, 24 stops, and not even the human eye can cater for that (the human eye can handle 17 stops of DR relatively quickly by shifting focus/viewpoint, but it is about 10 to 11 stops without readjustment). Neither do I like the overdone HDR shots you used to see in the past (haven't used those for a few years now).

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

    I thought that that was the point of high dynamic range, to be able to convert a high contrast image of 14 stops into a 6-7 stop print, so you can keep the detail and grading of 14 stops without the loss of contrast. (to taste)

 

  If it's not there to start with.....it's lost.

 

   I can't see any good argument for wanting to have less of it!

 

I said I do not need it. I'll likely never use it either, but that is just me. The thing is that the lowest levels in the DR range tend to be noisy anyway (although never too noisy for me unless shooting in very dark circumstances), or not entirely lossless in the case of, e.g., Nikon, who provide rather cleverly processed Raw files in this regard.

 

As to loss of contrast: the moment you increase contrast you lose DR, unless you do major burning and dodging, and even then you still do. You basically create a much steeper gamma curve, and it is a guarantee to lose original DR, because the curve will fit a few stops less. The most you can do is lower the gamma to such a degree, that those 14 and more stops fit within the DR of a monitor or print. When you do that, you either get contrastless images, or unreal looking ones (the HDR images I mentioned), or loss of contrast and DR.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

Yeah, and 14 stops is just a dark bird against a cloudy sky. That happens in real life. Getting back some birds-eyes without too much noise has nothing to do with wrong exposure, just with a big scale of DR.

 

Well, I am afraid I would personally call that bad exposure if it happened to me. If the eyes of a bird are very important to me, I would make sure the exposure would put those eyes in Zone V, well, 4 1/3 to 4 1/2 with digital, never mind the blown out sky. But that would be a deliberate choice. Generally it would take no more than 1 1/2, 2 or at most 3 stops of overexposure, and the sky can be fixed later, to a degree.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

To me it's very interesting that both people who would like to stilck to "12 stops is enough" never deliver a picture to confirm this limitation.


I doubt you could measure a birds eye with spot metering. Especially if it's in flight. It's quite easy to measure a static subject. And as I haven't seen any dynamic subjects of both of you, i just read that "bad exposure" theory with kind of a big smile.

[Brightcolours]

I wonder why one would want to measure a bird's eye? One does not have to meter a subject, one can meter for the light conditions. One can even rely on the camera to make the judgement when needed (called "evaluative metering" in Canon land, "matrix metering" in Nikon land).

 

As normal tonal curves with nice contrast span around 7 stops of DR, that would leave 5 stops of headroom, what is the obsession with that 14 number about, exactly?

 

I too had an interest in"HDR", many years ago, I shot scenes with 3 bracketed shots with a 6 stop spread. Luckily it only lasted a short while, finding the unrealistic, tasteless cheap scifi movie results as unattractive as they are.

 

It is very interesting to me that I never see your examples of 14 stops of DR?

[miro]

Hmm. Interesting to see how the Canon 6D MK2 discussion is spread to two camps

High vs Low DR and noone gives up.

I read all post, and see many numbers 10stops 11 stops 14 stops

I have quiestions to autors of this messages.

1. What do you mean with 6,7,8,...14 stops?

2. Could you expalin how do you come to this numbers?

 

The reason why I ask this questions is that we are talking about different thinks.

 

Tips:

Saying  this cammera has12 stops DR   

Equal to - 

This lens has absolute resolution of 2211LW/PH

[Brightcolours]

Miro, the much liked/loved colour positive slide films had a DR of 5-6 stops. They were liked for the punch, clarity, saturation and contrasty results.

 

Standard tonal curves have a DR of about 7-8 stops. Adding more contrast to OOC images brings the DR down to 5-6 stops, people then to like contrasty images.

 

If you assume a certain noise floor comparable to what DXO does, you get 12 stops DR in RAW with the 6D and 6D mk II (and Nikon D5). The standard tonal curves of these cameras are 7-8 stops of DR. That means you have a LOT of headroom still, at base ISO. 

 

What is unclear to you?

 

Your "tips" are a bit silly. A lens has a sharpness in images. The DR used for the image can vary. OOC, you get 7-8 stops of DR. Only hidden in the depths of RAW there is more lurking. There is no equivalence between these two in any way.

 

Applying deconvolution methods to get more information and sharpness out of an image capture, that would be more an equivalent of digging in RAW for a bigger DR range.

[miro]

Thanks for quick replay Brightcolour.

See my comments bellow

 

If you assume a certain noise floor comparable to what DXO does, you get 12 stops

 

Ooops you aleredy make an assumption and forget for the second one.

 

The second assumtions is - How do you get the saturation point? 

 

My point is that above metioned absolute Fstops are meaningless unless you specify the conditions. 

This values can be used only to compare two cameras - same as photozone's LW/PH for lenses

 

Some test methodes defines DR fot low quality Normal quality and high quality and the difference is between 2.....5stops

 

PS: My personal taste is 2 stops lower than Dxo

[Brightcolours]

No, a DR range in stops is NOT meaningless.

[wim]

To me it's very interesting that both people who would like to stilck to "12 stops is enough" never deliver a picture to confirm this limitation.


I doubt you could measure a birds eye with spot metering. Especially if it's in flight. It's quite easy to measure a static subject. And as I haven't seen any dynamic subjects of both of you, i just read that "bad exposure" theory with kind of a big smile.

 

Fine with me . I don't have an example at the ready of a very bright dynamic background and dark subject. However, it is surely easy enough to play with the exposure in situations like that. I certainly have done so when shooting gliders (planes) in a bright sky in the past.

 

As to me not sharing a lot: I can't, not often anyway, for privacy reasons.

 

Kind regards, Wim