10-03-2018, 12:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2018, 01:07 PM by Brightcolours.)
1. It is a fad for sure, and why don't you show all those 14 stops of DR images you made and love so much?
2. Alternative facts, much? The human eye only sees 6.5 stops at any one time. That is a fact. Yes, the human eye will adjust when you look from dark to light, and vice vera. Depending on how much the difference is, the adjustment can take upto 30 minutes. There is a reason why the standard tonal curves of cameras give us "natural" looking images (7-8 stops of DR) and why colour positive slide film was so popular (5-6 stops of DR).
All the time I have the feeling you project a lot.
martind86, before you run in the "BC in stubborn donkey mode" trap, like many of us did before, you need to know: his world view of subjects like "equivalence" or "more than 6.5 stops of dynmaic range are overkill" is rather limited and narrow, to put it mildly. You can save a lot of nerves and energy by not trying to show him another point of view as he likes to stick in his errors. But sometimes it's good to have a stubborn mind around. 
Now, BC, you can report my post, run again to Admin Klaus and complain and wail around. It's amazing how a person with considerable knowledge decides to refuse other insights and ignores the obvious fact that there is more contrast in this world than a Canon sensor can master.
JoJu, do you have an issue with reading? Read my post again, just giving facts about DR of our eye sight, and pointing out the fad of high DR "photography".
10-03-2018, 08:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2018, 09:02 PM by martind86.)
(10-03-2018, 01:56 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: martind86, before you run in the "BC in stubborn donkey mode" trap, like many of us did before, you need to know: his world view of subjects like "equivalence" or "more than 6.5 stops of dynmaic range are overkill" is rather limited and narrow, to put it mildly. You can save a lot of nerves and energy by not trying to show him another point of view as he likes to stick in his errors. But sometimes it's good to have a stubborn mind around.
Now, BC, you can report my post, run again to Admin Klaus and complain and wail around. It's amazing how a person with considerable knowledge decides to refuse other insights and ignores the obvious fact that there is more contrast in this world than a Canon sensor can master.
:-) :-) Thank you JJ_SO, yes, I have already noticed who I'm dealing with. Einstein has one famous quote: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I like this quote :-).
(10-03-2018, 12:56 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: 1. It is a fad for sure, and why don't you show all those 14 stops of DR images you made and love so much?
2. Alternative facts, much? The human eye only sees 6.5 stops at any one time. That is a fact. Yes, the human eye will adjust when you look from dark to light, and vice vera. Depending on how much the difference is, the adjustment can take upto 30 minutes. There is a reason why the standard tonal curves of cameras give us "natural" looking images (7-8 stops of DR) and why colour positive slide film was so popular (5-6 stops of DR).
All the time I have the feeling you project a lot.
1) :-) LoL, just ranting again. It is exactly the same level of quality argument as me saying "Brightcolors is a known pedophile". Tell me, why do you think it is a fad? What proof do you have for your assertion?
I will be pleased to share my beloved photographs with every photographer but certainly not with you because what you are actually seeking is just an ammunition for another ranting. Nothing else.
2) Tell me, what is your source information? How about some critical thinking in your google search results? It was just the first hit which seemed to confirm your idea, wasn't it? ;-) Please search and read again in depth and you will see that what really counts is so called dynamic range of an eye which is indeed about 20 stops. BTW, the eye is a contrast detector, not an absolute detector like the sensor in a digital camera (if it helps).
A FAD is something which becomes very popular very quickly and just as quickly as it arrived, it disappears............often a novelty, or trivial item......a fashion craze etc.
..........high DR is not some sort flash in the pan gimmick that will pass so we can return to normality and stop playing silly photographic games.....
......it's called progress......we will continue to see better DR and lower noise sensors!.........
........there's nothing about modern sensor technology that constitutes a FAD!
Dave, I am not saying that lower noise in sensors is a fad, I call lifting shadows many stops a fad.
The Mediterranean where the sun is bright and contrast is ferocious, the difference between the exposure on a white bird and the underside of a dark bird can be four or five stops! ..........
.....What the eye can register in an overall scene maybe very well only six and a half stops......but behind those eye lies a brain with a vast array of visual experiences........when I take an image of a Glossy Ibis, the result SOOC is a black heavily underexposed bird that shows no detail at all set against a bright natural back drop........the result is unusable without radical PP...... unless you are prepared to accept silhouetted black birds....
...this PP is my "go to modus operandum" and without it I would be in the pooh!
I also think PDAF sensors would interfere with the ability to use the DR with this banding business.........yes I know not in most situations.....but in the case of the glossy ibis........it would have done!
Here is the otherwise unremarkable image.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/42293386961/in/dateposted-public/
Ihere are tons of occassios, when each available f-stop counts for a good result. Also, there's a zone in which noise becomes questionable. Wether the picture suffers of it or not. And the more f-stops are in between, the better. You were asking for examples of 14 stop ranges, well knowing there's not method to measure them in a RAW. It's not getting a better excuse the more you repeat the comfort of Canon shooters who have to live with blown highlights and noisy shadows. I guess one can arrange himself with a less big bandwidth of tones. But as there are enough alternatives, why limiting myself?
Of course the human eye can adapt to much more contrast and more light difference, just by scanning a scene, as seeing is a constant adaptation. But if we take the human eye as model for a lens or a camera, there's no reason to deliver corner sharpness at all. Also no reason to freeze action with 1/4000 of a second. In fact, most of all very good photographs we know today would not have been possible or look much different than they are. Next predictable blurb is "no printer can print 14 stops" and the answer is as predictable as well "no, but a tonemapped picture" - and if you also think tone mapping is devil's work, I suggest you close your eyes next time you visit a gallery with fine art prints. Ah, you don't do these kind of things? Well, then...
The scene may well have all 14-15 stops of light in it........the eyes cannot see all of that and nor can printers resolve it........the -14 stops of DR in the deep shadows need to be raised to become -12 stops.........and the upper level needs to brought down by -2 stops to stop bleaching......
.......this now gives a final image with a DR of 10 stops overall....you need the DR curve to be non linear........while including all the image graduation of a 14 stop image.....
.......which most printers can handle!
10-06-2018, 07:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2018, 07:23 PM by martind86.)
Initial Z7 Impessions by venerable Thom Hogan:
https://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/camera-database/nikon-z-mirrorless-cameras/nikon-z6z7-blog/
I'm not quite enthusiastic about Canon R and unfortunately this also seems to be first gen product with several unpleasant quirks. Esp. the sub par AF.... for this kind of money, come on! It should have delivered more!
Again, it also proves my initial point that Nikon Z is substantively behind where the Sony A7Rm3 is for continuous autofocus sequences.... :-(.
The banding kind of hampers the usability of the great dynamic range of the sensor too which is disappointing.
Again, despite being Nikon user at the moment, I consider the current Z line a kind of beta products for rather undemanding users. But yes, I'm demanding for a camera in key areas - sensor, autofocus, overall responsivness.
If you are not, it may be a great choice. But no doubt D850 is still a better option at the moment.
|
