[quote name='guy_incognito' timestamp='1309207309' post='9592']
That's the point. That's the benefit of a camera with a high dynamic range. Do you understand now?
(EDIT: You can download the first sunset/sunrise 645D picture in that thread. There is a small bump on the far right of the histogram, corresponding to the sun. There is a larger bump on the far left corresponding to the foreground.)
I was only referring to your post about dynamic range and contrast. I wasn't interested in a debate on MF vs. your 450D camera.
[/quote]
I do not get your point still. Images with a high dynamic range are unattractive. I tend to boost contrast, which means lowering the dynamic range.
Shooting into the bright sun with shadow parts of course will be a very high dynamic range scene, and will not get more attractive when you compress that high dynamic range into a low dynamic range image (that is what you do, when having a former high dynamic range in a 16 bit per channel image).
Pulling down the bright, and pulling up the shadows, that will just make the image unattractive and flat. To counter than, one can only boost local contrast in a big way, which gives those awful bad HDR halos and weird colour effects.
Nope... Like I said before, I tend to increase contrast, not lower it. And it was you who pointed to the Pentax review images:
"High dynamic range would benefit precisely the photographs in the thread linked above."
Like I said, those scenes I would have posed little problems for my 450D. No higher dynamic range is needed. That was my point.
Pentax is not really MF, though... its a very small sensor compared to MF.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309210638' post='9593']Pentax is not really MF, though... its a very small sensor compared to MF.
[/quote]
Compared to film MF, yes, but not compared to digital MF. Otherwise you'd need to dismiss all "lower-end" 30-40mp MF cameras (Mamiya DM28 and DM40, Phase One P30+ and P40+, Hasselblad H4D-31 and H4D-40, etc) as too small as they all use 44x33mm sensors.
"Higher-End" MF backs (~50mp) typically have 48x36mm sensors, so crop difference (x 1.09) is still minimal.
Just out of curiosity - looks like that all 44x33mm 40mp MF sensors have the same pixel density as Nikon D3x <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309210638' post='9593']
I do not get your point still. Images with a high dynamic range are unattractive. I tend to boost contrast, which means lowering the dynamic range.
[/quote]
Boosting contrast will lower the DR as you mentioned but you will also loose tonality because you stretch part of your tone curve. The higher the DR potential the better the tonality even after boosting contrast.
Following your argumentation it would be just fine to use a Pentax Q or whatever and stick to the given amount of contrast then. The quality of the end result is quite different though.
At the end of the day it is just a personal definition when good is good enough.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309210638' post='9593']
Shooting into the bright sun with shadow parts of course will be a very high dynamic range scene, and will not get more attractive when you compress that high dynamic range into a low dynamic range image (that is what you do, when having a former high dynamic range in a 16 bit per channel image).
Pulling down the bright, and pulling up the shadows, that will just make the image unattractive and flat. To counter than, one can only boost local contrast in a big way, which gives those awful bad HDR halos and weird colour effects.
[/quote]
???
If the subject is backlit and, say, a human being, photographers tend to use fill flash. If you don't know what fill flash is: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/fill_flash_use_EOS_article.shtml (EDIT: here's another one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wizwow/2229086928/)
In the case of a backlit coastal scene, you may not be able to illuminate the foreground with artificial lighting. You may however be able to recover some shadow detail in post-processing, if the detail is retained in the photograph data.
EDIT: The point is that not all scenes are the same. Some scenes provide you with too much contrast. In the extreme cases, if you're not careful, then you get a black silhouette as your subject and a washed out background.
[quote name='guy_incognito' timestamp='1309298711' post='9602']
???
If the subject is backlit and, say, a human being, photographers tend to use fill flash. If you don't know what fill flash is: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/fill_flash_use_EOS_article.shtml (EDIT: here's another one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wizwow/2229086928/)
In the case of a backlit coastal scene, you may not be able to illuminate the foreground with artificial lighting. You may however be able to recover some shadow detail in post-processing, if the detail is retained in the photograph data.
EDIT: The point is that not all scenes are the same. Some scenes provide you with too much contrast. In the extreme cases, if you're not careful, then you get a black silhouette as your subject and a washed out background.
[/quote]
Ok, you made me laugh... talking about fill flash when we are talking about photos made with a 25mm lens on that "MF" Pentax. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Some other interesting reviews of the Pentax 645D - comparing to 35mm.
35mm for versatility and MFD for ultimate enlargements.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DA.HTM
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-645d-canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii-comparison-digital-slr-review-15653
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309341735' post='9608']
Ok, you made me laugh... talking about fill flash when we are talking about photos made with a 25mm lens on that "MF" Pentax. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
We were talking about contrast and tonal range in photographs. It appears you're a complete newbie to photography and/or have poor reading comprehension. EDIT: I just noticed you recently posted similar nonsense about contrast on dpreview.com. My quest to elucidate was quixotic...
[quote name='guy_incognito' timestamp='1309844788' post='9742']
We were talking about contrast and tonal range in photographs. It appears you're a complete newbie to photography and/or have poor reading comprehension. EDIT: I just noticed you recently posted similar nonsense about contrast on dpreview.com. My quest to elucidate was quixotic...
[/quote]
It is your understanding of what I am writing which is totally lacking.
First of all, we were talking about the sense and nonsense of having even higher dynamic range in DSLRs. I was saying that I am not waiting on higher dynamic range, I tend to limit the dynamic range by adding contrast.
If you do not understand that, you are lacking what you accuse me of lacking.
2nd, you bring up fill flash, of all things. Fill flash in a discussion about photos made with a MF Pentax and a 25mm lens! Photos of landscapes. Fill flash! If you do not see how funny that is... It actually made me laugh. Also, fill flash limits the dynamic range of a scene, so it has no place in a discussion about the sense and nonsense of wanting sensors with a higher dynamic range.
Just because you do not understand arguments does not make it nonsense,
The forum software features a private conversation feature which is the primary weapon of choice for flame wars and kindergarten level attacking.
Now back to topic please.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309851432' post='9744']
[/quote]
The purpose of fill flash is to brighten shadow areas. If you cannot brighten shadow areas with artificial lighting, you can use curves.
Again look at any basic tutorial on levels, curves and histograms:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm (scroll down to the before-and-after example following the sentence "The next example uses a curve to close the tonal gap between the sky and darker foliage.") Obviously you cannot use artificial lighting to illuminate the forest in that example. Higher dynamic range would be useful in this situation.
Unfortunately, you have a Canon fanboy agenda. I saw your posts on Nikon vs. Canon on dpreview.com pertaining to dynamic range. My posts are only for the benefit of the lurkers.
|
