[wim]

Not to defend Canon, but since camera news now have a huge coverage, and the least issue is exaggerated, remember D200 banding ? now they are making a story of rolling shutter, then there's the dynamic range, in film days negatives had larger exposure latitude ( ok ok it's not dynamic range but something a little close to it)  than slide film, yet many preferred slide film, dynamic range isn't the only thing to consider

 

The latitude, or shift in DR if you like as DR was always about 10 stops or less, with colour well less that that, and with slides even less, could only be achieved by exposing and developing a film differently. In practice this means allocation of an iso value for an entire film and developing it accordingly, in a way, à la Zone System if you like.

 

I used to load my own film, and for my own pleasure created 5 images only films - this was the shortest film length that could still be loaded in a 35 mm slr back in the days, and essentially took a single shot and developed and printed it specifically for that single shot .

 

I also would like to argue that unless you shoot HDR, 10 stops of DR is all you'd ever need, if and when an image is exposed properly. Having said that, 10 stops of DR still allows for HDR, both single shot and multiple shot. Monitors don't really support more than 8 stops anyway, whatever manufacturers suggest (try viewing all gradations on a b&w density strip, you will likely see no difference between the last few darkest bands, and neither will you between the lightest ones).

 

Besides this, you are lucky to get 6 stops of DR with a print, and even then only with the paper that allows for the highest contrast levels, i.e. high gloss paper. Hence burning and dodging still required, or extensive PP IOW.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

That's what I really call the nonsense. Because prints or monitor views are not displaying more than 6 or 8 stops, you guys declare more than 10 are useless. HDR is one thing, displaying pictures with a very wide gammut the other. But tone mapping definitely benefits from every huge scale of tonality captured before.


Why on Earth somebody would say, oh no, today my loudspeakers don't give out more than 4000 Hz, starting from 300, so 20 Hz to 15 kHz is useless? Overkill? Or looking at the first Daguerrotypies which might display something like 3 to 4 stops - and defclare that as enough for all times? I welcome every effort of camera / sensor manufacturer to give us higher DR. It doesn't mean it has to stay this way. Our eyes still have more dynamic range. Just not in one single look, but we can adapt.


And if there will be a technique to show more by tone mapping, I rather prefer to be able to review some of my pictures lateron but catch more details and tonal range today. I also rather prefer to have a big reserve available to get things out of the shadows into life or get some clouds back in the skies. A picture never will be the real thing, it will always be an interpretation of a moment and itself another thing. The more information I can catch, the more free I will be lateron to make the final picture. Why give away or attack this possibilities? That's not about being able or not to expose correctly, because working with only 10 stops DR will either lead to white skies or muddy shadows. Even with 12 or 14 there will be a moment when this happens. But that moment will be more rare, and that's all what DR is about.


Talking about grayscales on print paper is not helpful. The grayscale doesn't represent the situation at the moment the picture was taken. Confusing input and output doesn't help to value what benefits come from DR.

[wim]

That's what I really call the nonsense. Because prints or monitor views are not displaying more than 6 or 8 stops, you guys declare more than 10 are useless. HDR is one thing, displaying pictures with a very wide gammut the other. But tone mapping definitely benefits from every huge scale of tonality captured before.


Why on Earth somebody would say, oh no, today my loudspeakers don't give out more than 4000 Hz, starting from 300, so 20 Hz to 15 kHz is useless? Overkill? Or looking at the first Daguerrotypies which might display something like 3 to 4 stops - and defclare that as enough for all times? I welcome every effort of camera / sensor manufacturer to give us higher DR. It doesn't mean it has to stay this way. Our eyes still have more dynamic range. Just not in one single look, but we can adapt.


And if there will be a technique to show more by tone mapping, I rather prefer to be able to review some of my pictures lateron but catch more details and tonal range today. I also rather prefer to have a big reserve available to get things out of the shadows into life or get some clouds back in the skies. A picture never will be the real thing, it will always be an interpretation of a moment and itself another thing. The more information I can catch, the more free I will be lateron to make the final picture. Why give away or attack this possibilities? That's not about being able or not to expose correctly, because working with only 10 stops DR will either lead to white skies or muddy shadows. Even with 12 or 14 there will be a moment when this happens. But that moment will be more rare, and that's all what DR is about.


Talking about grayscales on print paper is not helpful. The grayscale doesn't represent the situation at the moment the picture was taken. Confusing input and output doesn't help to value what benefits come from DR.

 

It may be nonsense to you, but it simply isn't for me. I have worked with the "limited" tone range of B&W photography for 30+ years, and I still expose stuff the same way in digital, or rather, similarly, taking highlight blow-outs into account. It works for me.

 

It is not nonsense, I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[miro]

+1. Different people different approaches. I have always been using reflectors, screens, fill flash, gradient and polarization filters.

 

Wim, I have one question - how do you exposure the grey dutch sky without gradient ND filter and limited DR? - so called "stapelbewolking" the hallmark of the Netherlands

 

====================

I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.
 

[JJ_SO]

It may be nonsense to you, but it simply isn't for me. I have worked with the "limited" tone range of B&W photography for 30+ years, and I still expose stuff the same way in digital, or rather, similarly, taking highlight blow-outs into account. It works for me.


It is not nonsense, I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.


Kind regards, 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>

[davidmanze]

    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!

[Brightcolours]

Wanting less would be a strange thing. Not needing that much, that is more valid. I do not even need the very high 12 stops of DR my 6D has at ISO 100, let alone the crazy high 14+ some people advocate. 

I am in fact quite happy shooting at ISO 800 or 1600, for instance.

[davidmanze]

Wanting less would be a strange thing.

 

   Exactly BC Indeed it would!

 

    The D750 has 14.5 stops of it, the D500 14.

 

    I would not like to be deprived of any of those precious DR stops,  nor their headphones sockets!       B)

[JJ_SO]

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.

[Brightcolours]

A dark bird against an overcast sky, there is no need for such high DR figures... Maybe a black kat hiding under a car with an overcast sky where you want an unnaturally looking spooky scene with lots of dramatic exaggerated clouds structures and also showing the cat as if it was not hiding in de darkness under the car... 

 

The DPreview example of an eclipse strikes me as particularly unattractive and bizar. The main feature of a solar eclipse is that it gets dark during daytime, something pretty special. And then to turn the resulting darkness into fake looking daylight? Have at it hoss, but I do not see the attractiveness of such images.