Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon RF18-45 coming in 2021
#31
That to you the 1st photo is very nice is fine. To me it is fake in light and colour (and not in a good way), the new kitsch fantasy look (although not the worst) from HDR nonsense which has proliferated itself in amateur circles in internet photography circles. Normal skies becoming threateningly stormy skies, colours becoming cartoonish and "omni directional light effects", I do not understand why some find that something to strive for. The constant hammering on the need for very high DR and then illustrate it with images like these (which do not utilise that very high DR anyway) is what I disagree with.

I admit that I too went through a "HDR" tryout phase, when the 1st HDR tone mapping software became available. Luckily, I quickly understood it for the fad that it is and stopped shooting bracketed exposures for landscapes.
#32
Well, having seen that place myself I do not think the image looks fake Wink You may argue if the color tone of the sky is a tad too much or not, but then this is definitely also true for the first two samples you posted Wink

Again: we're discussing personal preferences and taste, here. It's ok if you do not "understand" fantasy landscapes. I, for example, never got excited about any kind of fashion photography or even regular studio portraits. I honestly find them terribly boring. Yet, I wouldn't dare to tell anyone excited about this kind of photography that they are wrong and their images are bad.
Editor
opticallimits.com

#33
(06-19-2020, 09:50 AM)mst Wrote: The point here is not: do the images look natural or fake (I like them, btw). It is simply a matter of personal taste how much pulling of shadows (or highlights) one still finds attractive or considers HDR overkill. There is no right or wrong.

The point is: does the camera's sensor provide enough information to offer some buffer for this kind of post processing or not.

(06-19-2020, 09:47 AM)toni-a Wrote: for those shots I can easily have the same result using RP, however I would  have exposed a little more to the right without burning out highlights to avoid noise in shadow areas.
shooting to the right then decreasing exposure to taste is always a valid approach

As you can see in the lower shot, there is already some clipping in the bright spots of the clouds. So, moving exposure further to the right probably would have caused trouble.

Yes, and the RP sensor does have that buffer. The standard tonal curve will be around 7.5 stops.

Not all cameras have the same headroom (in the light part), Canon tends to have quite some headroom there (probably that will not be the same for all models). I do not know of anyone testing the differences in headroom, but with some cameras you can expose a little bit more successfully to the right than with others, depends on the chosen tonal curve the exposure is based on.

(06-19-2020, 10:27 AM)mst Wrote: Well, having seen that place myself I do not think the image looks fake Wink You may argue if the color tone of the sky is a tad too much or not, but then this is definitely also true for the first two samples you posted Wink

The 2nd image actually shows the warm colours that were there just before sunset, the only thing I did was limiting the DR (pulling the blackpoint up a bit). I was trying out my then newly acquired Nikkor-S*C 55mm f1.2. Taken with "daylight" WB. 
The 1st image, you are right. I posted it to show that limiting DR is an actual thing in photography.
#34
Wink 
(06-19-2020, 09:44 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, ofcourse. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.

To recap: The images you posted and what you did with them of course can be made with a Canon EOS RP. The results are less than attractive, with odd, flat light that puzzles your brain (due to unexplained omni directional light effects). As photographer you should embrace light, which includes shadows. No reason to be afraid of shadows, and indeed, the dark.

You do not make a great case for "the need" for very high DR.

I never posted these images to find out whether you like them or not - it's actually a good thing you don't like them, if we all had the same tastes, can you imagine how boring our lives would be? [Image: wink.png]. Their sole purpose was to illustrate my point about DR.

There are a few things you don't seem to understand when we talk about DR.
There is 1) the source DR, as in the RAW image that was captured, and 2) the final output DR as in the post-processed image.
In 1) you want as much DR as possible as it gives you more post-processing flexibility/latitude (pull shadows, recover highlights, etc.).
Then, once you're happy with the post-processing, you don't necessarily need much DR to represent the final output.
If the sensor has low DR, then you will be limited by how much processing you can achieve with the file. It's unrelated to the DR of the final output.

As you can see, the first example has quite a bit of noise everywhere du to the fact I exposed for the clouds (shot on a MFT 16MP sensor). Have I had exposed for the foreground, the sky would be plain white.
Now, if I had shot this image with a Canon RP, the result would have been worse. Its DR is lower than MFT at this ISO. On the other hand, a Nikon Z6 or Z7 would have given me much better result.

That was my point, but somehow you never seem/want to agree for some puzzling reasons (insecurities?). Again, I'm not talking about personal preferences here, but just facts about sensors.

PS: given your "the less" DR the merrier motto, you must be sorely missing shooting slide film [Image: biggrin.png]

(06-19-2020, 09:50 AM)mst Wrote: The point here is not: do the images look natural or fake (I like them, btw). It is simply a matter of personal taste how much pulling of shadows (or highlights) one still finds attractive or considers HDR overkill. There is no right or wrong.

The point is: does the camera's sensor provide enough information to offer some buffer for this kind of post processing or not.

(06-19-2020, 09:47 AM)toni-a Wrote: for those shots I can easily have the same result using RP, however I would  have exposed a little more to the right without burning out highlights to avoid noise in shadow areas.
shooting to the right then decreasing exposure to taste is always a valid approach

As you can see in the lower shot, there is already some clipping in the bright spots of the clouds. So, moving exposure further to the right probably would have caused trouble.

Thanks, Markus, that's exactly what I was trying to explain [Image: thumbsup.png]

(06-19-2020, 10:00 AM)toni-a Wrote:
(06-19-2020, 09:44 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: You are proving my point. The 1st you made into a fantasy landscape, straight out of fantasy movies. The 2nd looks unnatural, making the viewer wonder what exactly is reflecting that light on the back of the people sitting on that bench, light should not be that omni directional, with our brain telling us there can't be that back light combines with the odd software illumination of the subject. And why you think this is out of the realm of the RP sensor is a mystery to me, anyhow.
The 3rd, also strange light that does not really work, but the best of the three and fine for a family album, of course. But not a great image, due to the light conditions and/or choices in post processing.

In many cases it is almost the opposite: for attractive images, in respect to DR, "the less" the merrier.

Sorry BC, but first photo is very nice on screen at low resolution can't say about shadow noise at higher resolution on prints
for picture 2 already the original is slightly underexposed.
As for picture 3, end result is just fine, ideally a reflector or off camera  flash would have been perfect, but I know how things go with kids..... when it's one kid, wife would happily help you with reflector, but  with two kids, being able to hold your camera and snap a few photos is already a struggle

Indeed, Toni.
I have 2 daughters which, at the time of this shot where 2 and 5.

Carrying a reflector or using a tripod or anything else than just snapping away with 2 kids and a wife? Aahahah, good luck!


Bottom line: good DR helps (if only to recover wrongly exposed shots) :-)
Who would in their right mind say something like: "I love this X sensor because it's got only 5 stops of DR, yay!"
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#35
If a camera has a wide DR even doing no processing it should be better.... with a gentler gradient and more foot and headroom in blacks and whites ...... unlike one with a poor DR ..... 

Here we are talking "my blacks can be brighter than your's" .... and get me out of a situation ....... it's best not to get in it!

We should be comparing DR with unforced images ..... if then you so desire to fiddle a little, that's your prerogative!

... however it shouldn't be used as a get out of jail card ..... as it rarely does .......
Dave's clichés
#36
Slide film was used by real photographers and artists. Contrast in images is good.
#37
Most Sony sensors users see  Canon sensors as a disaster with a lot of noise with nothing but clipped highlights while in real life difference isn't that dramatic
no doubt 14 fstops is better than 12, here's a shot taken at ISO400 where 7Dmkii dynamic range is only 11fstops with shadows pulled

[Image: attachment.php?aid=101]
And here's what the camera can give unedited using in camera HDR mode

[Image: attachment.php?aid=103]


both pictures taken from car window while driving to work

I understand BC who is very happy with his gear performance while everyone bashing Canon sensors since any difference is visible only in RAW in some critical scenes with which he learnt how to deal in a creative way.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/...___977_942

check what DXO says about 7Dmkii vs Sony A6000
A6000 is a clear winner on paper, it even has 24 vs 20 MP and plenty of features 7D2 lacks, however as an owner of both I prefer by far using my 7D2


Attached Files
.jpg   rainbowbaabda.0012.jpg (Size: 167.07 KB / Downloads: 36)
.jpg   rainbowbaabda.0009.jpg (Size: 161.28 KB / Downloads: 35)
#38
Big Grin 
(06-19-2020, 07:18 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Slide film was used by real photographers and artists. Contrast in images is good.

That's a pity, there must not be many real photographers left then [Image: wink.png]
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#39
I feel now that there is zero to be be gained from this back and forth ping pong about DN and AA filters apart from bogging the forum down by tedious repetition ... (which has already been going on for many years) .... the only outcome will be more of it ....
 
It's clear that the forum members are intelligent folk  .... just with different ideas ...... so let's move on before things get even more messy!
Dave's clichés
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)