Invertalon wrote in post #14216573
Wow, so people now want to compare shots underexposed by 5 stops and pushed back in post? LOL... Man, people must be bored!
Well I was after reading this topic, so I made some of my own with the 5D3... First one is pushed 3 stops, second one 5 stops.
Oh noes, banding at 5-stops!!
It's not about 'underexposing by 5 stops' then trying to recover the photo. It's about exposing properly in a high-dynamic-range situation, so as not to blow the highlights, then still having detail in the shadows in the same frame, which can then be adequately recovered. Imagine if, in your photo, the house and trees behind the foreground were, instead, a sunset and sky. In the original exposure, the foreground would be in deep shadow, but the sky would be properly exposed - in fact, just short of blowing out. You'd then have to push the shadows 3 stops or 5 stops in order to recover foreground detail. Increasing the exposure time isn't an option - if you did so, you'd blow out the sky. Multiple exposures aren't an option, since the leaves are rustling in the wind, and the multiple exposures wouldn't overlap properly. You wouldn't be able to adequately push these shadows in your samples.
In short, it's a test of useable dynamic range. You can't always use a GND, and you can't always use multiple exposures - if you shoot landscapes at all, dynamic range is a vital quality, and was always the Achilles heel of slide film.
And, I agree - the 5D3 shadows pushed 5 stops looks horrible!