Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 15 Sep 2014 (Monday) 01:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

why is Canon considered to have bad dynamic range?

 
this thread is locked
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,908 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2616
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:05 |  #166

All this emphasis on high dynamic range....HOW do you view it?!

From the days of slides vs. prints, we know we get a far greater dynamic range from a PROJECTED image than one printed on paper. CRT's, and LCD displays are limited, too!

From http://www.wisegeek.co​m …onitor.htm#didy​ouknowout: (external link)
"High dynamic range monitors have been developed to present nearly absolute blackness and higher levels of brightness, almost 3½ times brighter than what is ordinarily achieved on a conventional monitor, which can present only about 600:1 cd/m2. A high dynamic range monitor is capable of some 200,000:1 cd/m2. Conventional monitors cannot present absolute blackness simply by virtue of the residual brightness of the screen that is inherent in its being turned on. A high dynamic range monitor will present true blackness and a less overwhelming brightness as a result of technology that modifies a liquid crystal display (LCD) cathode ray tube using a modulated series of light emitting diodes (LED). Thus a picture on a high dynamic range monitor is closer to what the eye would register at the scene of what is pictured. A high dynamic range monitor presently costs some $49,000."

Have you spend $49k on your desktop PC monitor?!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,745 posts
Gallery: 374 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 2398
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:12 |  #167

Wilt wrote in post #17267327 (external link)
Have you spend $49k on your desktop PC monitor?!

Didn't spend that on my truck! :p :shock: :shock:


Godox/Flashpoint r2 system, plus some canon stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:27 |  #168

davebreal wrote in post #17266432 (external link)
7D MK 1 shot, ACR set to 0 on shadows, highlights at -5. No further shadows/highlights actions taken. Slight Curves adjustment in CS 6.

OMG what amateurish settings:D
Lifting shadows is just a type of selective "curves adjustment"

If you are railing against the overcooked "HDR" images that are proliferating, I'm with you. However, that's nothing to do with understanding the benefits of greater DR at capture. (Did you ever learn about the "Zone system" and how it strove to expand the DR of analog photography by post processing during development and printing? Those amateurs:()

If you are saying that anyone who uses more than -7 highlights or more than "slight" curves" is amateurish, then I couldn't be more against such arrogance. You choose your limitations on postprocessing (is -6 OK?) on a personal basis - fine. To say that someone who chooses a (slightly) different set of limitations is an amateur who doesn't understand "quality of light" is simply nonsense.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snake0ape
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:45 |  #169

David Arbogast wrote in post #17158275 (external link)
12 stops isn't so bad until you need 14...

Well if you really need it...5D3 + ETTR + DUAl ISO works pretty well for those 1% extreme shoots.


5Diii | 50D | 8-15L 4| 16-35L 2.8 II| 24-70L 2.8 II | 70-200L 2.8 IS II |Tamy 150-600 | Σ35Art 1.4 | 40 2.8 | Σ50Art 1.4 | 85L 1.2 II | 100 2.8 Macro | Helios 44-3 58mm f2.0 |Helios 40-1 85mm f1.5 | 1.4x & 2x teleconverters

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Nov 12, 2014 10:47 |  #170

Wilt wrote in post #17267327 (external link)
All this emphasis on high dynamic range....HOW do you view it?!

You can get a $50K monitor if you want to "reproduce" it.

However, we've aways viewed prints by compressing them into the DR of the paper so higher DR at capture only needs a slight tweak of how we currently view a lower DR. Let's be optimisic and say prints have a DR of 8 stops, we have to take our 11 stop image and compress it - by, gulp, tone mapping it (how amateurish:D) - even selectively sometimes, to get the print to show the image "properly". For an image with 14 stops it's just a little different:D Conversion of the sensor data already involves a huge transformation from linear to "logarithmic" so the eye can get an approximation of the scene the sensor recorded. Of course, those who think better DR at capture allows more creative mapping to show the image "properly" don't expect to view all the captured DR in the print.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snake0ape
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:02 |  #171

AJSJones wrote in post #17267428 (external link)
You can get a $50K monitor if you want to "reproduce" it.

However, we've aways viewed prints by compressing them into the DR of the paper so higher DR at capture only needs a slight tweak of how we currently view a lower DR. Let's be optimisic and say prints have a DR of 8 stops, we have to take our 11 stop image and compress it - by, gulp, tone mapping it (how amateurish:D) - even selectively sometimes, to get the print to show the image "properly". For an image with 14 stops it's just a little different:D Conversion of the sensor data already involves a huge transformation from linear to "logarithmic" so the eye can get an approximation of the scene the sensor recorded. Of course, those who think better DR at capture allows more creative mapping to show the image "properly" don't expect to view all the captured DR in the print.

Yes. Usable DR on print is 8 stops. Usable DR on a great monitor is 10 stops. So its a matter for the photographer to figure out what darks and hightlights to push or pull for the final output. It's all about taste!!!! And oh yeah, the human eye can only see about 6 -9 stops at one instant. An so if you want all 14 stops represented on a print, IMO, it looks "fake". But then again, its a matter of taste and what story you want to tell out of the photo.


5Diii | 50D | 8-15L 4| 16-35L 2.8 II| 24-70L 2.8 II | 70-200L 2.8 IS II |Tamy 150-600 | Σ35Art 1.4 | 40 2.8 | Σ50Art 1.4 | 85L 1.2 II | 100 2.8 Macro | Helios 44-3 58mm f2.0 |Helios 40-1 85mm f1.5 | 1.4x & 2x teleconverters

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2n10
Cream of the Crop
17,074 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 1178
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Sparks, Nevada, USA
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:09 |  #172

AJSJones wrote in post #17267428 (external link)
You can get a $50K monitor if you want to "reproduce" it.

However, we've aways viewed prints by compressing them into the DR of the paper so higher DR at capture only needs a slight tweak of how we currently view a lower DR. Let's be optimisic and say prints have a DR of 8 stops, we have to take our 11 stop image and compress it - by, gulp, tone mapping it (how amateurish:D) - even selectively sometimes, to get the print to show the image "properly". For an image with 14 stops it's just a little different:D Conversion of the sensor data already involves a huge transformation from linear to "logarithmic" so the eye can get an approximation of the scene the sensor recorded. Of course, those who think better DR at capture allows more creative mapping to show the image "properly" don't expect to view all the captured DR in the print.

OMG DR heresy.:rolleyes: I really wonder if those folks actually print given what you have just stated? It would be interesting to see what difference they achieve between a scene with 11 stops and the same scene with 13 stops after they have tweaked it to the best they feel is possible and then print it.


John
Equipment
My Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:18 |  #173

2n10 wrote in post #17267473 (external link)
OMG DR heresy.:rolleyes: I really wonder if those folks actually print given what you have just stated? It would be interesting to see what difference they achieve between a scene with 11 stops and the same scene with 13 stops after they have tweaked it to the best they feel is possible and then print it.

You could get some idea of the possibilities from this comparison
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html (external link)


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2n10
Cream of the Crop
17,074 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 1178
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Sparks, Nevada, USA
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:24 |  #174

AJSJones wrote in post #17267497 (external link)
You could get some idea of the possibilities from this comparison
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html (external link)

My untrained eyes were not seeing a lot in it except for the difference in color capture between the cameras.


John
Equipment
My Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,142 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6245
Joined Sep 2007
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:31 |  #175

2n10 wrote in post #17267507 (external link)
My untrained eyes were not seeing a lot in it except for the difference in color capture between the cameras.

it's possible that you completely missed the DR comparison

you dont need trained eyes for the comparison, as long as your eyelids are not shut, you will see it.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonVsNikon
Senior Member
255 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:31 |  #176
bannedPermanent ban

Look at Lisa Holloway and Sublime (spelling?) in the People forums. We all know Lisa and her great work. Sure she is a fabulous photographer but she also does a lot of heavy PP, sometimes hours on one photo (I believe she state this once). And we're not talking simple curves and highlight/shadow adjustments. We're talking full dodge/burn/layers/filt​ers/etc. It's a skill she has built over the years and the final output is outstanding. But without PP there wouldn't be that special look to it.

So PP is a VERY integral part of photography. I laugh at those who think it's only pure if you get it right out of the camera. No one would call Lisa Holloway a hack.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonVsNikon
Senior Member
255 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:32 |  #177
bannedPermanent ban

2n10 wrote in post #17267507 (external link)
My untrained eyes were not seeing a lot in it except for the difference in color capture between the cameras.

Keep scrolling down to banding part




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:34 |  #178

2n10 wrote in post #17267507 (external link)
My untrained eyes were not seeing a lot in it except for the difference in color capture between the cameras.

Th shadow detail recovery comparions about 2/3 of the way down that page illustrate the effect of having more DR = less noise (often chrominance noise - is that what you refer to?) in the deep shadows. One way of thinking about DR is how far down into the shadows you go before it becomes too noisy to distinguish details from noise.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2n10
Cream of the Crop
17,074 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 1178
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Sparks, Nevada, USA
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:41 |  #179

AJSJones wrote in post #17267524 (external link)
Th shadow detail recovery comparions about 2/3 of the way down that page illustrate the effect of having more DR = less noise (often chrominance noise - is that what you refer to?) in the deep shadows. One way of thinking about DR is how far down into the shadows you go before it becomes too noisy to distinguish details from noise.

Yes I know about that. What I am thinking about is a landscape shot that has a balanced mix of light and dark and obviously more panoramic too. I suspect in those cases the difference may be less especially in 8 bit prints. I would really like to see prints because I do not print out photos. Kind of a kill two birds with one stone type of thing.:lol: I think the argument has more to do with the amount of effort to achieve the same goal which is valid. I just think the vitriol and bashing is unnecessary, counter productive and, well, childish.

Also my thoughts were on processing to the point in both cases where noise is about to be a problem, not what it would look like with equal shadow lifting or highlight recover, just to see how different the shot would look.


John
Equipment
My Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:44 |  #180

David Arbogast wrote in post #17267164 (external link)
I don't believe this latest outburst is a Canon-fan thing. Rather it's a "photography-purist" thing. There are many photographers who eschew post-processing as somehow impure. They are post-processing minimalists. In the case of davebreal, he has decided to draw the line between "get-it-right-in-camera" purism and those that that use advanced post-processing techniques (beyond minimal simple curves adjustments) as the line between professional and "absolute amateur waters".

I would simply challenge davebreal, and anyone else agreeing with such a down-putting claim, to prove that assertion. Prove that the greatest landscape photography "professionals" never work their images in post to recover shadow detail. Prove that every "professional" landscape photography professional from Ansel Adams to Marc Adamus always get it right in camera and never push their images in post beyond a few curves adjustments. Prove that all landscape photography professionals agree with davebreal's statement that shadow recovery is nothing but amateurism.

He needs to prove it because he put it in absolute terms ("absolute amateur waters").

Agreed. So, Ansel Adams who used dodge and burning techniques is very amateur. :rolleyes::lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35,064 views & 0 likes for this thread
why is Canon considered to have bad dynamic range?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Willday
1005 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.