Advice Wanted for High Dynamic Range

BigAl007 wrote in post #18311166
The issue with both the blinkies, and the histogram shown on the camera LCD is the fact that both are based on the fully processed in camera JPEG image. The in camera processing can make a huge difference, because if for example you chose a very high contrast picture style, that will tend to make highlights clip much sooner than if processed with a low contrast style. If you look at the full range standard picture styles, and other processing variables, it is possible to shift the clipping point of the processed image by up to two full stops. Even the most conservative in camera settings seem to indicate clipping on the LCD while the RAW data when processed in LR or ACR with PV2012 can still be very nearly a full stop from actually clipping.

Generally I keep my in camera settings to produce the lowest contrast image possible, using the Faithful picture style, with the other four parameters at their minimum settings, either -4 or 0. I then know that if I take my exposures so that the wanted highlights have just started to show blinkies my exposure will generally be as far to the right as possible, without clipping the actual RAW data.

Some interesting stuff to ponder on here. I hadn't really made the connection between picture styles and information in the histogram, since I do everything in RAW and tend blithely/wrongly to take it for granted that what I see on the LCD is neutral. I should reset the in-camera picture style to 'faithful' (currently it's 'standard') based on what you say???

BigAl007 wrote in post #18311166
When shooting to the right you need to use POSITIVE exposure compensation, not negative. This is so that you can push the brightest required highlight to the point where it is just short of clipping, moving all of the image data as far as possible to the righthand end of the histogram. You then bring the data back to the left so that it ends up in the correct relative position on the histogram during the RAW conversion process. This effectively allows you to bring up the brightness of the darker parts of the image, to fit in the available output DR, without having to actually raise the values from those recorded.

It is important to remember that some RAW converters are able to work with highlight details that other converters will always clip. I have always found that DPP3.x was one of the worst for working with highlight detail, on the other hand I find that Adobe's Process Version 2012, introduced with LR4 and then ACR in PSCS6 has been one of the better options for working with highlights. I understand that Phase one's C1 Pro is also very very good at highlights, but is a little too steep for my pockets. Because of this variation in ability to work with highlight detail across different software, the overexposure warnings shown in camera can be pretty worthless.

The issue with both the blinkies, and the histogram shown on the camera LCD is the fact that both are based on the fully processed in camera JPEG image. The in camera processing can make a huge difference, because if for example you chose a very high contrast picture style, that will tend to make highlights clip much sooner than if processed with a low contrast style. If you look at the full range standard picture styles, and other processing variables, it is possible to shift the clipping point of the processed image by up to two full stops. Even the most conservative in camera settings seem to indicate clipping on the LCD while the RAW data when processed in LR or ACR with PV2012 can still be very nearly a full stop from actually clipping.

Generally I keep my in camera settings to produce the lowest contrast image possible, using the Faithful picture style, with the other four parameters at their minimum settings, either -4 or 0. I then know that if I take my exposures so that the wanted highlights have just started to show blinkies my exposure will generally be as far to the right as possible, without clipping the actual RAW data. When using the camera's metering system this usually means running the exposure between +1 and +2 stops. In some situations I might go even higher, if I am dealing with a very large DR, where most of the detail in the images is in the deep shadows. Unfortunately this can mean having to allow some of the highlight detail that you would otherwise want to keep to clip, since there are hard limits to DR that simply cannot be overcome with current technology.

Alan

It depends on how bright the highlights are relative to your subject. If your highlights are significantly brighter than your subject and the camera is metering for your subject, you will significantly blow out the highlights if you do not apply a negative EC value. I do a lot of outdoor portraiture and shoot AV....I'm typically locked in at an EC value of -1 or -2....sometimes -3 if my subject is heavily backlit.

DaviSto wrote in post #18311131
I think the OP's issue ... how to deal with high contrast scenes shooting in bright daylight along the trail ... is trickier. He could expose for the human subject but that would leave the background in very dark shadow. A sensor with a high dynamic range would allow recovery of more detail from the shadows, for sure, but it wouldn't help with the fact that people shots in strong sunlight tend to be unflattering. Maybe there are other approaches. Fill flash has been suggested but that only works for the high contrast low light situation (portrait against sunset). Anything else possible for the high contrast bright light situation that doesn't involve hauling extra kit?

Not necessarily unflattering. This is the typical type of lighting you encounter shooting outdoor portraits where you place your subjects in the shade, but they are heavily backlit by the sky and/or sun.

I have strobes and speedlights that I use when its absolutely necessary, but have found that with enough DR on tap, I can lean primarily on natural light and correcting the exposure in post.

Typical example of how DR is useful for outdoor portraits:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ce7U​pn

mystik610 wrote in post #18311382
Not necessarily unflattering. This is the typical type of lighting you encounter shooting outdoor portraits where you place your subjects in the shade, but they are heavily backlit by the sky and/or sun.

I have strobes and speedlights that I use when its absolutely necessary, but have found that with enough DR on tap, I can lean primarily on natural light and correcting the exposure in post.

Typical example of how DR is useful for outdoor portraits:

Hosted photo: posted by mystik610 in
./showthread.php?p=183​11382&i=i160331407
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ce7U​pn _DSC9535 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

More dynamic range (on the sensor) is always going to be handy. Nevertheless, portraits shot in harsh daylight will not usually be flattering. I think it is generally best to address that by adjusting composition to make better use of available light/shade. That would usually be my starting point. Then use the extra detail that a good current generation sensor retains to help recover detail in post (if necessary). But it's not a 'rule' ... it's just a good option. Sometimes, as well, the image is going to be better if the detail is lost.

Perhaps, too, I'm just a bit old school. I like--and find more interesting--the idea of dealing with the challenges that a situation presents at the point when an image is captured rather than mining more/better data later and making the photograph on-computer instead of in-camera. But it's all a matter of degree ... .... .... and I can feel which way the wind is blowing.

DaviSto wrote in post #18311397
More dynamic range (on the sensor) is always going to be handy. Nevertheless, portraits shot in harsh daylight will not usually be flattering. I think it is generally best to address that by adjusting composition to make better use of available light/shade. That would usually be my starting point. Then use the extra detail that a good current generation sensor retains to help recover detail in post (if necessary). But it's not a 'rule' ... it's just a good option. Sometimes, as well, the image is going to be better if the detail is lost.

Perhaps, too, I'm just a bit old school. I like--and find more interesting--the idea of dealing with the challenges that a situation presents at the point when an image is captured rather than mining more/better data later and making the photograph on-computer instead of in-camera. But it's all a matter of degree ... .... .... and I can feel which way the wind is blowing.

Again, harsh backlight does not necessarily mean poor light on your subject. How you light your subject always takes priority...with natural light where your place your subject dictates the quality of the light that exposes them, but you can't always control the ambient light that's pulled inot the frame. That's where having more DR on tap comes in handy, and its something you have to contemplate when you expose the shot in the field.

As an example, here's a shot I took just today:

Base exposure (ETTR, exposure compensation of -3):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/T4BN​LG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/S1WL​61

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/T4Bh​Ww

JH1984 wrote in post #18306726
But doesn't getting the exposure right in camera in high contrast situations involve under-exposing and pushing? As bumpintheroad demonstrated? Which is why I am wanting as much DR as possible. Not arguing, just trying to educate myself....

JH1984 wrote in post #18306783
Well, maybe I should back up. My primary struggle is that I am almost always shooting in bright sunlight, often with deep shadows from being on a trail in the woods. So, I am always dealing with highlight clipping on cheeks, foreheads, arms, etc from the glare...

POTN has became more about Canon bashing these days, but old members like me were more into the learning in the old POTN days. I learned about Canon HSS and fill-in flash mode for situations with difficult light. I learned, what in situations like this flash is often the right answer.

kf095 wrote in post #18312398
POTN has became more about Canon bashing these days, but old members like me were more into the learning in the old POTN days. I learned about Canon HSS and fill-in flash mode for situations with difficult light. I learned, what in situations like this flash is often the right answer.

kf095 wrote in post #18312398
POTN has became more about Canon bashing these days, but old members like me were more into the learning in the old POTN days. I learned about Canon HSS and fill-in flash mode for situations with difficult light. I learned, what in situations like this flash is often the right answer.

Sure fill flash works for some limited situations, but better dynamic range helps in many more. Technology moves on and quite often either makes life simpler than before or totally overtakes the way it was done the good old days.

The reason Canon is getting bashed is because they have been sitting on their technology asses for too long.

kf095 wrote in post #18312398
POTN has became more about Canon bashing these days, but old members like me were more into the learning in the old POTN days. I learned about Canon HSS and fill-in flash mode for situations with difficult light. I learned, what in situations like this flash is often the right answer.

Hogloff wrote in post #18312432
Sure fill flash works for some limited situations, but better dynamic range helps in many more. Technology moves on and quite often either makes life simpler than before or totally overtakes the way it was done the good old days.

The reason Canon is getting bashed is because they have been sitting on their technology asses for too long.

Yea, I have to agree with Hogloff. I've been here for a while as well and clearly remember Nikon getting bashed because it could not compare to Canons high ISO capabilities and very similar style arguments were used by the very few Nikon folks here on how to work around the problem in some situations. Now Nikon has zoomed ahead and Canon seems rather incapable of matching much less surpassing the Nikon/Sony designs and not we have the Canon folks offering posts on how to work around the shortcomings. But fixing the technology is always a better answer. THe fewer workarounds you need the more capable and easier the equipment is to use.

Mystick, that is impressive, but you can see you found shadow, and properly exposed for the highlights.

I'm not sure the OP is doing the same, would like to see some samples of their issues so we know exactly in what situation they are unhappy.

gjl711 wrote in post #18312446
Yea, I have to agree with Hogloff. I've been here for a while as well and clearly remember Nikon getting bashed because it could not compare to Canons high ISO capabilities and very similar style arguments were used by the very few Nikon folks here on how to work around the problem in some situations. Now Nikon has zoomed ahead and Canon seems rather incapable of matching much less surpassing the Nikon/Sony designs and not we have the Canon folks offering posts on how to work around the shortcomings. But fixing the technology is always a better answer. THe fewer workarounds you need the more capable and easier the equipment is to use.

But this is so '2015'. Canon have moved on ... and cameras were and are about a lot more than sensors. And, anyway ... it's that tireless, unending, predictable, never-deviating, tedious focus on just one thing that gets to be really wearying for the 'Canon-bashed' ...

... and scarcely a picture in sight.

DaviSto wrote in post #18312484
But this is so '2015'. Canon have moved on ... and cameras were and are about a lot more than sensors. And, anyway ... it's that tireless, unending, predictable, never-deviating, tedious focus on just one thing that gets to be really wearying for the 'Canon-bashed' ...

... and scarcely a picture in sight.

Exactly, this is so 2015 but it's now 2017 and Canon still is struggling. And I do agree that cameras are so much more than just DR and shadow noise recovery but in all other areas, they compete very well. Right now Canon really isn't the clear choice in any category. Maybe still in prime lens choices but not much else.

Digital cameras have been well beyond what was available with film for a very long time now...yet people still talk about "catching up".

Now in particular, there isnt enough difference in dynamic range to shake a stick at, and certainly not enough for a photographer to be very limited by it.

Shooting into a bright light trying to expose a backlit subject has always been a challenge, it still is. Far more possible now than it use to be with film but still a challenge. No reason for nikon, canon, or anyone else to be bashed.

gjl711 wrote in post #18312517
Exactly, this is so 2015 but it's now 2017 and Canon still is struggling. And I do agree that cameras are so much more than just DR and shadow noise recovery but in all other areas, they compete very well. Right now Canon really isn't the clear choice in any category. Maybe still in prime lens choices but not much else.

OK ... say it the way you see it. Have it your own way and just be happy!

Canon's latest sensors are pretty close to Sony in terms of DR, so no bashing intended.

Just wanted to show how one would leverage DR for portrait work, as it really can alleviate the need to lug lighting equipment around. For my shoot y'day I actually had a godox barebulb flash and octabox handy, but it was not powerful enough for that shot where I wanted to bring a lot of the ambient scene into the frame. That shot was taken at 1/8000s to expose for the highlights at f1.4. Would need a very powerful strobe to pull that off.

Nice picture of the three ladies. As per your post processing, I find to my taste, the background is over brightened. If it were me, I would have kept the background darker.

mystik610 wrote in post #18312766
Canon's latest sensors are pretty close to Sony in terms of DR, so no bashing intended.

Just wanted to show how one would leverage DR for portrait work, as it really can alleviate the need to lug lighting equipment around. For my shoot y'day I actually had a godox barebulb flash and octabox handy, but it was not powerful enough for that shot where I wanted to bring a lot of the ambient scene into the frame. That shot was taken at 1/8000s to expose for the highlights at f1.4. Would need a very powerful strobe to pull that off.