Just a Simple Question About Dynamic Range

hazwing wrote in post #15088231
Okay thanks for the answers... So shooting RAW, I guess there's no way around it beside using software to bring out the shadows.

So would the best way of shooting a high contrast shot, be to expose for the highlights that you want, and then bring up the shadows on the darker area? And once again, if a camera with a higher DR, will result in less artefacts and noise than one with a lower DR.

You got it. HAMSTTR
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8514882#p​ost8514882

Lowner wrote in post #15087442
For me to count it as proper DR I need to see the details in the highlights and deep shadows straight out of camera. Using software to extend it is not camera DR in my book.

Straight out of the camera using what postprocessing path?

Or do you mean what the camera's JPEG engine produces? And if that, then what picture style are you using as your baseline?

I'd say there are too many variables for use of the "out of the camera" rendition to be a proper measure of a camera's dynamic range, especially because the standard postprocessing settings are intended to make photographs look good (punchy, contrasty, etc.) even when the dynamic range of the scene is relatively limited.

hazwing wrote in post #15088231
Okay thanks for the answers... So shooting RAW, I guess there's no way around it beside using software to bring out the shadows.

So would the best way of shooting a high contrast shot, be to expose for the highlights that you want, and then bring up the shadows on the darker area? And once again, if a camera with a higher DR, will result in less artefacts and noise than one with a lower DR.

Use fill light to bring your shadows up. Avoid super high contrast if possible. When you have to choose, then choose what works best for the particular shot. If you can, use multiple shots bracketed to cover the DR you need.

kfreels wrote in post #15087856
I'm afraid that you are searching for a baseline that doesn't exist.

Exactly, thats what I've been saying.

But the monitor impact on this is something I've never considered. What DR can a fairly bog-standard monitor display, anyone know? And what about a more expensive model?

Lowner wrote in post #15089930
Exactly, thats what I've been saying.

But the monitor impact on this is something I've never considered. What DR can a fairly bog-standard monitor display, anyone know? And what about a more expensive model?

Out of the box and with the brightness up to the usual full blast, a contrast range of roughly 1:800-900, which is nearly 10 stops (although most of them seem to falsely claim 1:1000). However, one of the purposes of calibrating it is to reduce the contrast to be closer to that of photo paper, i.e. 1:400 for matte or 1:500 for glossy, close to 9 stops.

Elie,

Many thanks. As so often, I am in awe of your knowledge my friend.

another question... someone mentioned the DR figure is calculated on base iso.

Will the difference between a higher DR camera and one with less DR, become less noticeable at higher ISO?

hazwing wrote in post #15093248
another question... someone mentioned the DR figure is calculated on base iso.

Will the difference between a higher DR camera and one with less DR, become less noticeable at higher ISO?

Base ISO dynamic range has nothing to do with high ISO dynamic range, which is why the Canons are still competitive with Nikon/Sony sensors at high ISO. That said, dynamic range limits show up as shadow noise, and if you keep the highlights at the same point and raise the ISO, at some point the shadows are eaten by the noise.

hazwing wrote in post #15093248
another question... someone mentioned the DR figure is calculated on base iso.

Will the difference between a higher DR camera and one with less DR, become less noticeable at higher ISO?

Look at the charts for D800 DR compared to other cameras. from ISO100-400 it is great but then falls apart. The D4 and Canons tend to drop off evenly so that at ISO1600 and so, actually beat the D800.

Neilyb wrote in post #15093362
Look at the charts for D800 DR compared to other cameras. from ISO100-400 it is great but then falls apart. The D4 and Canons tend to drop off evenly so that at ISO1600 and so, actually beat the D800.

Exactly, Different tools for different situations..

The D800 is great for low ISO work, and certainly not bad at high ISO, but the 5DIII looks "better" at high ISO to me...

Now the D600 does look quite good at high ISO, Id say better than the D800... But against the 5DIII... I dunno, From what ive seen its really close and hard to call a victor

Then again I am quite pleased with ISO3200 and 6400 on my 7D... (Not the best, Just a couple recent shots..)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/8​061133122/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/8​061132936/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/8​065811847/

I believe the 600d has the same sensor as the 7d. In the past, I preferred shots at 1600 iso or lower. iso 3200 acceptable, but starting to notice the noise a lot more. 6400 had too much noise for my preferences.

since getting lightroom, I'm finding how it hands noise to be better and even at iso 6400 is not too bad

hazwing wrote in post #15095926
I believe the 600d has the same sensor as the 7d. In the past, I preferred shots at 1600 iso or lower. iso 3200 acceptable, but starting to notice the noise a lot more. 6400 had too much noise for my preferences.

since getting lightroom, I'm finding how it hands noise to be better and even at iso 6400 is not too bad

Pretty much all the APS-C cams made by Canon since the 7D are rocking the same 18mp sensor unit, Only exception is the T4i which is using a slightly modified one that has Phase Detect AF on the chip itself

KenjiS wrote in post #15096123
Pretty much all the APS-C cams made by Canon since the 7D are rocking the same 18mp sensor unit, Only exception is the T4i which is using a slightly modified one that has Phase Detect AF on the chip itself

In terms of the imaging capability, the T4i sensor appears to be identical to the other 18 megapixel sensors.

When I compared the T4i's ultra-high-ISO RAW output to that of the 7D at the same ISO and with the same RAW processor (Lightroom 4), the 7D actually did ever so slightly better.

kcbrown wrote in post #15097386
In terms of the imaging capability, the T4i sensor appears to be identical to the other 18 megapixel sensors.

When I compared the T4i's ultra-high-ISO RAW output to that of the 7D at the same ISO and with the same RAW processor (Lightroom 4), the 7D actually did ever so slightly better.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the 7D's sensor having double the data channels for the dual digic 4s vs the other cams using single chips?

KenjiS wrote in post #15097451
Wonder if it has anything to do with the 7D's sensor having double the data channels for the dual digic 4s vs the other cams using single chips?

Such that it affects the image quality in a positive fashion? I would think not. If anything, I would expect that to degrade the image quality.