6D and D600: The real issue with dynamic range?

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998320
I don't know, to me it seems like the same amount of underexposure as my tests shots In fact, like mentioned, I just did a few more test shots this morning, similar to your test shot, photographing sunlit white buildings and adjacent dark, shaded areas, as well as sunlit lawn and under-tree very dark areas (basically the most "extreme" DR scenes I could find). I could pull shadows easily but again the end result just looked fake to me. So I guess I don't know what else I can do to prove that my 6D's DR is bad
It looks like I need to work even harder at it.

Your test shot, similarly to mine, look too much like HDR to me. Again, I've never been a fan of HDRs. I'm actually glad that the fad is over, a couple years ago ever other photo on Facebook, Flickr, etc. was an HDR, or at least a poor attempt at it.

Again, I can't imagine any normal situation where I would need to pull shadows 5 stops, except for extreme test photos, which are just that..., test photos.

Even if I had a D600 or 800 I would not pull shadows 5 stops. I mean why? I always seem to conclude that the end result will be an HDR photo, no matter if taken with Canon or Nikon; if I wanted to take HDR, I'd take the proper way by bracketing.
But it's just me. To be clear, I am absolutely not a Canon fanboy. If I started DSLR photography now, I'd probably go Nikon, I have a huge respect for both brands. It's just that I don't understand these "oh, it's absolutely critical to have 14 stops of DR", "oh, Nikon blows Canon out of the water!" comments, such as I also face palm when people say that the 6D's high ISO blows the D600 out of the water (or the 5DII). I just generally don't like extreme comments, maybe

Just so you know, the shot I posted isn't an HDR. It's a single image. All I did was pull the shadows and tweaked it to my liking. I like HDR if done naturally. Although, I'd rather exposure blend for better control.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15998418
How do I do that? I honestly don't know how... at least for moving subjects where I can't HDR.

If you have 60 mph winds your sool!

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998354
Exactly my opinion too.

By the way, nice portfolio! I especially love your European photos (I'm originally from Hungary).

Thanks for your kind words, gabebalazs.

Lowner wrote in post #15998409
Cannot agree more, and not just about DR. But regarding DR in particular, I'm amazed at much of the chatter about it, the inflated claims made by Canon and supported by some! I simply cannot achieve very more than 3 stops so there is a giant chasm between my experience and the 12 stops (or so) claimed.

3 stops and 12 stops in what context? Sorry, I'm not understanding you. But thanks for the agreement.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15998418
How do I do that? I honestly don't know how... at least for moving subjects where I can't HDR.

Your analogy specifically referenced landscapes, so just give me a specific landscape scenario, and I'll be happy to recommend an approach.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998421
Richard, I think you're talking about 2 different things here. 12 stops of DR is not the same concept as pulling 3 stops of shadows.

You are right, I cannot believe I was that daft! Or maybe I can?

jdizzle wrote in post #15998436
Just so you know, the shot I posted isn't an HDR. It's a single image. All I did was pull the shadows and tweaked it to my liking. I like HDR if done naturally. Although, I'd rather exposure blend for better control.

That's exactly my point, it's a single image

That's what I've been talking about; pulling shadows in a drastic way in an extreme shot (even if it's a single shot) to me seems to result in an image that looks like HDR. But if I want an image to look like HDR then I just take 3 or 5 bracketed exposure shots. So to me pulling shadows in an extreme way in a single shot defeats the purpose.
But who knows, maybe someone needs this capability, I just can't think I will ever do.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15998418
How do I do that? I honestly don't know how... at least for moving subjects where I can't HDR.

exactly.

I took a family portrait at this tree: not my photo, with a flash. The flash could not get to the top of the tree, and only lit up our family, so being backlit, the tree was severely unexposed on one area and properly on the other.......

I used a combination of brushes and gradient to get the tree back, but it quickly turned into a mess.... it's kind of ok because it's a tree and the noise can be mistaken as bark

I guess I could have done an HDR of the tree first, then family photo, and merge everything..... but on a family outing, there's little patience for that.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998489
That's exactly my point, it's a single image

That's what I've been talking about; pulling shadows in a drastic way in an extreme shot (even if it's a single shot) to me seems to result in an image that looks like HDR. But if I want an image to look like HDR then I just take 3 or 5 bracketed exposure shots. So to me pulling shadows in an extreme way in a single shot defeats the purpose.
But who knows, maybe someone needs this capability, I just can't think I will ever do.

All I'm doing is exhibiting the sensor's capability. In reality and in practice this is not something I would normally do. Having that extra DR is another tool in the tool box. Depending on my lighting situation I have filters (gnds out the wazoo!), exposure blending, HDR ( whether you like it or not it is here to stay!).

jdizzle wrote in post #15998588
All I'm doing is exhibiting the sensor's capability. In reality and in practice this is not something I would normally do. Having that extra DR is another tool in the tool box. Depending on my lighting situation I have filters (gnds out the wazoo!), exposure blending, HDR ( whether you like it or not it is here to stay!).

Exactly my point again, I totally agree.

In practice and reality the 6D sensor's capability of DR is plenty for me and I presume for most people. I posted a 3 stop shadow pull test photo too, but I've never encountered a case where I had to do that. So it's just a "theoretical" capability for me.

As for HDR, I don't hate it, and I don't care if it stays or goes, I'm just glad that not every posted photo anywhere is an attempt at HDR. And by this I mean the extreme, cartoony looking HDR. Images done through slight blending and shadow pulling and adjusting highlights (like Phrasikleia's excellent portfolio pix) are fine with me, and for that the 6D's DR is probably sufficient enough.

My point was purely just to say that drastic (3-5 stops) of shadow pulling results in HDR looking files - at least to my eyes. And just like you stated, there are better tools to achieve HDR look or to increase DR.

thats what i dont get. no need to defend canon in the lack of d.r. Just like I would prefer any lens to have IS. Its a tool that you can use if needed. Of course there is a workaround but why bother if you dont need to.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998617
Exactly my point again, I totally agree.

In practice and reality the 6D sensor's capability of DR is plenty for me and I presume for most people. I posted a 3 stop shadow pull test photo too, but I've never encountered a case where I had to do that. So it's just a "theoretical" capability for me.

As for HDR, I don't hate it, and I don't care if it stays or goes, I'm just glad that not every posted photo anywhere is an attempt at HDR. And by this I mean the extreme, cartoony looking HDR. Images done through slight blending and shadow pulling and adjusting highlights (like Phrasikleia's excellent portfolio pix) are fine with me, and for that the 6D's DR is probably sufficient enough.

My point was purely just to say that drastic (3-5 stops) of shadow pulling results in HDR looking files - at least to my eyes. And just like you stated, there are better tools to achieve HDR look or to increase DR.

Now, please listen to my side. I've been patient and waiting for Canon to release a high MP body. My 1Ds 3 has served me well and I understood it's limitations for DR. Imo, it is still the best sensor Canon has ever made for DR and shadow recovery. Not even Canon's current sensors perform like my 1Ds 3 at low ISOs. I'm not knockin' your 6D but, Canon's sensors aren't up to my standards and I expect to get what I pay for. The Nikon's sensors is exactly what I need along with my Phase One. If I can get the DR needed in two to three RAWs as opposed to 9 bracketed RAWs, guess which one will take less time to work on. I'm sure others will agree that sitting behind a PC and blending with a tablet all day long isn't enjoyable.

gabebalazs wrote in post #15998617
..............
My point was purely just to say that drastic (3-5 stops) of shadow pulling results in HDR looking files - at least to my eyes. And just like you stated, there are better tools to achieve HDR look or to increase DR.

Done right, you can't tell if something is HDR or not. Same goes for pushing shadows. Done right, you won't be able to tell it was done at all.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15998979
Done right, you can't tell if something is HDR or not. Same goes for pushing shadows. Done right, you won't be able to tell it was done at all.

I see. Could you show me an example/sample where the shadows were pulled 4-5 stops, and the image still looks nice and natural?

jdizzle wrote in post #15998820
Now, please listen to my side. I've been patient and waiting for Canon to release a high MP body. My 1Ds 3 has served me well and I understood it's limitations for DR. Imo, it is still the best sensor Canon has ever made for DR and shadow recovery. Not even Canon's current sensors perform like my 1Ds 3 at low ISOs. I'm not knockin' your 6D but, Canon's sensors aren't up to my standards and I expect to get what I pay for. The Nikon's sensors is exactly what I need along with my Phase One. If I can get the DR needed in two to three RAWs as opposed to 9 bracketed RAWs, guess which one will take less time to work on. I'm sure others will agree that sitting behind a PC and blending with a tablet all day long isn't enjoyable.

yeah, I totally get your point and agree with you.
And this is where the resolution of most arguments on this forum lies. We all have different needs, styles, etc so what may be suitable for one person may not be for another.

Here are 2 sample shots. I'm just posting these to demonstrate what I believe the maximum amount of shadow pulling I'd do (no matter if I had a Canon or Nikon).
Granted, it may not be a very extreme image but it does have some seriously dark shadows due to harsh sunlight. But again, this was a real-world situation that presented itself today. I wasn't looking for a Mustang with a snow white engine block, I had to make do with a blue one

I processed this to my taste, who knows others would pull the shadows more, but that would start looking like an HDR to me. So this is where I stop in terms of pulling shadows, otherwise I'd consider it unnatural. But its' just me.

(My colleague just bought this restored '64 Mustang, took a pic in the parking lot an hour ago).

Original shot:

gabebalazs wrote in post #15999015
I see. Could you show me an example/sample where the shadows were pulled 4-5 stops, and the image still looks nice and natural?

Here's a screengrab of a shot from a D800 pushed 5 stops (you push to increase and pull to decrease exposure ) It was part of an HDR sequence and I decided to see just what could be done with it. The image is easily clean enough to print.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE