• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

EOS 6D II and 200D (Rebel SL2) announced


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 25 August 2017 - 01:45 PM

Not to defend Canon, but since camera news now have a huge coverage, and the least issue is exaggerated, remember D200 banding ? now they are making a story of rolling shutter, then there's the dynamic range, in film days negatives had larger exposure latitude ( ok ok it's not dynamic range but something a little close to it)  than slide film, yet many preferred slide film, dynamic range isn't the only thing to consider

 

The latitude, or shift in DR if you like as DR was always about 10 stops or less, with colour well less that that, and with slides even less, could only be achieved by exposing and developing a film differently. In practice this means allocation of an iso value for an entire film and developing it accordingly, in a way, à la Zone System if you like.

 

I used to load my own film, and for my own pleasure created 5 images only films - this was the shortest film length that could still be loaded in a 35 mm slr back in the days, and essentially took a single shot and developed and printed it specifically for that single shot :).

 

I also would like to argue that unless you shoot HDR, 10 stops of DR is all you'd ever need, if and when an image is exposed properly. Having said that, 10 stops of DR still allows for HDR, both single shot and multiple shot. Monitors don't really support more than 8 stops anyway, whatever manufacturers suggest (try viewing all gradations on a b&w density strip, you will likely see no difference between the last few darkest bands, and neither will you between the lightest ones).

 

Besides this, you are lucky to get 6 stops of DR with a print, and even then only with the paper that allows for the highest contrast levels, i.e. high gloss paper. Hence burning and dodging still required, or extensive PP IOW.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#42 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 August 2017 - 04:06 PM

That's what I really call the nonsense. Because prints or monitor views are not displaying more than 6 or 8 stops, you guys declare more than 10 are useless. HDR is one thing, displaying pictures with a very wide gammut the other. But tone mapping definitely benefits from every huge scale of tonality captured before.

Why on Earth somebody would say, oh no, today my loudspeakers don't give out more than 4000 Hz, starting from 300, so 20 Hz to 15 kHz is useless? Overkill? Or looking at the first Daguerrotypies which might display something like 3 to 4 stops - and defclare that as enough for all times? I welcome every effort of camera / sensor manufacturer to give us higher DR. It doesn't mean it has to stay this way. Our eyes still have more dynamic range. Just not in one single look, but we can adapt.

And if there will be a technique to show more by tone mapping, I rather prefer to be able to review some of my pictures lateron but catch more details and tonal range today. I also rather prefer to have a big reserve available to get things out of the shadows into life or get some clouds back in the skies. A picture never will be the real thing, it will always be an interpretation of a moment and itself another thing. The more information I can catch, the more free I will be lateron to make the final picture. Why give away or attack this possibilities? That's not about being able or not to expose correctly, because working with only 10 stops DR will either lead to white skies or muddy shadows. Even with 12 or 14 there will be a moment when this happens. But that moment will be more rare, and that's all what DR is about.

Talking about grayscales on print paper is not helpful. The grayscale doesn't represent the situation at the moment the picture was taken. Confusing input and output doesn't help to value what benefits come from DR.

#43 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 25 August 2017 - 07:54 PM

That's what I really call the nonsense. Because prints or monitor views are not displaying more than 6 or 8 stops, you guys declare more than 10 are useless. HDR is one thing, displaying pictures with a very wide gammut the other. But tone mapping definitely benefits from every huge scale of tonality captured before.

Why on Earth somebody would say, oh no, today my loudspeakers don't give out more than 4000 Hz, starting from 300, so 20 Hz to 15 kHz is useless? Overkill? Or looking at the first Daguerrotypies which might display something like 3 to 4 stops - and defclare that as enough for all times? I welcome every effort of camera / sensor manufacturer to give us higher DR. It doesn't mean it has to stay this way. Our eyes still have more dynamic range. Just not in one single look, but we can adapt.

And if there will be a technique to show more by tone mapping, I rather prefer to be able to review some of my pictures lateron but catch more details and tonal range today. I also rather prefer to have a big reserve available to get things out of the shadows into life or get some clouds back in the skies. A picture never will be the real thing, it will always be an interpretation of a moment and itself another thing. The more information I can catch, the more free I will be lateron to make the final picture. Why give away or attack this possibilities? That's not about being able or not to expose correctly, because working with only 10 stops DR will either lead to white skies or muddy shadows. Even with 12 or 14 there will be a moment when this happens. But that moment will be more rare, and that's all what DR is about.

Talking about grayscales on print paper is not helpful. The grayscale doesn't represent the situation at the moment the picture was taken. Confusing input and output doesn't help to value what benefits come from DR.

 

It may be nonsense to you, but it simply isn't for me. I have worked with the "limited" tone range of B&W photography for 30+ years, and I still expose stuff the same way in digital, or rather, similarly, taking highlight blow-outs into account. It works for me.

 

It is not nonsense, I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#44 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 25 August 2017 - 08:36 PM

+1. Different people different approaches. I have always been using reflectors, screens, fill flash, gradient and polarization filters.

 

Wim, I have one question - how do you exposure the grey dutch sky without gradient ND filter and limited DR? - so called "stapelbewolking" the hallmark of the Netherlands

 

====================

I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.

 



#45 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 August 2017 - 09:29 PM

It may be nonsense to you, but it simply isn't for me. I have worked with the "limited" tone range of B&W photography for 30+ years, and I still expose stuff the same way in digital, or rather, similarly, taking highlight blow-outs into account. It works for me.

It is not nonsense, I guess we just have different approaches, and that is all there is to it.

Kind regards, Wim

First, you're not the only one who worked with the zone system. I did so, too, and it was a huge boost to learn it for me. Pictures improved a lot.
To zone system belong various techniques to reduce or increase the tonal range of film. Such as overexpose and develop shorter for situations with general low contrast like foggy landscapes. Or underexpose and develop longer, preferrably with a softer developer for high contrast scenes. If I recall correctly? Or was it the other way round? I never went very deep into this + 1 or -2 stuff although I read Henk Roelfesema's books as well as Ansel's. I had two film magazines on my Mamiya, but some memories I also wanted to catch in colors. Today I would be very happy if I had had a bigger DR.

Now, I see statements like "no one needs more than x f-stops" like a very unreasonably set yet unneccessary limit. Sure, different people, different approaches, but as long as there are bigger contrasts around in nature, I have to ask "why not take advantage of sensor improvements" and instead stick to film era limits? Any good reason for that? I'm just asking because I can't think of a single one.

All dodging and burning or playing around with tonal curves can only improve the recorded data. Be it on film or sensor: lost or unrecorded data simply can't benefit of post production refinements because it's not available in the first place. Recovering highlights only works within the limits of captured highlights. Lost ones remains lost!

And if it still remains unclear, what I say, here's one of thousands examples what higher DR can do: https://www.dpreview...s-image-sensors
  • dave's clichés likes this

#46 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Posted 26 August 2017 - 04:07 AM

    I thought that that was the point of high dynamic range, to be able to convert a high contrast image of 14 stops into a 6-7 stop print, so you can keep the detail and grading of 14 stops without the loss of contrast. (to taste)

 

  If it's not there to start with.....it's lost.

 

   I can't see any good argument for wanting to have less of it!



#47 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 26 August 2017 - 08:13 AM

Wanting less would be a strange thing. Not needing that much, that is more valid. I do not even need the very high 12 stops of DR my 6D has at ISO 100, let alone the crazy high 14+ some people advocate. 

I am in fact quite happy shooting at ISO 800 or 1600, for instance.



#48 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,688 posts

Posted 26 August 2017 - 09:21 AM

Wanting less would be a strange thing.

 

   Exactly BC Indeed it would!

 

    The D750 has 14.5 stops of it, the D500 14.

 

    I would not like to be deprived of any of those precious DR stops,  nor their headphones sockets!     :P  B)


  • JoJu likes this

#49 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 26 August 2017 - 09:57 AM

Yeah, and 14 stops is just a dark bird against a cloudy sky. That happens in real life. Getting back some birds-eyes without too much noise has nothing to do with wrong exposure, just with a big scale of DR. :)

#50 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 26 August 2017 - 11:11 AM

A dark bird against an overcast sky, there is no need for such high DR figures... Maybe a black kat hiding under a car with an overcast sky where you want an unnaturally looking spooky scene with lots of dramatic exaggerated clouds structures and also showing the cat as if it was not hiding in de darkness under the car...  :huh:

 

The DPreview example of an eclipse strikes me as particularly unattractive and bizar. The main feature of a solar eclipse is that it gets dark during daytime, something pretty special. And then to turn the resulting darkness into fake looking daylight? Have at it hoss, but I do not see the attractiveness of such images.



#51 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 27 August 2017 - 07:33 PM

First, you're not the only one who worked with the zone system. I did so, too, and it was a huge boost to learn it for me. Pictures improved a lot.
To zone system belong various techniques to reduce or increase the tonal range of film. Such as overexpose and develop shorter for situations with general low contrast like foggy landscapes. Or underexpose and develop longer, preferrably with a softer developer for high contrast scenes. If I recall correctly? Or was it the other way round? I never went very deep into this + 1 or -2 stuff although I read Henk Roelfesema's books as well as Ansel's. I had two film magazines on my Mamiya, but some memories I also wanted to catch in colors. Today I would be very happy if I had had a bigger DR.

Now, I see statements like "no one needs more than x f-stops" like a very unreasonably set yet unneccessary limit. Sure, different people, different approaches, but as long as there are bigger contrasts around in nature, I have to ask "why not take advantage of sensor improvements" and instead stick to film era limits? Any good reason for that? I'm just asking because I can't think of a single one.

All dodging and burning or playing around with tonal curves can only improve the recorded data. Be it on film or sensor: lost or unrecorded data simply can't benefit of post production refinements because it's not available in the first place. Recovering highlights only works within the limits of captured highlights. Lost ones remains lost!

And if it still remains unclear, what I say, here's one of thousands examples what higher DR can do: https://www.dpreview...s-image-sensors

 

Note that I said that I personally do not need it. I am quite capable of recovering what I need, as long as I expose according to the principles I set for myself. If I ever do need HDR, it generally is of static subjects, and in that case I can always shoot an HDR sequence. IOW, the lack more than 10 or 12 stops of DR has never limited me personally in any way.

 

The question rises, BTW, what you do or do not want to lose, from a highlight POV - and yes, that is a personal choice, a deliberate one for me. It is impossible to retain all highlights when the environment shows you a DR of say, 24 stops, and not even the human eye can cater for that (the human eye can handle 17 stops of DR relatively quickly by shifting focus/viewpoint, but it is about 10 to 11 stops without readjustment). Neither do I like the overdone HDR shots you used to see in the past (haven't used those for a few years now).

 

Kind regards, Wim



#52 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 27 August 2017 - 07:41 PM

    I thought that that was the point of high dynamic range, to be able to convert a high contrast image of 14 stops into a 6-7 stop print, so you can keep the detail and grading of 14 stops without the loss of contrast. (to taste)

 

  If it's not there to start with.....it's lost.

 

   I can't see any good argument for wanting to have less of it!

 

I said I do not need it. I'll likely never use it either, but that is just me. The thing is that the lowest levels in the DR range tend to be noisy anyway (although never too noisy for me unless shooting in very dark circumstances), or not entirely lossless in the case of, e.g., Nikon, who provide rather cleverly processed Raw files in this regard.

 

As to loss of contrast: the moment you increase contrast you lose DR, unless you do major burning and dodging, and even then you still do. You basically create a much steeper gamma curve, and it is a guarantee to lose original DR, because the curve will fit a few stops less. The most you can do is lower the gamma to such a degree, that those 14 and more stops fit within the DR of a monitor or print. When you do that, you either get contrastless images, or unreal looking ones (the HDR images I mentioned), or loss of contrast and DR.

 

Kind regards, Wim



#53 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 27 August 2017 - 07:45 PM

Yeah, and 14 stops is just a dark bird against a cloudy sky. That happens in real life. Getting back some birds-eyes without too much noise has nothing to do with wrong exposure, just with a big scale of DR. :)

 

Well, I am afraid I would personally call that bad exposure if it happened to me. If the eyes of a bird are very important to me, I would make sure the exposure would put those eyes in Zone V, well, 4 1/3 to 4 1/2 with digital, never mind the blown out sky. But that would be a deliberate choice. Generally it would take no more than 1 1/2, 2 or at most 3 stops of overexposure, and the sky can be fixed later, to a degree. :)

 

Kind regards, Wim



#54 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 27 August 2017 - 10:27 PM

To me it's very interesting that both people who would like to stilck to "12 stops is enough" never deliver a picture to confirm this limitation.

I doubt you could measure a birds eye with spot metering. Especially if it's in flight. It's quite easy to measure a static subject. And as I haven't seen any dynamic subjects of both of you, i just read that "bad exposure" theory with kind of a big smile.

#55 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 28 August 2017 - 07:02 AM

I wonder why one would want to measure a bird's eye? One does not have to meter a subject, one can meter for the light conditions. One can even rely on the camera to make the judgement when needed (called "evaluative metering" in Canon land, "matrix metering" in Nikon land).

 

As normal tonal curves with nice contrast span around 7 stops of DR, that would leave 5 stops of headroom, what is the obsession with that 14 number about, exactly?

 

I too had an interest in"HDR", many years ago, I shot scenes with 3 bracketed shots with a 6 stop spread. Luckily it only lasted a short while, finding the unrealistic, tasteless cheap scifi movie results as unattractive as they are.

 

It is very interesting to me that I never see your examples of 14 stops of DR?



#56 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 28 August 2017 - 11:34 AM

Hmm. Interesting to see how the Canon 6D MK2 discussion is spread to two camps

High vs Low DR and noone gives up.

I read all post, and see many numbers 10stops 11 stops 14 stops

I have quiestions to autors of this messages.

1. What do you mean with 6,7,8,...14 stops?

2. Could you expalin how do you come to this numbers?

 

The reason why I ask this questions is that we are talking about different thinks.

 

Tips:

Saying  this cammera has12 stops DR   

Equal to - 

This lens has absolute resolution of 2211LW/PH



#57 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 28 August 2017 - 11:42 AM

Miro, the much liked/loved colour positive slide films had a DR of 5-6 stops. They were liked for the punch, clarity, saturation and contrasty results.

 

Standard tonal curves have a DR of about 7-8 stops. Adding more contrast to OOC images brings the DR down to 5-6 stops, people then to like contrasty images.

 

If you assume a certain noise floor comparable to what DXO does, you get 12 stops DR in RAW with the 6D and 6D mk II (and Nikon D5). The standard tonal curves of these cameras are 7-8 stops of DR. That means you have a LOT of headroom still, at base ISO. 

 

What is unclear to you?

 

Your "tips" are a bit silly. A lens has a sharpness in images. The DR used for the image can vary. OOC, you get 7-8 stops of DR. Only hidden in the depths of RAW there is more lurking. There is no equivalence between these two in any way.

 

Applying deconvolution methods to get more information and sharpness out of an image capture, that would be more an equivalent of digging in RAW for a bigger DR range.



#58 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 28 August 2017 - 12:43 PM

Thanks for quick replay Brightcolour.

See my comments bellow

 

If you assume a certain noise floor comparable to what DXO does, you get 12 stops

 

Ooops you aleredy make an assumption and forget for the second one.

 

The second assumtions is - How do you get the saturation point? 

 

My point is that above metioned absolute Fstops are meaningless unless you specify the conditions. 

This values can be used only to compare two cameras - same as photozone's LW/PH for lenses

 

Some test methodes defines DR fot low quality Normal quality and high quality and the difference is between 2.....5stops

 

PS: My personal taste is 2 stops lower than Dxo



#59 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,787 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 28 August 2017 - 12:49 PM

No, a DR range in stops is NOT meaningless.



#60 wim

wim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,160 posts
  • LocationMaastricht, Netherlands

Posted 28 August 2017 - 09:52 PM

To me it's very interesting that both people who would like to stilck to "12 stops is enough" never deliver a picture to confirm this limitation.

I doubt you could measure a birds eye with spot metering. Especially if it's in flight. It's quite easy to measure a static subject. And as I haven't seen any dynamic subjects of both of you, i just read that "bad exposure" theory with kind of a big smile.

 

Fine with me :). I don't have an example at the ready of a very bright dynamic background and dark subject. However, it is surely easy enough to play with the exposure in situations like that. I certainly have done so when shooting gliders (planes) in a bright sky in the past.

 

As to me not sharing a lot: I can't, not often anyway, for privacy reasons.

 

Kind regards, Wim






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de