D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 6 end

Archive 2012 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

sboerup
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #1 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

PhilDWedding wrote:
You seem to be under the illusion I'm knocking the d800 and that you need to defend it; I'm not and you don't.

I'll be very clear because you seem to have misunderstood. I am not saying there aren't differences in the sensors.

I am not saying the d800 sensor isn't better. I AM saying that the two files you posted are not an indicator of the differences between the sensors - the vast, vast majority of the difference is in your post production.

You do realize that the files I posted were straight out of camera, un-processed in any way, right?

If you pixel peep I'm sure you can see differences still, even if they were post produced to the same standard, but what you posted was one shot that looked great and one which looked terrible. The d800 looked great and the 5d3 looked terrible. The 5d3 files are not terrible - it was the post production (and partly expecting that they should use the same exposure) that caused them to look that way.

See above comment.

Whether the 5d3 files would ever look *quite* as good as the d800 (or the other way around) is unknown, but I can clearly say that my 5d1, 5d2 and 5d3 files do not look anywhere near as poor quality as the shot you posted. So, my conclusion that it's post production has to be correct, unless your camera is faulty.

This is the "unknown" that I've been researching, personally, to find out the difference. Coming in here and telling me I'm crazing for seeing a difference, I dunno, just seems weird. Pretty sure my cameras are not faulty either

With respect, as you say that I can't compare the two cameras unless I've used them, I would likewise highlight that someone who hasn't heard about colour calibration with a colour checker passport (and presumably other similar methods) can't have looked at post production that deeply, so I'd question your ability to compare the look from the two cameras ... sorry but the files you post draw me to that conclusion.

Some people call it one thing, I might understand it as "another" thing. I actually did tests with the "Passport" back in 2009/2010, so yes, I do know what it is.

If you're going to compare two things, you have to be fair to them both

I'm sorry if side-by-side shots of straight-out-of-camera files isn't a fair test to make between two cameras.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, and I'm certainly not one to be confrontational or argumentative... but, the main thing I understood from your comments were that you didn't think I knew anything about post processing, or color, or drawing conclusions about differences in color between the two files, or that I wasn't enlightened about LR4 and it's "amazing" new capabilities and speed. Not to mention that you were the one that started "defending" Canon. I simply stated that there IS a difference in the sensors, and not just something that is be duplicated in post-processing, which is why I asked if you had tested the files side-by-side.

Just posting what I found between the two cameras. Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way :/

May 14, 2012 at 09:06 PM

sboerup
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #2 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

For those that care to know, the shot on the right is the 5D3, left is the D800. Again, these are STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA. No processing done to either.

May 14, 2012 at 09:08 PM

cas5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

Spencer... I've read that technique needs to improve when shooting with the D800. Have you found that to be true in practice?

May 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Ghost
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

sboerup wrote:
For those that care to know, the shot on the right is the 5D3, left is the D800. Again, these are STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA. No processing done to either.

I am curious to see the exif of these two images.

May 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Jimsokay
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

This may have already been posted... an interesting read none the less.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_embarrassment_of_riches.shtml

Scroll down a bit and they discuss the D800 AND the E model.

I am really having hard time believing the leap here.

May 14, 2012 at 11:58 PM

MAC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

sboerup wrote:
For those that care to know, the shot on the right is the 5D3, left is the D800. Again, these are STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA. No processing done to either.

it does show better d800 dynamic range in the shadows on the legs, but I also expected to see better details on the blouse by the d800 -- what fashion shooters would look for -- but the 5d3 won there by a small margin maybe because of focus differences - I expected to see the d800 beat the 5d3 in detail - what fashion shooters look for--a closer test controlling focus could show that

so a bunch of multi-variables at play here --exposure, focus, differences etc.

fun test though - I guess it shows better d800 dynamic range at low iso -- though once the iso is increased to 1000 or so the dynamic ranges are closer between the two

May 15, 2012 at 01:49 AM

sboerup
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #7 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

MAC wrote:
sboerup wrote:
For those that care to know, the shot on the right is the 5D3, left is the D800. Again, these are STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA. No processing done to either.

it does show better d800 dynamic range in the shadows on the legs, but I also expected to see better details on the blouse by the d800 -- what fashion shooters would look for -- but the 5d3 won there by a small margin maybe because of focus differences - I expected to see the d800 beat the 5d3 in detail - what fashion shooters look for--a closer test controlling focus could show that

so a bunch of multi-variables at play here --exposure, focus, differences etc.

fun test though - I guess it shows better d800 dynamic range at low iso -- though once the iso is increased to 1000 or so the dynamic ranges are closer between the two

Yes, the D800 was simply out of focus on it. The D800 BLOWS AWAY the 5D3 in detail. No question.

May 15, 2012 at 02:04 AM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

sboerup wrote:
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, and I'm certainly not one to be confrontational or argumentative... but, the main thing I understood from your comments were that you didn't think I knew anything about post processing, or color, or drawing conclusions about differences in color between the two files, or that I wasn't enlightened about LR4 and it's "amazing" new capabilities and speed. Not to mention that you were the one that started "defending" Canon. I simply stated that there IS a difference in the sensors, and not just something that is be duplicated in post-processing, which is why I asked if you had tested the files side-by-side.

Just posting what I found between the two cameras. Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way :/

And I apologise if I was rubbed up the wrong way

The thing I keep trying to point out though is that, with a SOOC test (I believe you mean default processing from RAW/DNG in LR) you're not really testing or showing anything about the two sensors. But by showing it, people start to think it *does* show something and they get a poor impression of one camera and a good impression of the other - and that's unnecessary because the 5d3 is capable of beautiful photos.

The 5d3 clearly has comparatively poor shadow detail and maybe there are subtleties in the d800 files that the 5d3 can't deliver (I don't know) but the two files you showed said nothing more than LR processes the files differently and WB is interpreted differently.

On the LR point, the comments were just aimed at your suggestion that "the highlight slider does something on the d800". Again, my point is that shows nothing about the d800 or 5d3, but something about LR3 processing of files and something which is "fixed" with LR4. It's not the camera - it's the software.

The crux for me is that a SOOC test just doesn't show anything at all about the cameras. It just shows how LR processes the files. RAW files *need* processing in order to get the best from them. If LR default processing is better for Canon than Nikon, then it shows something about LR *not* about the d800 or the 5diii. However, when people see this they assume it's a camera thing because most don't really understand about post processing.

I don't feel the need to "defend" Canon. However, where I see someone showing something which doesn't show what they think it shows, or people are misinterpreting it, I'll usually explain the issue. To be honest I'd do the same on the other side and on other more Canon-based forums I've been defending the d800's sensor, especially the DR.

Your comment that you've struggled getting the contrast right with Canon files led me to believe that your post processing is not where it could be as I know I've not had that issue.

I'll say it again - the d800 is fantastic - but the SOOC RAW tests just don't show anything useful about the two cameras. Just about the software. It's the processing, not the sensors.

If someone does a test where they can see tonal difference between the two cameras in the midtones after the files have been properly processed and differences levelled using a CCP that's fine - no issues with that - but conclusions about sensors can only be drawn when the other elements of the equation are taken out (as much as is reasonable). It'd be like saying "this one is better at ISO3200" and then finding out one's version of ISO3200 is ISO4000 and the other is ISO2500.

I used my 5d3 at a wedding this weekend and was very pleased with the colours and tones:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

You can see more here if you're interested http://www.phildweddingphotography.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/canon-5diii-for-weddings/

Apologies to the OP for taking this off topic... My last post on this point

Edited on May 15, 2012 at 01:15 PM · View previous versions

May 15, 2012 at 01:01 PM

lisy78
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

Phil,

I read what you wrote and I do agree with you that testing standard raw processing vs standard raw processing is not going to tell the whole story or in some cases not even the relevant story.

That said in my (limited) experience with the D800 I've found something in the files that I think is what Spencer is hinting at... I have no experience with the 5D3 but shot a 5D2 professionally for a couple of years... no matter what I tried in LR (and I'm a total tinkerer) the vast majority of images would render as either too contrasty, or, if I tried to counter that, too flat. The 5D Classic in natural light was better in that respect... that was my perception anyway. The D800 is giving me exactly what I'm looking for and what I really had a hard time getting from the 5D2... the images have contrast as in they're not un-naturally flat... but at the same time there is plenty of falloff in the shadows and ramp up in the highlights ... it's as if there's just more color values available in the spectrum of colors that represent skin as it goes from deep shadow to specular highlight. Which would be consistent with the D800 having the higher DR that has been reported.

I'm not going to say that it would be impossible to make a 5D2 file look as good in those terms as a D800 file... because it's kind of impossible to prove a negative, and I have seen miracles done in LR and PS But I will say that I HAVE tried and never got consistently awesome results... and this D800 now... I mindlessly point it at my kids and the files that come out are exactly what I've been looking for.

I too, like Spencer, assumed that DR had a lot to do with it... but maybe it's something else.

Ciao!

Alessandro

P.S. Also the shot you posted has VERY LITTLE tone variation in the skintones... there's hardly any visible shadows.

May 15, 2012 at 01:14 PM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

lisy78 wrote:
That said in my (limited) experience with the D800 I've found something in the files that I think is what Spencer is hinting at... I have no experience with the 5D3 but shot a 5D2 professionally for a couple of years... no matter what I tried in LR (and I'm a total tinkerer) the vast majority of images would render as either too contrasty, or, if I tried to counter that, too flat. The 5D2 in natural light was much better in that respect... that was my perception anyway. The D800 is giving me exactly what I'm looking for and what I really had a hard time getting from the 5D2... the images have contrast as in they're not un-naturally flat... but at the same time there is plenty of falloff in the shadows and ramp up in the highlights ... it's as if there's just more color values available in the spectrum of colors that represent skin as it goes from deep shadow to specular highlight. Which would be consistent with the D800 having the higher DR that has been reported.

I'd actually welcome someone do a test where the differences in LR processing were taken out of the equation...

I don't care about the results either way - it won't change what I chose to buy or my view of it or my ability to sell to my clients - as a photographer I just care that the test be done under reasonably strict conditions. That's all

Edited on May 15, 2012 at 01:20 PM · View previous versions

May 15, 2012 at 01:18 PM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

lisy78 wrote:
First you point your camera at people with good light. Then you press the shutter button. The end.
Hah! Lot of truth in that

May 15, 2012 at 01:21 PM

joelconner
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

For what it is worth, I have had a 5d3 for longer than most people now...and I am not at all thrilled with how the images look coming out of it. They are ok, and partially I have been blaming LR and my lack of skill with the new raw process for them not looking the way I think they should. But, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more let down. There is a good chance I am just doing something wrong, though...

May 15, 2012 at 01:23 PM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

May 15, 2012 at 01:29 PM

EVO088
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #14 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

for always and i've mentioned a bunch of times that I love the files Nikon puts out (SOOC) and a few other things that is I think are better. But I came back to Canon due to the way I like to do things

May 15, 2012 at 03:03 PM

tonyhart
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

joelconner wrote:
For what it is worth, I have had a 5d3 for longer than most people now...and I am not at all thrilled with how the images look coming out of it. They are ok, and partially I have been blaming LR and my lack of skill with the new raw process for them not looking the way I think they should. But, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more let down. There is a good chance I am just doing something wrong, though...

I'd be inclined to lay the blame more at the feet of LR4's new Process Version than the 5DIII. I'm finding the files to be fairly similar in feel to the 5DII though not identical. On the flip side I bloody hate PV2012. It works well for landscapes, but for people shots I think it blows chunks. Have you tried editing a 5DII file using PV2012 or tried editing the 5DIII output in PV2010?

May 15, 2012 at 03:42 PM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

tonyhart wrote:
joelconner wrote:
For what it is worth, I have had a 5d3 for longer than most people now...and I am not at all thrilled with how the images look coming out of it. They are ok, and partially I have been blaming LR and my lack of skill with the new raw process for them not looking the way I think they should. But, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more let down. There is a good chance I am just doing something wrong, though...

I'd be inclined to lay the blame more at the feet of LR4's new Process Version than the 5DIII. I'm finding the files to be fairly similar in feel to the 5DII though not identical. On the flip side I bloody hate PV2012. It works well for landscapes, but for people shots I think it blows chunks. Have you tried editing a 5DII file using PV2012 or tried editing the 5DIII output in PV2010?

It took me about an hour to get my PV2012 files looking pretty much the same as PV2010. It certainly wasn't a case of using the standard settings for either PV's.

Everyone has their own view of how they want things to look, but I preferred the colours in PV2012 compared with PV2010. I thought they were a little more subtle at the saturated end

May 15, 2012 at 03:48 PM

tonyhart
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

PhilDWedding wrote:
tonyhart wrote:
joelconner wrote:
For what it is worth, I have had a 5d3 for longer than most people now...and I am not at all thrilled with how the images look coming out of it. They are ok, and partially I have been blaming LR and my lack of skill with the new raw process for them not looking the way I think they should. But, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more let down. There is a good chance I am just doing something wrong, though...

I'd be inclined to lay the blame more at the feet of LR4's new Process Version than the 5DIII. I'm finding the files to be fairly similar in feel to the 5DII though not identical. On the flip side I bloody hate PV2012. It works well for landscapes, but for people shots I think it blows chunks. Have you tried editing a 5DII file using PV2012 or tried editing the 5DIII output in PV2010?

It took me about an hour to get my PV2012 files looking pretty much the same as PV2010. It certainly wasn't a case of using the standard settings for either PV's.

Everyone has their own view of how they want things to look, but I preferred the colours in PV2012 compared with PV2010. I thought they were a little more subtle at the saturated end

To each their own. I know some people are big fans. I've been using LR4 since the day it went into beta and personally have spent countless hours trying to recreate my PV2010 presets using PV2012. I've got close, but I nearly always prefer the results from PV2010. I find that there isn't a good analogue for 'fill light' in the PV2012 setup and that's a function I use a lot in PV2010 to lift soft face shadows in my b/w work.

The clarity slider in PV2012 is also (IMHO) an abomination. It reminds me of Camera+.

Additionally for some reason the falloff that I want with my noticeable, but not heavy handed vignetting is something I've yet to nail in PV2012 despite the two version seemingly having the same approach.

Highlight control is clearly improved in PV2012 but that's the one area that I've found it to be superior.

But, like I say, to each their own. I've played for PV2012 for months, over thousands of images and I've reached my conclusion! If other people are loving it, I'm glad for them.

May 15, 2012 at 03:54 PM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

tonyhart wrote:
But, like I say, to each their own. I've played for PV2012 for months, over thousands of images and I've reached my conclusion! If other people are loving it, I'm glad for them.

Indeed. I'm sorry that you're not happy with it..

(as in generally sorry - not sorry because it's my fault

)

May 15, 2012 at 04:14 PM

Sean Hoffman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

Tony, I agree with you on PV2010 vs PV2012. I have to move at least twice as many sliders twice as far to get close to, but never reach, the look I love with the old version. I didn't even realize I could change to the old process in LR4 so thanks for prompting me to go look!

Now I'm looking forward to trying out my D800 files anew. My experience so far has been that highlight recovery on over-exposed images does not work nearly as well as it does on the D3/D700 files.

May 24, 2012 at 12:17 AM

sherijohnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · D800 dynamic range (at a wedding!)

thanks for sharing this, very impressive

May 24, 2012 at 02:00 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end