Steve Tinetti wrote:
For all those interested, the over/under on how many posts it would take before someone mentioned Ansel Adams in a thread containing "Dynamic Range" in the title was 28.
Technically you got more than just the exposure wrong on this one....it's skee-ball, not ski-ball. I hate to be the bearer of "even more" bad news, but, well, there it is.
Steve Tinetti wrote:
For all those interested, the over/under on how many posts it would take before someone mentioned Ansel Adams in a thread containing "Dynamic Range" in the title was 28.
RobertLynn wrote:
He started at 100, and pushed it 5 stops.
It's Iso 3200 equiv.
By definition, it isn't a showcase of dynamic range. More the recovery of usable data from an underexposed shot. With that said, one could argue that it shows the dynamic range of a photo that underwent 5 stops of shadow recovery. One could also argue that it is the dynamic range of the captured image data in an underexposed image.
I agree with all of this. It definitely shows the capability of shadow recovery, but in my mind it opens up TONS of possibilities on how I can use the cameras usable dynamic range.
Not to hijack the thread, but just to post an example of what I found very interesting with the D800. My initial thought of added DR over the 5D3 was shadow/highlight detail. But actually (this might not even be DR), the gradations in skin tones and mid tones is much smoother. I've always battled Canon files because of too much contrast sometimes.
Oh, and 'recovery' in LR actually does something with D800 files, not to mention the amazing shadow detail as posted in the OP.
Mind you the color is very different SOOC, but, they can both be processed similarly for WB and saturation. I have found that the D800 has quite a bit more color depth and breadth vs the 5D3. They look much more "true to scene", and very much like what I expect out of a MFDB.
the original photo has a ridiculous amount of CAPTURED DYNAMIC RANGE. You can clearly see the siding of the house exposed correctly and as is obvious in the op's processing there are stops and stops of data that isn't visible in the initial mapping of the dynamic range that are chock full of valuable information.
sboerup wrote:
Not to hijack the thread, but just to post an example of what I found very interesting with the D800. My initial thought of added DR over the 5D3 was shadow/highlight detail. But actually (this might not even be DR), the gradations in skin tones and mid tones is much smoother. I've always battled Canon files because of too much contrast sometimes.
Oh, and 'recovery' in LR actually does something with D800 files, not to mention the amazing shadow detail as posted in the OP.
Mind you the color is very different SOOC, but, they can both be processed similarly for WB and saturation. I have found that the D800 has quite a bit more color depth and breadth vs the 5D3. They look much more "true to scene", and very much like what I expect out of a MFDB.
sboerup wrote:
Not to hijack the thread, but just to post an example of what I found very interesting with the D800. My initial thought of added DR over the 5D3 was shadow/highlight detail. But actually (this might not even be DR), the gradations in skin tones and mid tones is much smoother. I've always battled Canon files because of too much contrast sometimes.
Oh, and 'recovery' in LR actually does something with D800 files, not to mention the amazing shadow detail as posted in the OP.
Mind you the color is very different SOOC, but, they can both be processed similarly for WB and saturation. I have found that the D800 has quite a bit more color depth and breadth vs the 5D3. They look much more "true to scene", and very much like what I expect out of a MFDB.
Very interesting...the Nikon shot has considerably less contrast than the Canon shot.
On the colors, if you haven't ever used a Colorchecker to make a custom profile for your Canon bodies you might want to give it a try...it made my 1Ds look like an entirely different camera. On a 40D the result was more subtle, but still very noticeable (mostly in the red and blue rendition). Well worth the hundred bucks.
Scott Clark wrote:
Very interesting...the Nikon shot has considerably less contrast than the Canon shot.
On the colors, if you haven't ever used a Colorchecker to make a custom profile for your Canon bodies you might want to give it a try...it made my 1Ds look like an entirely different camera. On a 40D the result was more subtle, but still very noticeable (mostly in the red and blue rendition). Well worth the hundred bucks.
I'm not sure if its contrast, or DR, or neither, but, the difference is there. The D800 files are much closer to final output than the 5D3s.
^^^ That's a pretty interesting comparison right there! I don't know if its really DR or not, but the Nikon sure does have a much smoohter transition from highlight to shadow and seems to "hold together" better, for lack of a better phrase.
Just unheard of, if we thought the barrier to entry for photography was low before, now you can miss your exposure by five stops and still get a usable shot. ( not a knock on the OP just a general observation )
As a Canon guy I'm quite jealous of this DR. Shooting couples with sunsets behind them doesn't need to require OCF all the time with this... non silhouette shots that is.
sboerup wrote:
I'm not sure if its contrast, or DR, or neither, but, the difference is there. The D800 files are much closer to final output than the 5D3s.
What is this colorchecker thing?
I'm going to go ahead and say it's a contrast thing (you guys can correct/disagree with me if like). If you look at the rendition of the black dress, the Nikon shot is renders a lighter shade (almost dark grey). The Canon shot looks black. There's less contrast between the highlight exposure value of her skin, and the true tonality of it in the Nikon shot. If you ever shoot with an old uncoated (raw glass) lens, you'll see the contrast compressed the same way compared to a modern multicoated lens (only more so).
Do a quick search for Colorchecker Passport and you'll see what it's all about... It's a little fold up gizmo with a grey card in one section, and a miniture Colorchecker in the other. The software that comes with it allows you to create custom profiles specific to your camera in LR, so you're not just using the generic ones Adobe comes up with. There's also WB patches you can use to get neutral WB, or several shades of warming for portraits (warming and cooling for landscapes). Love it!
sboerup wrote:
Not to hijack the thread, but just to post an example of what I found very interesting with the D800. My initial thought of added DR over the 5D3 was shadow/highlight detail. But actually (this might not even be DR), the gradations in skin tones and mid tones is much smoother. I've always battled Canon files because of too much contrast sometimes.
Oh, and 'recovery' in LR actually does something with D800 files, not to mention the amazing shadow detail as posted in the OP.
Mind you the color is very different SOOC, but, they can both be processed similarly for WB and saturation. I have found that the D800 has quite a bit more color depth and breadth vs the 5D3. They look much more "true to scene", and very much like what I expect out of a MFDB. ...Show more →
I hope you don't mind me playing with and reuploading your files. If you do, just let me know and I'll remove.
I spent a few minutes with this in Photoshop. Obviously it would be easier to do and better quality if done in LR. See below.
The point really is not that the Canon files are this or that (better or worse) but that they're different. You can't expect two files from two different cameras to be the same. You either have to make them both look like a standard (like a colour checker passport) or make one look the same as the other.
Regarding subtle tones, I have a "vintage" effect option which is about subtle colours and tones. From the 5d2:
It takes effort, but that's what post production is for - turning what you get off the sensor into what you want. Learning how to process your files effectively is an incredibly important part of shooting raw.
Here's the file with the "correction". Obviously I only had the JPEGs to work from:
Yes, its not hard to make them very very close. But, the difference is there SOOC for me, and, it's much easier and quicker for me to get the contrast ratios in the D800 files vs 5D3...and this is coming from a long-time Canon die-hard. But its not just the contrast, the tonal gradation is just nicer on the D800.
There is also quite a bit more color depth in the D800.
Now, I'm not one to fall-back on synthetic lab tests, but the DXO mark tests also coincide with the "real world" application of what I'm seeing. There's more DR and more color depth. Not to mention incredible resolution. D800 sensor is better than the 5D3. As for the camera body, well, thats a matter of preference.
I'm also aware of LR4 I just don't care for its speed and the new processing version.
sboerup wrote:
Yes, its not hard to make them very very close. But, the difference is there SOOC for me, and, it's much easier and quicker for me to get the contrast ratios in the D800 files vs 5D3...and this is coming from a long-time Canon die-hard. But its not just the contrast, the tonal gradation is just nicer on the D800.
There is also quite a bit more color depth in the D800.
Now, I'm not one to fall-back on synthetic lab tests, but the DXO mark tests also coincide with the "real world" application of what I'm seeing. There's more DR and more color depth. Not to mention incredible resolution. D800 sensor is better than the 5D3. As for the camera body, well, thats a matter of preference.
I'm also aware of LR4 I just don't care for its speed and the new processing version....Show more →
Speed issues with LR4 should be fixed now. It should run the same as LR3.. anyway...
The D800 sensor in low ISO *IS* better than the 5d3's. I agree. No arguments. However, the differences are not night and day as your example shows.
The major difference between those two files is in post production, not sensor...
I'm not "defending" Canon on this point, but I also wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea that Canon cameras can't produce nice colours and tones.... they can. In fact, that's a major reason I use Canon. I personally prefer the colours and tones and always have. That's personal preference too.
sboerup wrote:
Yes, its not hard to make them very very close. But, the difference is there SOOC for me, and, it's much easier and quicker for me to get the contrast ratios in the D800 files vs 5D3...and this is coming from a long-time Canon die-hard. But its not just the contrast, the tonal gradation is just nicer on the D800.
There is also quite a bit more color depth in the D800.
Now, I'm not one to fall-back on synthetic lab tests, but the DXO mark tests also coincide with the "real world" application of what I'm seeing. There's more DR and more color depth. Not to mention incredible resolution. D800 sensor is better than the 5D3. As for the camera body, well, thats a matter of preference.
I'm also aware of LR4 I just don't care for its speed and the new processing version....Show more →
Can you explain what you mean by contrast ratios?
How much of this can you attest to a Canon vs Nikon "processing style" and to what extent is it correctable with tone curve manipulation?
FWIW, I do find most of Canon's default picture styles to be overly contrasty. I'm constantly having to bring down the highlights on my 5Dx files in LR, but the end result is usually very nice.
ISO 500: 0, -4Ev, +2Ev. Not quite sure where the red is coming from, it doesn't show up on my screen. Guessing it's an aperture bug... http://files.alexbeckett.co.uk/FM/D800.jpg
