Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
In modern-day digital, useful DR is set by two things, shadow noise and highlight clipping.
Highlight clipping is pretty simple and basic, all the tools deal with it pretty much the same way, and there isn't really any way to recover from it. But the shadow noise side is totally different.
How far you can go into the shadows, how much detail, contrast, color etc. you can 'lift' out of the shadows depends heavily on how the image is processed. Starting from RAW of course, then the tools (primarily software) and the techniques that the photographer uses to push the darker areas of the image -- and once the noise starts to appear, how well she/he can hide it considering how the final image is going to be viewed.
Many photographers today are stuck in one or two ways of doing things, they might try their standard processing technique, ie. load it into lightroom, DPP, whatever; try to lift the shadows 2+ EV, think about how bad or awful the image looks, throw up hands, post on message board and whine, blame on camera.
For starters, a lot of photographers have never really taken the time to try most of the different raw converters out there on a problem image, as some deal with noise better than others. They are stuck on one or two because they like the interface, or the cost, or they don't know it matters, or are just stuck in their ways. Yet this most basic choice alone -- which tool you choose, and how well you use it, matters. And so does the next step, going from the developed raw to the final image -- most photographers use the same tools here, but knowing when noise matters (and when it doesn't), knowing the different techniques to hide or minimize noise in your processing makes a big difference.
My message probably sounds like a rant, but the next time shadow noise is a problem, if you are one of those people who posts and complains, who gives up, blames gear, or throws up your hands and moves on -- if the image is really important to you, take the time to deal with it as a photographer rather than just say 'this is ugly', throw up hands, complain on boards.
Also I do have an OM-D, I've processed from one of the better sony sensors and it's honestly not all golden there. They have their own inefficiencies, or problems; in real life often times designers, engineers, etc. are not so much dealing with outright 'better' or 'worse' but more creating advantages and disadvantages through tradeoffs or choices made in the design itself. If you have to ask which is better, the real answer is, we'll, they are both good, and both bad. How much you are 'in tune' with these things, how well you can deal with the 'bad' parts is what really makes a difference in the post-processing of an image.
|
My wife (un)fortunately keeps that in check...
