p.1 #1 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Everyone is excited about the increased dynamic range of the Sony A7RVI at nominal ISO. Meanwhile, I am asking myself whether I ever bump into the DR limitations of my existing cameras in practice?
When I look at my favorite landscape shots, for example, I see that - while there's plenty of unused room to lift shadows - lifting them even further results in unrealistic "HDR" look. I think you all are familiar with that look. In other words, at least in my work, there's a natural limit of how much the luminance range of a scene can be "compressed" into an 8-bit JPEG (or into a 200:1 print) by lifting the shadows. Sure, there are 10-bit screens and true HDR HEIC, but that shit looks garish to me.
In other words, the Nikon Z8 and the Sony A7RVI offer the same practical dynamic rangne for my landscapes, and I can't see how I can use the extra 2EV of the Sony. Which brings my question: what makes you excited about the additional stop of DR at ISO 100, and where are you **practically** bumping into DR limits of your current camera?
P.S. I forgot to mention the highlights. On that front my experience is the opposite: comparing A7RV to cameras with 2EV less DR, I do not see much "unused room" there, and there aren't any meaningful differences in highlight recovery across models. I suspect that the metering systems in all cameras have gotten pretty reliable at nailing exposure within ~1EV of highlight clipping, which means you get 1EV of highlight recovery regardless of a camera.
p.1 #2 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
TLDR - Don't 100% know.
One of my questions would be...go into the future a bit. Will SDR display be the only goal, or would HDR display capabilities be more common? Not talking about cramming more DR and viewing in a SDR type medium (which would give the HDR look). But actually having HDR all the way to your eyeballs.
Watching ripped Blu-ray content in FEL Dolby Vision on a high quality HDR capable display can be amazing.
The question I ask myself, would I ever want to look at my stills optimized for that medium?
The flip side argument is that we already have enough, it's not at all useful, etc.
p.1 #3 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
The only time I run into dynamic range issues (speaking generally) is when I set up the shot poorly. It doesn’t matter whether I’m dealing with shadows or highlights. Most of the time, it’s not the camera’s fault. Between the cameras I already have, I honestly don’t think I have much use for anything with more dynamic range than what I’m getting right now.
p.1 #4 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
I think people said the improved dynamic range in the newer Sonys(a7v anyway, and I’m guessing a7rvi)is via highlights rather than shadow recovery which is always welcome.
Shadow recovery since the d800 has been more than is needed a lot of the time.
Cant say I’ve noticed it that much going from the a7iii-v
p.1 #5 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
I mean this as a serious question--what is the approximate dynamic range of a Vermeer painting or of the Sistine chapel or of a Botticelli or of the Mona Lisa.
My sense is that the dynamic range of these very beautiful works is very limited compared to digital photography DR. But I am not sure that I know how to approach the question.
p.1 #6 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
old-gregg wrote:
Sure, there are 10-bit screens and true HDR HEIC, but that shit looks garish to me.
Naturally any photography medium can be done poorly but HDR images on HDR displays can look amazing as well. If you're not planning to view or distribute HDR images then your SDR thesis is reasonable.
I expect it to show benefits whenever pushing a single ETTR shot. I think it will be super helpful in moon photographs as well where it's typical that the foreground is really dark and one is struggling not to blow out the moon. E.g. https://www.instagram.com/p/DRhpbI3jwQ4/ . For moon shots, I really don't like to blend because that avoids the entire issue of whether the photo was made in "photoshop" and I also find it really difficult to get the blend to look correct.
I also expect it to be helpful in blending two or more exposures. Often the photos I pick from a bracketed sequence aren't those that are farthest apart in exposure (because the farther apart they are, the harder it is to blend them). So the A7R VI can buy another stop and I can choose two photos that are perhaps only 2 stops apart with an easier blend then a pair that are 3 stops apart.
Of course, I think none of this matters unless you care about a large print that will be looked at closely. Perhaps a minimum of 40" on the long side before it's noticeable.
p.1 #8 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
@snapsy I do not really have a thesis here, just wondering if there's something to learn from people who're doing something unusual/novel with all that extra information in their RAW files.
Ok, there's another reason I asked: we just got the Nikon Z6 III at work, and that machine is just marvelous. I remember seeing people criticize it for this, and was trying to see this seemingly solid 2EV deficit in practice.
p.1 #9 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
I guess the way I see it is that I'd rather have the capability there and not need it than need it and not have it. It's true that I rarely need more DR than my A1ii provides, but if it had 2 additional stops, it doesn't cost any more and on the rare occasions when I can use it, it's there.
p.1 #10 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Representing high dr in a painting or even a print is vastly different than capturing real lighting dr on a sensor. That said, more dr in a camera is never a bad thing IF the end user knows how to manage it for a desired and appealing look. That’s precisely what a painter does with their chosen medium. Moreover, with today’s current crop of digital cameras, managing dr well means you’re trimming it for a lot of your images. So is what the new A7R6 delivers more than needed? Maybe for most photographers and their typical images. Is it a bad thing? Not at all, because it gives the photographer more flexibility in how they process to a desired final.
p.1 #11 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
old-gregg wrote:
@snapsy@ I do not really have a thesis here, just wondering if there's something to learn from people who're doing something unusual/novel with all that extra information in their RAW files.
Ok, there's another reason I asked: we just got the Nikon Z6 III at work, and that machine is just marvelous. I remember seeing people criticize it for this, and was trying to see this seemingly solid 2EV deficit in practice.
The partially-stacked Sony Exmor in the Z6 III was definitely a regression in DR vs the previous Sony 24MP Exmor but it certainly wasn't bad by any means. I have a lot of experience with the camera and agree, it is an excellent platform, deriving much of its benefit vs the previous Z6 II from its newer EXPEED 7 imaging ASIC (along with the faster sensor).
p.1 #12 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
First, it would make practical sense to discuss DR together with the ISO. Those who care about DR are those who make a conscientious effort to shoot at the base ISO (from ISO 400, a FF camera has the DR of a micro-four-thirds camera, assuming no dual gain).
DR may mean different things to different photographers. For example, I am less concerned about shadow recovery, as I tend to like contrast in the shadows.
My main concern is about the highlights, that is, about the capacity for capturing more light when there is bright light in a scene.
1 stop better DR means the camera can capture two times more light. When this is needed, the extra DR is useful.
I don't like photos where the sky is a white void. Every time a photo is posted where the sky is "blown out", this indicates a DR problem (or poor PP skills).
p.1 #13 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
Naturally any photography medium can be done poorly but HDR images on HDR displays can look amazing as well. If you're not planning to view or distribute HDR images then your SDR thesis is reasonable.
Can you link to some examples of HDR images that you think have been well done?
p.1 #14 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
ruthenium wrote:
DR may mean different things to different photographers. For example, I am less concerned about shadow recovery, as I tend to like contrast in the shadows.
My main concern is about the highlights, that is, about the capacity for capturing more light when there is bright light in a scene.
1 stop better DR means the camera can capture two times more light. When this is needed, the extra DR is useful.
I don't like photos where the sky is a white void. Every time a photo is posted where the sky is "blown out", this indicates a DR problem (or poor PP skills)....Show more →
Shadow vs highlight in DR is a metering/exposure construct, or at least can be normalized as such. For example, if sensor "A" has 2x the saturation capacity vs sensor "B" (ie, 1EV greater DR near saturation) and sensor "B" has 1/2 the read noise vs sensor "A" (ie, 1EV greater DR near shadow clipping), then both sensors can be exposed to capture the same selection and number of a given scene's highlights, in this case by exposing sensor "B" wth 1EV less exposure vs sensor "A".
p.1 #15 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Jack Flesher wrote:
Representing high dr in a painting or even a print is vastly different than capturing real lighting dr on a sensor. That said, more dr in a camera is never a bad thing IF the end user knows how to manage it for a desired and appealing look. That’s precisely what a painter does with their chosen medium. Moreover, with today’s current crop of digital cameras, managing dr well means you’re trimming it for a lot of your images. So is what the new A7R6 delivers more than needed? Maybe for most photographers and their typical images. Is it a bad thing? Not at all, because it gives the photographer more flexibility in how they process to a desired final. ...Show more →
Yes, but how many stops of DR do those paintings contain? My uneducated guess is "not many." But the question, as I think you are suggesting, may not be meaningful because the mediums are so different in how they represent and recreate light and shadow and tonality.
I think one of the reasons I ask the question is trying to understand what make the tonalities of an image either beautiful or unappealing, whatever the medium that created the image. Even within photography, there are lenses like the Batis and Loxia that seem to have the capacity to create beautiful tonalities more easily than other lenses.
p.1 #16 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
There are always diminishing returns as technology further moves limiting factors. But although these improvements may not be put to the test as often there will always be people who find creative uses to expand their imaging.
p.1 #17 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
chiron wrote:
But the question, as I think you are suggesting, may not be meaningful because the mediums are so different in how they represent and recreate light and shadow and tonality.
p.1 #18 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Jack Flesher wrote:
Exactly that ^^^ 👍
Yes, but I did write "may not be meaningful" because I am not sure.
I think that paintings have a lot to teach us about what makes photographs beautiful or well-composed, and part of that is certainly learning from how paintings handle tonalities--and part of that may be informed by looking at the DR of various paintings. So, i'm curious how the DR of paintings might be measured or expressed, if such is possible.
I am not even sure if paintings as a medium have a more limited DR range or a more expansive one, since they can create so many shades of black or white or of a middle tone. They can also easily vary the white balance across different parts of an image.
I think it may be possible that AI assisted post-processing will give photography more of the tone and color capabilties of painting.
p.1 #20 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
chiron wrote:
Yes, but how many stops of DR do those paintings contain? My uneducated guess is "not many." But the question, as I think you are suggesting, may not be meaningful because the mediums are so different in how they represent and recreate light and shadow and tonality.
I think one of the reasons I ask the question is trying to understand what make the tonalities of an image either beautiful or unappealing, whatever the medium that created the image. Even within photography, there are lenses like the Batis and Loxia that seem to have the capacity to create beautiful tonalities more easily than other lenses....Show more →
It is possible that paintings don't have a "dynamic range". First, the DR is calculated from the signal to noise ratio. Paintings don't have noise in the same sense as the electronic sensors. Even if there is something akin to "noise" in a painting (that I don’t know) I am not sure how this can be meaningfully quantified.
Second, the light is not represented naturally in painting. The naturally bright sun or the moon, or midday sky are painted at reduced brightness. Human eyes and eyes of animals and birds, apparently, do not register the absolute brightness - only the relative brightness. We can only say that one patch is lighter than another, but do not register that lightness in absolute terms. Therefore, a painter can produce a believable picture where the different parts correctly relate to one another in terms of their relative brightness. Yet, this is an illusion of reality. While one can look at a bright sun in a painting without any problems, we cannot look straight at the real Sun in real life. The brightness in a picture is believable, but not true.
A camera sensor is exposed to all of the real light. It is capturing this real light in photography (that can be of extreme brightness) that is a problem that painting doesn't have to deal with because painting is all about the art of creating illusions, not reflections.
I fully recognize that photography is also about creating illusions, and there's some common ground between photography art and painted art, yet the technical means of the two are different. The photography must capture the natural light first, one way or another, before manipulating this light into a visual illusion. Painting is mostly disconnected from the light that is represented in a painting. All that light we see in a picture is an illusion created by applying a combination of pigments.
