p.5 #1 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
EB-1 wrote:
Most of the time I have enough or I need more than the sensor will provide. It's rarely that a single stop or so will save the day. At ISO 100 we want the best IQ and it looks like the a7rVI delivers. It's not much to complain about. I have not tried bracketing with the a7rVI yet.
EBH
Make sure you are using the mechanical shutter, take advantage of the whole range...
p.5 #2 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
EB-1 wrote:
Most of the time I have enough or I need more than the sensor will provide. It's rarely that a single stop or so will save the day.
That’s been my point for quite a while… but you made it much more concisely. :-)
I’m all for manufacturers continuing to improve DR along with all other aspects of camera performance, but the differences in DR are rarely decision points in the way that other factors can be.
p.5 #3 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
gdanmitchell wrote:
^^^
Concerning the above, you are right that the DR of jpg files isn’t really directly relevant here, especially in light of the fact that (as mentioned earlier in this thread) the real value of large DR in cameras is to provide working space in post so that final images in DR limited formats (which all are) can include values form darkest and lightest areas.
There are two ways, however, in this mentioning jpg DR in a thread about camera DR kind of makes sense:
1. Today’s cameras do a fair amount of (sometimes a lot of) internal processing of the initial raw data when they generate a JPG output, so I suppose that a camera JPG system might possibly use that larger range as a starting point. However…
2. … few (to no) photographers who shoot only JPG will ever see the full advantage of cameras that record high DR raw images. That advantage is there to be utilized by people who know how to work files in post....Show more →
phones, in-camera bracketing jpegs, the x100iv is also a good example of what great incamera jpegs are like, also slog 3 video from sony cameras is better than any raw recording from other brands.
p.5 #4 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
chiron wrote:
Can you link to some examples of HDR images that you think have been well done?
For most landscape type images the HDR variant looks more true to life by far.
Not much processing required, just load the raw and export a jxl file.
This way we see what the camera sees.
The problem with HDR is that in 2026 different screens display HDR at completely different fidelity levels. It may look good on my screen but blown out on yours if the monitor cant display the highlight detail and it gets crushed by the display's EOTF curve
p.5 #5 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
old-gregg wrote:
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....Show more →
greg, have you never blown out the sky, lace details on a white dress or feather detail on a white bird before?
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
p.5 #6 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
aCuria wrote:
greg, have you never blown out the sky, lace details on a white dress or feather detail on a white bird before?
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
I agree,
i shoot studio dance photoshoots in my studio and i can easily shoot a black lace tutu with a white lace top at the same time with all the detail and DR one could ever want without that HDR look.
p.5 #7 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
aCuria wrote:
greg, have you never blown out the sky, lace details on a white dress or feather detail on a white bird before?
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
That would be an exposure issue and the reduced shadow noise (in the A7RVI compared, e.g., with the A1II), which is what the extra DR is all about, is not likely to help much with that. You can choose to give the subject less exposure and by doing this you can avoid the highlight clipping but also whenever you give yourself more room in the highlights for brighter spots to be correctly imaged, you increase noise in the darker parts of the image due to increased photon shot noise. The differences in DR are likely to be visible in the darkest shadows at low ISO and it's not clear they would make a difference in most practical use cases. The differences in DR (between A7RVI and A1II) are present in the ISO 100-500 range while photonstophotos.net shows practically identical PDR at ISO 640 and higher; how often would bird photographs be made at max ISO 500? It's certainly possible but I think most bird photography happens at medium to high ISO these days.
I think it's brilliant that such developments still occur in camera sensors and think people who shoot at low ISO will find uses for the reduced shadow noise. However, if you actually take a landscape and bracket the exposures (assuming there is little movement in the scene) and merge the exposures carefully, you will get a much larger reduction of noise and improvement of the final image, but of course, this requires a lot of skill and a good eye when doing the editing. For shots where there is movement in the scene, single-exposure DR can matter, but because of the ever-present photon shot noise, the differences between camera generations might not be as important as they once were in this area of technical image quality improvement. At high ISO, different technical implementations might be more effective in optimizing the DR. Certainly if shooting flying birds at ISO 25600 before the sunrise, any image quality improvement that can be had is welcome, as the starting point is not very good, but may still show interesting behavior.
Examples of where base ISO DR might matter (and when bracketing is still a useful tool) is landscapes that include the setting or rising sun in the image. People love sunsets and sunrises and depending on the foreground, there can be a huge lighting contrast between some rocks and the brightest part of the sun. Whether this type of photography is any particular photographer's cup of tea is another matter, of course.
p.5 #8 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
gdanmitchell wrote:
On the other hand, if there is, as you suggest, a specific and objectively measurable difference in the color from the systems you should be able to simply create a preset (or some kind of profile) that could be applied in bulk with hardly any effort or time required.
In other words, making the color from camera A look like the color from camera B would not likely require a lot of image-specific processing at all, FWIw.
That's not really true as the full continuous spectrum of light striking the sensor is filtered by the color filter array and the spectra of different filters can be different in different implementations and this reduces the full spectrum of light into just three values. The three values will be different between the different CFAs, depending on the spectrum of the incoming light and the CFA spectra, and there is no way to un-filter the light after those CFAs to make a mechanistic algorithm that would reproduce the colors from one camera based on images from a different one. The information is simply not there in the recorded file to make this happen.
p.5 #9 · Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
aCuria wrote:
greg, have you never blown out the sky, lace details on a white dress or feather detail on a white bird before?
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
I added a clarification at the bottom, sharing my observation that all modern cameras, regardless of what photonstophotos shows, have about the same headroom for highlights. Probably the result of metering+sensor pair tuning. I guess what you're saying is these newer DGO cameras allow for more negative exposure compensation with no shadow noise penalty to protect the highlights even further. That's a great answer!
