Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
p.6 #1Utility 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.In reality, no sensor provides the Perfect Holy Grail Of Color, and when we include variations in lighting color (directly, reflections, and light coming through things like leaves) color is highly variable. I suppose that if you are working under color temperature controlled lighting all of the time you can minimize these issues, but otherwise…
Given all of those variables, in my experience you can get pretty much any sensor to look the way you want it too if you are proficient at post.
YMMV.
It may well be possible to make two images captured by two different cameras (with substantially different CFAs) look similar enough by adjusting one of the image by eyeballing each image and making corresponding adjustments to one of the images until a subjective match is satisfactory. This I do not deny. But you cannot make a machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this for an arbitrary scene without having the reference image of the same scene from both cameras available, across all conditions, because the images contain different weightings of the information in the spectrum of light of the original scene and this is simply mathematically impossible to have an automatic method which would do this for all images. I would argue that also a human, no matter how qualified and skillful, cannot take an image from one camera and adjust it to match the image produced by another camera without actually seeing the images from both cameras to base the adjustments on, in the general case.
I might make an image with my DJI drone and then ask you to reproduce how that image would have looked with your Canon, or my Nikon, and then we can compare the adjusted image to my Nikon Z8, for example. I could do this for different scenes (some in bright sunlight, others in blue skylight, and yet some in artificial light, say, fluorescent, LED, tungsten) do you really believe you can predict and make a fixed set of adjustments that will in all cases convert images from the DJI drone to look like the Nikon (or your Canon) using a preset that is identical for all scenes, and implement this preset without seeing the image made by the target camera in each scene? This is simply not even theoretically possible, let alone practical.
Now, why does this matter? If the philosophy of the photographer is to make art that subjectively looks like they want, they can perhaps take any camera and produce images that they like, by adjusting the results to their liking. That's fine, if the photographer has the time to do that. However, if the purpose is to reproduce colors of the natural world, without a subjective component, then different cameras produce different results, and your subjective view is irrelevant since different people will make different adjustments to produce something that they like or how they saw the scene, rather than how the scene objectively looked. If you are prepared to work the images to look the way you like, each image in turn, all is fine. However, I would argue that it would be better for documentary purposes to make cameras that objectively reproduce the spectrum of light in the scene without requiring editing but this is technically too difficult, and compromises have to be made to make the camera practical. I think the main issue with making this is that different people see things differently. Another problem is that resolution and signal-to-noise would be compromised. I recall reading that in the early color film days, there were implementations of color film with dozens of different spectral sensitivity dyes and while it worked, it was not practical for commercialization, so we ended up with just three dyes for image capture, though photographic inkjet printers can these days have a dozen dyes or so.
ilkka_nissila wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ilkka_nissila wrote
Yes, you can edit the colors but for high-volume photography it may not be that practical to spend a lot of time doing that, depending on the priorities of the photographer.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.
Given all of those variables, in my experience you can get pretty much any sensor to look the way you want it too if you are proficient at post.
YMMV.
It may well be possible to make two images captured by two different cameras (with substantially different CFAs) look similar enough by adjusting one of the image by eyeballing each image and making corresponding adjustments to one of the images until a subjective match is satisfactory. This I do not deny. But you cannot make a machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this for an arbitrary scene without having the reference image of the same scene from both cameras available, across all conditions, because the images contain different weightings of the information in the spectrum of light of the original scene and this is simply mathematically impossible to have an automatic method which would do this for all images. I would argue that also a human, no matter how qualified and skillful, cannot take an image from one camera and adjust it to match the image produced by another camera without actually seeing the images from both cameras to base the adjustments on, in the general case.
I might make an image with my DJI drone and then ask you to reproduce how that image would have looked with your Canon, or my Nikon, and then we can compare the adjusted image to my Nikon Z8, for example. I could do this for different scenes (some in bright sunlight, others in blue skylight, and yet some in artificial light, say, fluorescent, LED, tungsten) do you really believe you can predict and make a fixed set of adjustments that will in all cases convert images from the DJI drone to look like the Nikon (or your Canon) using a preset that is identical for all scenes, and implement this preset without seeing the image made by the target camera in each scene? This is simply not even theoretically possible, let alone practical.
Now, why does this matter? If the philosophy of the photographer is to make art that subjectively looks like they want, they can perhaps take any camera and produce images that they like, by adjusting the results to their liking. That's fine, if the photographer has the time to do that. However, if the purpose is to reproduce colors of the natural world, without a subjective component, then different cameras produce different results, and your subjective view is irrelevant since different people will make different adjustments to produce something that they like or how they saw the scene, rather than how the scene objectively looked. If you are prepared to work the images to look the way you like, each image in turn, all is fine. However, I would argue that it would be better for documentary purposes to make cameras that objectively reproduce the spectrum of light in the scene without requiring editing but this is technically too difficult, and compromises have to be made to make the camera practical. I think the main issue with making this is that different people see things differently. Another problem is that resolution and signal-to-noise would be compromised. I recall reading that in the early color film days, there were implementations of color film with dozens of different spectral sensitivity dyes and while it worked, it was not practical for commercialization, so we ended up with just three dyes for image capture, though photographic inkjet printers can these days have a dozen dyes or so.
Jun 17, 2026 at 05:41 AM
p.6 #2Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
ruthenium wrote:
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.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 beforeThat 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.There seems to be something contradictory in "You can choose to give the subject less exposure and by doing this ... you increase noise in the darker parts of the image due to increased photon shot noise."
Statistically, the shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. E.g., for a signal of 100 electrons, the shot noise is 10, and for a signal of 10000, the shot noise is 100.
The absolute value of the shot noise is not important (except in the highlights), because the (engineering or photographic) signal-to-noise ratio increases with more light despite the concomitant increase in...Show more →
If manufacturers were able to increase the full well capacity so dramatically that the highlights would be possible to give four times the exposure they can be with today's cameras at base ISO of 100, they would simply call ISO 25 the base ISO in that case, and the headroom in the highlights would be kept the same. This is likely how they define the ISO value of digital cameras internally for each manufacturer: how much light is needed to record a gray object so that the image has X stops between mid gray and saturation. This area hasn't seen improvements since Nikon made the D810 and D850 with base ISO of 64 (they seem to be of the opinion now that only the D850 really achieved true ISO 64) and Hasselblad and Fujifilm also now have ISO 64 sensors, if I recall correctly.
What the dual-gain-output technology does, as far as I know, is it records the sensor data with two different ADC circuitries with different gains and merges the data from those. It will reduce shadow noise, basically. If they were to have an increased FWC per area sensors, this would be seen as reduced base ISO in the specs. Otherwise the base ISO spec would be rather meaningless.
ilkka_nissila wrote
aCuria wrote
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.
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
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.
Statistically, the shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. E.g., for a signal of 100 electrons, the shot noise is 10, and for a signal of 10000, the shot noise is 100.
The absolute value of the shot noise is not important (except in the highlights), because the (engineering or photographic) signal-to-noise ratio increases with more light despite the concomitant increase in...Show more →
If manufacturers were able to increase the full well capacity so dramatically that the highlights would be possible to give four times the exposure they can be with today's cameras at base ISO of 100, they would simply call ISO 25 the base ISO in that case, and the headroom in the highlights would be kept the same. This is likely how they define the ISO value of digital cameras internally for each manufacturer: how much light is needed to record a gray object so that the image has X stops between mid gray and saturation. This area hasn't seen improvements since Nikon made the D810 and D850 with base ISO of 64 (they seem to be of the opinion now that only the D850 really achieved true ISO 64) and Hasselblad and Fujifilm also now have ISO 64 sensors, if I recall correctly.
What the dual-gain-output technology does, as far as I know, is it records the sensor data with two different ADC circuitries with different gains and merges the data from those. It will reduce shadow noise, basically. If they were to have an increased FWC per area sensors, this would be seen as reduced base ISO in the specs. Otherwise the base ISO spec would be rather meaningless.
Jun 17, 2026 at 05:53 AM
p.6 #3Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
ruthenium wrote:
While what you say is technically true, I do not think it is practically relevant. If you use appropriate color profiles, the colors (assuming typical continuous spectrum colors) recorded by different Bayer sensors can be mapped with an accuracy of 1∂e or better. Which means human eyes can't distinguish them. Where you do get different colors between sensors is when you do not use appropriate color profiles, if you happen to record monochromatic (or otherwise discontinuous) light or when the color is near (or beyond) the gamut limit.Daran, while I believe you (that the differences are not practically relevant), I am confused by the Cobalt Image "Camera Sensor Color Accuracy Benchmarks" where Nikon D3 is the top scorer (93 in "Overall Hardware" and 89.70 in "Sensor Separation"). The topmost-ranked Sony is A1II (75 in "Overall Hardware" and 72.5 in "Sensor Separation").
Are these differences negated by "use appropriate color profiles" as you suggested? That is, the "the sensor’s potential for accurate profiling" (using the wording from Cobalt) is of no practical concern?
The following is a quote from Cobalt on the meaning of their measurements:
"These measurements describe the colour...Show more →
This is not about measuring absolute overall color precision, but similar to PDR this is about how precise (aka not noisy) a fairly small sensor spot is in terms of color. This can be different from what you learn from normal PDR for various reasons. E.g. on Bayer you only get one in four pixels sensitive to blue and most sensors are way less sensitive to blue (or red) than they are to green to begin with. Hence the color precision is more dependent on the blue channel and having a better sensitivity in that channel may matter for color noise, especially if you crop your images and are not particularly fond of digital NR.
Daran wrote
ilkka_nissila wrote
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.Are these differences negated by "use appropriate color profiles" as you suggested? That is, the "the sensor’s potential for accurate profiling" (using the wording from Cobalt) is of no practical concern?
The following is a quote from Cobalt on the meaning of their measurements:
"These measurements describe the colour...Show more →
This is not about measuring absolute overall color precision, but similar to PDR this is about how precise (aka not noisy) a fairly small sensor spot is in terms of color. This can be different from what you learn from normal PDR for various reasons. E.g. on Bayer you only get one in four pixels sensitive to blue and most sensors are way less sensitive to blue (or red) than they are to green to begin with. Hence the color precision is more dependent on the blue channel and having a better sensitivity in that channel may matter for color noise, especially if you crop your images and are not particularly fond of digital NR.
Jun 17, 2026 at 06:17 AM
p.6 #4Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
ilkka_nissila wrote:
It may well be possible to make two images captured by two different cameras (with substantially different CFAs) look similar enough by adjusting one of the image by eyeballing each image and making corresponding adjustments to one of the images until a subjective match is satisfactory. This I do not deny. But you cannot make a machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this for an arbitrary scene without having the reference image of the same scene from both cameras available, across all conditions, because the images contain different weightings of the information in the spectrum of light...Show more →
You are completely off the mark about this. The "machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this" is called color profiling. And it does work for arbitrary scenes, no manual action required at all.
It may well be possible to make two images captured by two different cameras (with substantially different CFAs) look similar enough by adjusting one of the image by eyeballing each image and making corresponding adjustments to one of the images until a subjective match is satisfactory. This I do not deny. But you cannot make a machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this for an arbitrary scene without having the reference image of the same scene from both cameras available, across all conditions, because the images contain different weightings of the information in the spectrum of light...Show more →
You are completely off the mark about this. The "machine or an algorithm which would automatically do this" is called color profiling. And it does work for arbitrary scenes, no manual action required at all.
Jun 17, 2026 at 06:31 AM
p.6 #5Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
aCuria wrote:
We are still a long way off from what black and white film was capable of, which is about 15 stops
I don't think that is true. You generally need to be careful when comparing DR numbers, as there are multiple incompatible definitions. E.g. photographic DR is relative to a small image sample area spot, which has no universally accepted size. Or the digital engineering DR, which has a universal definition but tends to be much better for low resolution sensors and isn't applicable to film at all.
We are still a long way off from what black and white film was capable of, which is about 15 stops
I don't think that is true. You generally need to be careful when comparing DR numbers, as there are multiple incompatible definitions. E.g. photographic DR is relative to a small image sample area spot, which has no universally accepted size. Or the digital engineering DR, which has a universal definition but tends to be much better for low resolution sensors and isn't applicable to film at all.
Jun 17, 2026 at 06:50 AM
p.6 #6Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
ilkka_nissila wrote:
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.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 beforeThat 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.There seems to be something contradictory in "You can choose to give the subject less exposure and by doing this ... you increase noise in the darker parts of the image due to increased photon shot noise."
Statistically, the shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. E.g., for a signal of 100 electrons, the shot noise is 10, and for a signal of 10000, the shot noise is 100.
The absolute value of the shot noise is not important (except in the highlights), because the (engineering or photographic) signal-to-noise ratio increases with more light despite the concomitant increase in the shot noise. E.g., quadrupling the amount of light captured by a sensor gives a two-fold increase in the signal-to-noise ratio.
I agree with "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" with reference to the A7RVI. One practical question about the A7RVI is in what tonal region the noise (that must be the shot & read noise in the signal prior to the analogue-to-digital conversion) is reduced?
If we divide the region below midtones into (a) Light shadows, (b) Deep shadows, (c) Extreme shadows, I wonder which one(s) should have have reduced noise due to the dual gain? You use the expression "the darkest shadows" that probably corresponds to my "Extreme shadows", however, I don't have the knowledge of how dual gain is implemented in the A7RVI to make any concrete statement.If manufacturers were able to increase the full well capacity so dramatically that the highlights would be possible to give four times the exposure they can be with today's cameras at base ISO of 100, they would simply call ISO 25 the base ISO in that case, and the headroom in the highlights would be kept the same. This is likely how they define the ISO value of digital cameras internally for each manufacturer: how much light is needed to record a gray object so that the image has X stops between mid gray and saturation. This area hasn't seen...Show more →
I agree with your reasoning. There are CIPA recommendation for ISO that are probably respected by the major Japanese camera companies.
Re: "Fujifilm also now have ISO 64 sensors, if I recall correctly" - if you mean the GFX100, then the base ISO is 80.
This is equivalent to full-frame ISO 50; that is, theoretically the GFX sensor can capture an extra stop of light vs that of a full-frame sensor at ISO 100. This assumes that the ISO is defined similarly.
The PDR for the GFX100 II is 12.55 at ISO 80 and that of the GFX100S II is 12.48 - the difference is likely not significant, as the two have the same sensor. The PDR for Sony A7RV is 11.69 at ISO 100. All these cameras use Sony sensors with the same pixel pitch. The difference in PDR is 0.86 - 0.79; this is close the the expected 1 stop.
ruthenium wrote
ilkka_nissila wrote
aCuria wrote
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.
I have had to do sky replacement "first aid" on images before
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.
Statistically, the shot noise increases as the square root of the signal. E.g., for a signal of 100 electrons, the shot noise is 10, and for a signal of 10000, the shot noise is 100.
The absolute value of the shot noise is not important (except in the highlights), because the (engineering or photographic) signal-to-noise ratio increases with more light despite the concomitant increase in the shot noise. E.g., quadrupling the amount of light captured by a sensor gives a two-fold increase in the signal-to-noise ratio.
I agree with "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" with reference to the A7RVI. One practical question about the A7RVI is in what tonal region the noise (that must be the shot & read noise in the signal prior to the analogue-to-digital conversion) is reduced?
If we divide the region below midtones into (a) Light shadows, (b) Deep shadows, (c) Extreme shadows, I wonder which one(s) should have have reduced noise due to the dual gain? You use the expression "the darkest shadows" that probably corresponds to my "Extreme shadows", however, I don't have the knowledge of how dual gain is implemented in the A7RVI to make any concrete statement.
I agree with your reasoning. There are CIPA recommendation for ISO that are probably respected by the major Japanese camera companies.
Re: "Fujifilm also now have ISO 64 sensors, if I recall correctly" - if you mean the GFX100, then the base ISO is 80.
This is equivalent to full-frame ISO 50; that is, theoretically the GFX sensor can capture an extra stop of light vs that of a full-frame sensor at ISO 100. This assumes that the ISO is defined similarly.
The PDR for the GFX100 II is 12.55 at ISO 80 and that of the GFX100S II is 12.48 - the difference is likely not significant, as the two have the same sensor. The PDR for Sony A7RV is 11.69 at ISO 100. All these cameras use Sony sensors with the same pixel pitch. The difference in PDR is 0.86 - 0.79; this is close the the expected 1 stop.
Jun 17, 2026 at 06:55 AM
p.6 #7Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.
Jun 17, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.6 #8Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Jack Flesher wrote:
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?
Jun 17, 2026 at 08:51 AM
p.6 #9Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.
Jun 17, 2026 at 08:54 AM
p.6 #10Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Jack Flesher wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Full Scene (unprocessed)
Full Scene (processed)
100% crop processed shadows (base exposure)
100% crop processed shadows (base exposure +1EV)
100% crop processed shadows (animation)
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Full Scene (unprocessed)
Full Scene (processed)
100% crop processed shadows (base exposure)
100% crop processed shadows (base exposure +1EV)
100% crop processed shadows (animation)
Jun 17, 2026 at 10:18 AM
|
p.6 #11Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Thanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Thanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jun 17, 2026 at 10:46 AM
p.6 #12Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Steve Spencer wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if...Show more →
I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:19 AM
p.6 #13Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Steve Spencer wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if...Show more →
Thanks Steve. Certainly everyone has their own creative preferences when rendering reality in images - mine is to avoid blowing out the window, since that matches my human perception of the actual scene. I do disagree about the shadows being over-raised - they're actually quite dark under the desk even after processing. As for other elements looking natural or unnatural - all those are a function of how I processed the image, not a function of capturing this image as a single exposure vs bracket. The only difference the bracketed exposure would offer is better noise performance - both the single-exposure and bracketed exposure can be matched for rendered tones, provided enough time and effort (which I don't have at this very moment).
I actually did bracket that scene, and did have the time to at least demonstrate the obvious noise advantage for the shadow area of the treatment (below animation). Talk of bracketing is often introduced in these types of "do we really need x DR" discussions - it's always a valid point, but so are the instances where bracketing might not be available for a given shooting situation.
100% crop processed shadows (animation, with bracketing)
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Thanks Steve. Certainly everyone has their own creative preferences when rendering reality in images - mine is to avoid blowing out the window, since that matches my human perception of the actual scene. I do disagree about the shadows being over-raised - they're actually quite dark under the desk even after processing. As for other elements looking natural or unnatural - all those are a function of how I processed the image, not a function of capturing this image as a single exposure vs bracket. The only difference the bracketed exposure would offer is better noise performance - both the single-exposure and bracketed exposure can be matched for rendered tones, provided enough time and effort (which I don't have at this very moment).
I actually did bracket that scene, and did have the time to at least demonstrate the obvious noise advantage for the shadow area of the treatment (below animation). Talk of bracketing is often introduced in these types of "do we really need x DR" discussions - it's always a valid point, but so are the instances where bracketing might not be available for a given shooting situation.
100% crop processed shadows (animation, with bracketing)
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:44 AM
p.6 #14Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
chiron wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR---------------------------------------------
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.---------------------------------------------
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest...Show more →
Can you expand on what you mean by "not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room"?
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest...Show more →
Can you expand on what you mean by "not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room"?
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:47 AM
p.6 #15Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Jack Flesher wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.
---------------------------------------------
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.Thanks Steve. Certainly everyone has their own creative preferences when rendering reality in images - mine is to avoid blowing out the window, since that matches my human perception of the actual scene. I do disagree about the shadows being over-raised - they're actually quite dark under the desk even after processing. As for other elements looking natural or unnatural - all those are a function of how I processed the image, not a function of capturing this image as a single exposure vs bracket. The only difference the bracketed exposure would offer is better noise performance - both the...Show more →
Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
---------------------------------------------
Jack Flesher wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
---------------------------------------------
snapsy wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:47 AM
p.6 #16Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR---------------------------------------------
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.---------------------------------------------
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.Can you expand on what you mean by "not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room"?
When I look at the image, it does not appear that it is brighter outside than inside. If I am in a room on a sunny day and I look toward a window, my eyes register brightness greater than what is in the room. In the Full Scene Processed image, it appears as though the exposure value for the interior of the room and for outside the room would be the same, which of course is not the case. (I think this is what makes the window look a bit like a painting hung on the wall.) My preferred way of handling this would be to have the view through the window look maybe a stop or two overexposed so that it reads as brighter to a viewer. Or have the room be a stop or two underexposed, if the view through the window and the relative dimness of the room are of primary interest.
Edited on Jun 17, 2026 at 12:00 PM · View previous versions
chiron wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.
When I look at the image, it does not appear that it is brighter outside than inside. If I am in a room on a sunny day and I look toward a window, my eyes register brightness greater than what is in the room. In the Full Scene Processed image, it appears as though the exposure value for the interior of the room and for outside the room would be the same, which of course is not the case. (I think this is what makes the window look a bit like a painting hung on the wall.) My preferred way of handling this would be to have the view through the window look maybe a stop or two overexposed so that it reads as brighter to a viewer. Or have the room be a stop or two underexposed, if the view through the window and the relative dimness of the room are of primary interest.
Edited on Jun 17, 2026 at 12:00 PM · View previous versions
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:54 AM
p.6 #17Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
Jack Flesher wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.
The difference in noise performance is clear; whether that difference moves the needle enough for some people and not others is of course for each person to decide.
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
The difference in noise performance is clear; whether that difference moves the needle enough for some people and not others is of course for each person to decide.
Jun 17, 2026 at 11:58 AM
p.6 #18Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
chiron wrote:
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR---------------------------------------------
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.---------------------------------------------
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.Can you expand on what you mean by "not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room"?When I look at the image, it does not appear that it is brighter outside than inside. If I am in a room on a sunny day and I look toward a window, my eyes register brightness greater than what is in the room. In the Full Scene Processed image, it appears as though the exposure value for the interior of the room and for outside the room would be the same, which of course is not the case. (I think this is what makes the window look a bit like a painting hung on the wall.) My preferred way...Show more →
All of which are processing options available to the photographer. For example, here's the window brighter and room darker:
Full Scene (original processing)
Full Scene (brighter window, darker room)
snapsy wrote
chiron wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
snapsy wrote
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.
All of which are processing options available to the photographer. For example, here's the window brighter and room darker:
Full Scene (original processing)
Full Scene (brighter window, darker room)
Jun 17, 2026 at 12:11 PM
p.6 #19Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
What's your definition of "properly-exposed"?
Mine is “a file with the maximum usable image data for expected use in post.” (Ansel didn’t say it that way, but that was his approach.)
To generalize, with digital that usually means protecting the highlights and potentially recovering shadows, at least with scenes that have large dynamic ranges.
I’ve shared a few examples of what you can do at my website. Here’s one done with a camera that is over a decade old. (The article is over 10 years old, and I would process this photograph a bit differently today.)
In other news, I was at the National Gallery in London today, and I thought back to an earlier discussion here about dynamic range in paintings. I photographed a few examples that I’ll share later — after I get home and have access to a real computer to prepare the files for sharing. The short story is that they nicely illustrate how landscape (and seascape) painters compress a very wide dynamic range in the original scene into a much narrower range in the painting.
Jack Flesher wrote
I’d appreciate seeing a real world example of where properly-exposed images from a camera with 13 stops of DR makes a notably better image than one with only 12. Seriously, when cameras passed 10 stops of DR was when I started editing black back into most of images. Today for me, that’s a de-rigueur adjustment.Mine is “a file with the maximum usable image data for expected use in post.” (Ansel didn’t say it that way, but that was his approach.)
To generalize, with digital that usually means protecting the highlights and potentially recovering shadows, at least with scenes that have large dynamic ranges.
I’ve shared a few examples of what you can do at my website. Here’s one done with a camera that is over a decade old. (The article is over 10 years old, and I would process this photograph a bit differently today.)
In other news, I was at the National Gallery in London today, and I thought back to an earlier discussion here about dynamic range in paintings. I photographed a few examples that I’ll share later — after I get home and have access to a real computer to prepare the files for sharing. The short story is that they nicely illustrate how landscape (and seascape) painters compress a very wide dynamic range in the original scene into a much narrower range in the painting.
Jun 17, 2026 at 01:41 PM
p.6 #20Utility of dynamic range beyond a certain point
snapsy wrote:
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR---------------------------------------------
Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DRThanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.---------------------------------------------
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.I agree with everything Steve said. This particular extreme example sort of proves my point that an extra stop of DR doesn't really make much difference in a real world image. I too would choose bump the window a stop for believability and I'd be more than happy with the final result in that for the most part, totally irrelevant shadow.Nice examples and demonstration and interesting comments.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.Can you expand on what you mean by "not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room"?When I look at the image, it does not appear that it is brighter outside than inside. If I am in a room on a sunny day and I look toward a window, my eyes register brightness greater than what is in the room. In the Full Scene Processed image, it appears as though the exposure value for the interior of the room and for outside the room would be the same, which of course is not the case. (I think this is what makes the window look a bit like a painting hung on the wall.) My preferred way of handling this would be to have the view through the window look maybe a stop or two overexposed so that it reads as brighter to a viewer. Or have the room be a stop or two underexposed, if the view through the window and the relative dimness of the room are of primary interest.All of which are processing options available to the photographer. For example, here's the window brighter and room darker:
Very nice! To me, the brighter window and the dimmer room is a more evocative and lovelier rendering of the scene, with greater realism, depth, and contouring.
chiron wrote
snapsy wrote
chiron wrote
snapsy wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
Fair question. Non-specular highlights not blown. And I consider the Sun or any other direct light source in the frame essentially a specular highlight.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
Steve Spencer wrote
snapsy wrote
Here's an image from my S1R. The highlights in the window are metered just at raw clipping (ISO 100 f/8 1/20). I have a second exposure that's 1EV brighter (ISO 100 f/8 1/10). These are without noise reduction.Here are four images in the demonstration:
Image #1 - Full scene (downsampled) unprocessed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #2 - Full scene (downsampled), processed, using 1/20 exposure
Image #3 - 100% crop of processed shadows, using 1/20 exposure
Image #4 - 100% crop of processed shadows using 1/10 exposure, simulating a camera with +1EV greater DR
I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
Thanks for the example. It is helpful, but as an example it demonstrates, to me anyway, just how rarely I would need that extra stop of DR. This is a pretty extreme case and although I like the lower noise at 1/10, I am pretty sure I would be happy blowing out the window a bit with that slower shutter speed. I find the perfectly exposed window with the shadows raised that much to look unnatural like a framed picture rather than a window. Personally, I would rather see the window with at least some blown highlights. So, if I was taking this shot I would would have bracketed exposure and I could have gotten the low shadow noise of your 1/10 of second exposure and I could have gotten a window I think I would prefer and done all of that with one stop less DR and that is even in this extreme example.I am not saying that an extra stop of DR wouldn't be useful in at least some situations, but this examples suggests to me that it would almost never matter for my shooting.
The problem I have with the "Full Scene Processed" image is that there is not enough difference between the apparent light outside the room and the apparent light inside the room--there should be more of a difference between the apparent light levels.
I am not sure that blown highlights are really evidence of what is natural--they be more what we are used to seeing in photographs. They are rarely what we actually see with our eyes. But our eyes do sensitively perceive differences in light levels.
I do think the Full Scene image needs to suggest a greater difference between the light inside and outside the room, but without going all the way to blown highlights.
Very nice! To me, the brighter window and the dimmer room is a more evocative and lovelier rendering of the scene, with greater realism, depth, and contouring.
Jun 17, 2026 at 01:57 PM