Pixel Perfect wrote:
The double exposure trick is a poor man's way of getting better DR and is quite limited unless you need to use a tripod. I'd hope there would be real improvements at the hardware level that aim to improve the DR of a single capture.
I agree and would also like to see improvements at the hardware/sensor/processor level.
However, it's at least a start, and with image-stabilized lenses the need for a tripod might not be as big as you think.
And even with a tripod, it's all about "making" a photograph rather than "taking" a photograph. It just depends on the subject matter.
I've found out with my newly cheaply aquired 1dm3 and it's excellent bracketing function I can take 5 photos in less then a second. Handhelt hdr works excellent.
I dont think any function in low grade and slow cameraes can beat this. I only wish it was 15mp fullframe 15 pics per sec instead.
irris wrote:
I've found out with my newly cheaply aquired 1dm3 and it's excellent bracketing function I can take 5 photos in less then a second. Handhelt hdr works excellent.
I dont think any function in low grade and slow cameraes can beat this. I only wish it was 15mp fullframe 15 pics per sec instead.
I assume that you still must process the bracketed photos on a computer.
Would you also like to see some of the HDR processing actually done in the camera before you get to post?
Again, without improving the S/N of the single photo-diode of the Sensor, you cannot increase the true DR. However, what you guys seem to want is "DR-compression", like what Photoshop does with image stacks or 1Ds3 does in-camera.
This can be done by doing the following ( sorry I lost the old thread archive for this )
1. Simply take the shot with lower exposure to keep the high-light portion not blown out.
2. Use the tone curve to bring out the low & mid range.
I was certain that 1D3 did it by manipulating the ISO. It gets the exposure for your current ISO, then takes shot at lower ISO and remap the tone curve.
Pondria wrote:
Again, without improving the S/N of the single photo-diode of the Sensor, you cannot increase the true DR. However, what you guys seem to want is "DR-compression", like what Photoshop does with image stacks or 1Ds3 does in-camera.
This can be done by doing the following ( sorry I lost the old thread archive for this )
1. Simply take the shot with lower exposure to keep the high-light portion not blown out.
2. Use the tone curve to bring out the low & mid range.
I was certain that 1D3 did it by manipulating the ISO. It gets the exposure for your current ISO, then takes shot at lower ISO and remap the tone curve. ...Show more →
I can't speak for the respondents in the poll, but I'd personally like to see both.
I'd like to see in-camera HDR compression (as an option), and improved SNR at the sensor level for greater overall DR.
cameron12x wrote:
I assume that you still must process the bracketed photos on a computer.
Would you also like to see some of the HDR processing actually done in the camera before you get to post?
Yes. I think PP is fun. The work was to manually bracket all the shots. This goes easy with 1d series. Push 2 buttons, then the dial exposure range. Then the shutter, 0.5 sec later you have ex 5 shots. The speed is the key imo, you freeze clouds etc.
No, not generally. But one capture increased hdr I would want. Probably not if that means pushing the raw files so there is no room for PP. I like PP lattitude. I think 1dm3 might be one of the best on this.
So difficult. I think you gain on one thing, but will give up on another. 1d series bracketing should be on all canon dslr's, but probably never going to happen.
I'm primarily a pro Canon shooter, but I will be adding a Pentax K-7, mostly because of its in-camera HDR function. Yes I understand it has its limitations, but as usual with Pentax they are way ahead of Canon in usability features (REAL auto ISO anyone?).
Why is it important to me? A good portion of my income comes from photography of real estate, and most of the properties I photograph are multimillion dollar properties with amazing views. And when a property requires 30 or more photos for an MLS listing, the time it takes to process that many HDR composites can make the job cost prohibitive. Furthermore I am a landscape photographer in my spare time , and I am constantly shuffling graduated neutral density filters (which of course rarely match the profile of the horizon of the mountains I love to photograph), so once again I am constantly trying to compensate for the lack of dynamic range of my cameras.
Furthermore I think that as wonderful as the advancements in sensor technology has been lately, I believe we are still in the dark ages of digital capture. A wonderful evolution would be "smart pixels" that turn themselves off as they pass the white point. This would essentially make dynamic range endless (and make my job a lot easier!).
ChrisDM wrote:
I'm primarily a pro Canon shooter, but I will be adding a Pentax K-7, mostly because of its in-camera HDR function. Yes I understand it has its limitations, but as usual with Pentax they are way ahead of Canon in usability features (REAL auto ISO anyone?).
Why is it important to me? A good portion of my income comes from photography of real estate, and most of the properties I photograph are multimillion dollar properties with amazing views. And when a property requires 30 or more photos for an MLS listing, the time it takes to process that many HDR composites can make the job cost prohibitive. Furthermore I am a landscape photographer in my spare time , and I am constantly shuffling graduated neutral density filters (which of course rarely match the profile of the horizon of the mountains I love to photograph), so once again I am constantly trying to compensate for the lack of dynamic range of my cameras.
Furthermore I think that as wonderful as the advancements in sensor technology has been lately, I believe we are still in the dark ages of digital capture. A wonderful evolution would be "smart pixels" that turn themselves off as they pass the white point. This would essentially make dynamic range endless (and make my job a lot easier!).
Usability and feature/function sets which provide working photographers with better tools are FAR MORE IMPORTANT than simply providing more reach (megapixels), IMHO.
I'm not saying that reach isn't important, but there needs to be more balance to R&D with more emphasis on usability and workflow.
Once you're settled in with the K-7, please give us an update with your impressions of it.
abam wrote:
more DR would be nice, but i have a strange feeling that i'd still spend an inordinate amount of time dodging and burning my images either way.
I bet you'd do it a lot less with better available in-camera DR management.
But in your case, I'd bet that it's a labor of love anyway?
sure sensors with more dynamic range would be nice
but ...
I think too many people shoot in poor quality light and expect excellent results
couldn't do that with film
can't do that with digital
If I shoot in good light the results are better then I used to get with film
when I get crappy results it is almost always due to the quality of the light
not the camera
As in days past, its not the hardware its the photographer
shoot in good light and set exposure carefully
abqnmusa wrote:
sure sensors with more dynamic range would be nice
but ...
I think too many people shoot in poor quality light and expect excellent results
couldn't do that with film
can't do that with digital
If I shoot in good light the results are better then I used to get with film
when I get crappy results it is almost always due to the quality of the light
not the camera
As in days past, its not the hardware its the photographer
shoot in good light and set exposure carefully
"poor quality light" and poor dynamic range are not mutually exclusive. The two best examples of this are landscape and real estate photography. A beautiful sunset, for example, is what a landscape photographer would consider "good light". In fact it is so good that if you expose for the sky properly, your foreground will often be reduced to black silhouette. Similarly if you're photographing an interior of a property with a great view in "good light", the interior portions of the shot will be reduced to black shadow.
So this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with "good light" or "poor quality light", rather it has to do with the fact that as advanced as our cameras are, they still can't see what we see! But I'm sure that a camera is right around the corner that can produce a file that represents the range of light that the human eye can see. And the Pentax K-7 is a big step in that direction.
abqnmusa wrote:
nah,
bright overhead mid-day cloudless light looks awful
more dynamic range will just record a wider range of that awful looking light
It is the light that matters. Dynamic range would help if the light is worth recording.
Who said anything about "bright overhead mid-day cloudless light"? Here is an example, an interior photo properly exposed for the beautiful, low late afternoon golden light, diffused by a partially cloudy sky. The interior is all but lost. This simply shows how far digital photography has to go:
ChrisDM wrote:
Here is an example, an interior photo properly exposed for the beautiful, low late afternoon golden light, diffused by a partially cloudy sky. The interior is all but lost. This simply shows how far digital photography has to go:
No, actually it shows how far you need to go. If you take a RAW image where the brightest parts of the image are just on the verge of overexposure (=at least 2 stops higher than when JPEG and camera LCD shows overexposure) and decrease the contrast a lot (via a suitable curve) in postprocessing, you should see the indoor detail quite well.
However, it is true that the cameras do not help much in doing such work. The sensor itself can record much more than you can easily get from the in-camera JPEGs, even with setting the picture style parameters.
astrolucida wrote:
No, actually it shows how far you need to go. If you take a RAW image where the brightest parts of the image are just on the verge of overexposure (=at least 2 stops higher than when JPEG and camera LCD shows overexposure) and decrease the contrast a lot (via a suitable curve) in postprocessing, you should see the indoor detail quite well.
For the type of work I do, photographing multimillion dollar real estate and landscape prints for gallery display, "quite well" doesn't cut it. I must have proper exposure and color "VERY well" across a range of light and color that far exceeds the capabilities of today's digital SLRs. Here is the finished image from the "before" image I posted earlier. This one is a manual blend of 2 exposures. But I predict that someday soon I won't have to work this hard just to make my photos show what my eyes saw:
It's good and bad 