Dynamic Range Really isn't as important as you are lead to believe.

Everyone talks about the newer cameras having more dynamic range. While that is true how often do you really use that much dynamic range?

Dynamic range only matters when the dynamic range of your scene exceeds what the camera can store and so it clips either the bright sections or the shadows or both.

If you have a camera with a lowly 8 stops of dynamic but your scene has less than 8 stops it won't matter at all. The camera will not clip any of it.

What most people think of when they refer to dynamic range is simulated dynamic range. Where the camera either artificially boosts the shadow exposure or where the camera combines multiple images of different exposures. Those methods can work well to get the image to look like you want it to but they don't really tell you anything about the sensors dynamic range.

If you really want to see dynamic range then photograph Orion's Nebula through a telescope or even better look at it through an eyepiece in a very large telescope. Your eye can see about 20 stops of DR and it will need a lot of that for the core of Orion's Nebula.

Here are two sample images. The first was made up of 6 stacked RAW images from the GH2 at ISO 1600. The second is a stack of 8 ISO 12,800 JPG images shot with the GH3 in HDR mode with +3 and -3 stops of extra Dynamic Range.

I think it is obvious that shooting HDR jpgs in this situation far outweighs shooting RAW. The few extra stops from shooting RAW is no match for the +6 stop HDR mode.



Here is a single GH3 HDR sub. Notice how the core is not blown out like it is in the GH2 RAW image? This is very difficult to do without an HDR mode.



All of these images are composed of approximately 1 minute subs and they were shot through the same 8 inch 800mm F4.0 telescope.

The GH3 is so much better than the GH2 for Astro Photography it isn't even funny. In fact the GH3 is much better than any Canon Rebel camera which has been the goto camera for AP for a number of years.

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

Here is a single 1 minute ISO 1600 RAW sub from the GH2 and a 1 minute and 9 second ISO 12,800 GH3 HDR JPG for comparison. A single ISO 12,800 GH3 HDR jpg sub looks as good as the stacked GH2 RAW images. Notice how you can see the 3 stars just below the core in the GH3 image? Only 2 are visible in the GH2 image.





--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

It may not be important for some, but for me it is such an important issue that I rarely take my G1 Panasonic M4/3 camera out without a graduated filter attached - to try and keep the image within the cameras restricted dynamic range.

..and what subject do I shoot that gives me so much difficulty - Black steam locomotives in the UK. I need the grad to bring the skies down at least one stop to prevent either the sky blowing out or the black engine disappearing into one dark area.

Of course, for people who shoot 'other subjects', they may never ever have an issue.

...but please don't go telling manufacturers that DR isn't important, we may end up with ghastly cameras in the future.

PS. Your sky photos are great.

--
Adrian
http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography.htm

Your post started by stating that dynamic range isn't really that important and then proceeded to show us some examples where more dynamic range definitely would be an advantage, HDR or not, or did I miss something?

--
Any problem on earth can be solved by a well aimed Pomegranate...
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

It would be fair to say that a great many things are not as important as you are lead to believe!

I loose track of the number of things worthy Talking Head, Forum Warriors and so on insist are essential, important, critical and so on.

I often wonder how anyone manages to take so much as a single image given the amount of retentive absurdity that goes on in Camera Internet Land - the Official Checklist precludes buying a single item of equipment because 50% say it is brilliant and 50% say it is junk. The List goes on to set out so many issues you need to avoid, include, account for and so on that no one would have time to press the shutter (and would dread doing so in case some new horror amusingly named 'shuttershock' occurred.....)!

It is high time people were able to be left in peace and get on with the business of building their own self-confidence and having the courage of their convictions, if you ask me.

Lovely images, by the way!

As Tony said, you start by saying wide dynamic range isn't important and then show us why wider dynamic range would help.  This is odd.

If you had wide enough dynamic range, you wouldn't need multiple images.

If you need more DR than the camera provides, shooting a few RAW images and combining them in post processing with appropriate software is likely a better technique than just stacking RAW or in camera HDR with jpg.

The idea of a comparative exercise is to limit the number of things that change, so that you can isolate what is important. You change both camera and technique.

Therefore, it's not obvious that HDR jpgs outweigh RAW, as there's no way to tell if the differences are due to the different techniques or the different cameras.

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

I think in practice, a little more DR in a single exposure is valuable. In many cases, multiple exposures are not feasible due to the prolonged capture.

There certainly are cases like your example where a lot more DR is needed. But mostly it is difficult to render a really-wide-DR scene nicely, without killing contrast. Capturing wide DR is just the first part of the task; rendering it so that the image remains lively after squeezing into the viewable or printable DR is the other. Notice this involves compromises and is not best done in-camera. The in-camera HDR modes are fine for preview, but more powerful tonemapping is available on the computer. For some silly reason, most in-camera HDR modes do not have an option to store source raw files for external processing.

A lot.    And within that I push/pull the tones a great deal.   It's allowed me to forgo HDR except for the most extreme cases - and even when I think I need HDR, I find I can often pick one of the exposures in the series to develop, and not have to resort to the HDR blend.

--

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

Lovely images. All I've photographed with my telescope is the sun for a uni project. Keep on meaning to try something else.

You say though that people don't normally have a use for such large dynamic range. I can personally think of plenty of situations that people go though day to day where it would be helpful. The most obvious is shooting into a bright sunset. Also trying to shoot in a dark forest without getting horrible blown skies and the thin brances just dissapearing into the whiteness is almost impossible in a single exposure with todays digital cameras. A FF might just be able to do it with alot of pusing/pulling but I imagine even that would start to shot more noise than is desirable in a shot with such fine detail.

Or what about the wonderfully tourist shots inside churches. Especially the other european ones which are often quite dark inside, yet have brilliant glowing stain glass windows. Try getting any detail inside whilst showing the beauty of the window.

I personally hope camera companies keep striving for higher dynamic range. A dynamic range race sure is better than a MP race.

The E-M5 and Lightroom 4 have really cut down on the need for HDR.

As a bonus, this makes the difficulties in bracketing with the E-M5 much less important.

--
http://fruminousbandersnatch.blogspot.com/

The point was that Dynamic Range implies clipping of highlights or shadows. That really only ever occurs with a bright point source like a star(Our Sun) or very bright light. Most people don’t shoot astro photography like I do so that pretty much leaves landscapes for needing dynamic range to avoid clipping.

The real problem is that the extra dynamic range a sensor can give you really won’t help much when compared to what an HDR mode will do. You are much better off looking for a camera with a +6 HDR mode for landscapes than you are worrying about which one has 13.2 stops or 13.6 stops of dynamic range.

Also most often when someone speaks of dynamic range they really mean that they wished the shadows had more exposure. There usually isn’t any clipping going on at all. They simply wanted more exposure in the shadows. The dynamic range of the sensor has no bearing on that.

It is not to say that you never need dynamic range. However, most often the manufactures lead you to believe that their improved sensor will solve ALL of your issues with dynamic range and exposure when in fact the difference in sensor dynamic range isn’t helping at all.

I posted several examples that show when dynamic range is necessary and how sensor dynamic range really isn’t as helpful as a good HDR mode. Most people don’t shoot images with this much dynamic range so they really shouldn’t be as concerned with it as I was for these photographs.

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

Nothing you do in Lightroom will ever correct a clipped signal. You are confusing exposure correction with dynamic range. Dynamic Range implies clipping of the signal. If the signal is clipped then you can't bring that signal back without reproducing it with another image(HDR) or redrawing it yourself from memory(Not Practical).

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

The only problem with that theory is that landscapes often have more mobile elements in them than astrophotography. It doesn't work so well with waves, or trees blowing in the wind, or even peope/animales moving around etc.

You are much better off using HDR there instead of relying on a single image. All of the situations you describe don't usually involve subject motion. That is ideal for HDR.

In almost of the situations you described the dynamic range will far exceed the theoretical limit of the RAW image. Nothing you do to the sensor will change the fact that the RAW image is limited to about 14 stops or less. Those situations probably have closer to 18 or 20 stops of Dynamic Range and would require HDR to compress that much dynamic range into a single image.

Half a stop extra dynamic range isn't going to help you there and that is usually all the difference there is between generations of sensors.

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

That may be the case. And if it is then you simply are not going to be able to get the shot because the sensor is not going to make up the difference either.

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

Landscapes with no subject motion... I wish (see previous post). Maybe living by the coast has swayed my view of this. It's very wavey and windy at the moment (the size of the swell we have been getting have moved half the beach onto the road infront of my house, and resulted in what is thought to be the largest wave ever surfed).

Also forests have a horrible habbit of moving in the breeze, especially the smaller branches where there is the most issue with them dissapearing into a blown sky.

The only one where I think and HDR image would be truely pratical is in a church... unfortunately most don't allow tripods. Yes you can do it handheld, and with modern programs you normally can't tell because they correct for camera movement, but I doubt they will ever be as perfectly sharp around the edges of the different layers as a single images would be.

I see post after post that says not enough dynamic range can be corrected in post processing. Again nothing you do in post processing can fix a clipped signal. Dynamic Range implies a clipped signal.

I think that this is the true issue. The camera manufactures have lead everyone to believe that dynamic range really means exposure control. It couldn’t be further from the truth.

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMdxoGbNXU
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROQbbiiO2I
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

Out of curiosity why is the sensor limited to 14 stops of dynamic range? I honestly would like to know because it seems like an odd limit. I would assume it has something to do with it being a 14bit file (or is that just coincidence?).

Also just saying, according to DxO the D800 has over 14 stops of dynamic range, although I never pay a huge amount of notice to their measurements.

True, you just deal with black/white areas and do the best you can (or use a grad ND filter in the case of seascapes etc... and people say filters in the digital age are dead)

Yes, you can't restore a clipped signal, but higher dynamic range means you can get more tonal information into a single exposure below the clipping point. So... you can get more information into the final output if you know how to work the file. If you need 20 stops of information then multiple exposures is the only way to go, but if 12 stops is good enough, all you need is one properly exposed photo.

Greater dynamic range in a single exposure allows for greater latitude for exposure correction.