Drum Roll: Dynamic Range WHAT?

"Photography involves a series of related mechanical, optical, and post processes...

As we develop a deeper understanding of the controls available, we can go a step further ans begin "applying" them...

Knowing the effects of the various stages of the process, we can attempt to see the subject as it will appear on the final print, as transformed by camera, capturing device, and development controls."

I guess I should through that garbage away. Just another wannabe pixel peeper.

--
Julia

Yes, it is important to know the technical/engineering aspects of a given piece of equipment. But in the end it's just that, a piece of equipment. The main problem on this forum moreso than any other I visit is the level of technical obsession at the sacrifice of photographic knowledge and skill. This obsession is measured by miniscule variance amounts between pieces of equipment, and viewing images and ridiculous magnifaction comapared to the way images are viewed 99.9% of the time.

At the end of the day, a graph, chart, calculation, or statistic means nothing. It is the undefinable variable of the person using that equipment that completes the photographic equation.

In order for one to really be involved in photography, one has to balance the technical knowledge and ability with the field knowledge and ability. For one shooter, "X" cameras' technical merits in terms of image quality my weigh less than other features, such as size, weight, fps, etc. For the next shooter, an entirely different and totally subjective weighting will apply.

There are no absolutes.

Julia Borg said:

"Photography involves a series of related mechanical, optical, and
post processes...

As we develop a deeper understanding of the controls available, we
can go a step further ans begin "applying" them...

Knowing the effects of the various stages of the process, we can
attempt to see the subject as it will appear on the final print, as
transformed by camera, capturing device, and development controls."

I guess I should through that garbage away. Just another wannabe
pixel peeper.

--
Julia

Click to expand...

LMitch said:

.5-.7 EV? That's what I call state of the arte pixel-peeping and
measurebating. Not waht I would call photography.

Click to expand...

You are biting your tong: I can get 0.5 to 0.7 EV (that's 2x0.3 EV of gain), which can be noticed on the shadows, or even in the highlights (around 0.3EV), with ZERO additional equipment, and what's your suggestion: throw that away and do, instead, photography? What kind of four-years-old reasoning is that? That's just a tribute or protection to your own ignorance, if someone asks me.

Why don't you open a thread like this: "if you knew how to tap on extra DR, would you take it (and shoot with them) or forget them and click the shutter? I challenge you to do it. ...

I will be waiting patiently...

...simply because I DO NOT WANT you (nor anyone else) to have this product. That simple. I do not want you to have a copy of my skills, my hard work, and the source of my competitiveness on the field. Even if you pay for it.

While most folks (childishly) forget about the essence of the technology we now use (NOTHING to do with analog film), I work diligently, day and night to tune them, to "teach them manners", to have them do what I please, to develop my own tools... and then going to the field and beat (to mush) those careless folks. Because of that, I do not want you to be even close to me. That simple. At least, not for now.

I hope you take my answer as clear, concise and legitimate. Again, if you want to see screen-shots of the tool, commands, explanations, graphical examples, etc., I will not have any problem doing that here (in public) or privately (however Phil feels better).

I would suggest you, though, to wait until C 3.7.3 official release, because I will close my DR analysis (5D and 1D MKII) with FLEXRanger, and we will see how truly far you can go with these two cams. Your call.

Happy shooting!

PIXSurgeon said:

You are biting your tong: I can get 0.5 to 0.7 EV (that's 2x0.3 EV
of gain), which can be noticed on the shadows, or even in the
highlights (around 0.3EV), with ZERO additional equipment,

Click to expand...

I'd love to see this in action. You should show a sample (NOT A CHART, but an actual photo) and then post the RAW file so others can have a crack at it. I'm curious as to what it looks like in a real life photograph.

-r

--
http://www.ronpurdy.com
http://www.pbase.com/r_p

If you're tring to extract detail from a surveillance satellite, knock yourself out. But you're talking about values that are miniscule and even if apparent would be accomodated in the exposure choices of the skilled photographer. These are not values that would make anyone who knows the craft go "ooohhh...ahhhh". In fact, those who do know the craft, use shadows and highlights as creative tools, If the image as we want it to be dictates, we'll over expose and blow the highlights on purpose, or underexpose to create more shadow.

And just what makes my 20 years of experience shooting several different formats in a variety of lighting conditions "ignorant"?

PIXSurgeon said:

LMitch said:

.5-.7 EV? That's what I call state of the arte pixel-peeping and
measurebating. Not waht I would call photography.

Click to expand...

You are biting your tong: I can get 0.5 to 0.7 EV (that's 2x0.3 EV
of gain), which can be noticed on the shadows, or even in the
highlights (around 0.3EV), with ZERO additional equipment, and
what's your suggestion: throw that away and do, instead,
photography? What kind of four-years-old reasoning is that? That's
just a tribute or protection to your own ignorance, if someone asks
me.

Why don't you open a thread like this: "if you knew how to tap on
extra DR, would you take it (and shoot with them) or forget them
and click the shutter? I challenge you to do it. ...

I will be waiting patiently...

Click to expand...

I rounded it up for all of us less technical types!

RD

J A K said:

is BIG, just look at all the significant places behind the decimal
point.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

Click to expand...

Perfect exposure from 5D:



--
KEG ( http://www.pbase.com/k_e_g )

andrea buso said:

Maybe Ron is more interested in being succesfull on taking photos
rather than being succesfull in a forum.

Click to expand...

You measure success in several front. I measure it by how happy I am taking pictures, improving them, and satisfying the customer that purchase pictures.

I also define success as the extent to which others are able to replicate my own results, to their advantage. Take a look at this testimonial (very recent, by the way):

"(...) Have fun and thought I would give you some news on the results of using Flex(...) for my wildlife shots: I ended up taking
"best in show" in the (...) Nature Photo Contest a couple of weeks ago!!
Another photo placed. Thanks for letting me
get the results I need. Did very well last yr too: 1st and three 2nd's !!

andrea buso said:

Probably Ron has an audience of several thousand people, clicking
on his photos and buying clothings and making good revenues for his
clients.

Click to expand...

I hope that is the case, for his own success. And I mean it, constructively. But that is not the point, here. He should answer for himslef the questions I made about HIS participation and audience HERE. He's already grown-up, both for assuming responsibility of his shady, and conspiracy-driven comments, as well as for showing his real traction as an active member of this forum, beyond posting pictures of women, well lit, in a white room, with a sharp lense, which anyone can afford to do, to be honest.

I typically assume, FULLY, and COMPLETELY, my responsibility and support behind everything I say or show here... not that many around here can do the same. Simply do a seach on my posts, read them, see the material (text + graphical), etc.

I do not miss ANYTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when I focus my attention in developing the know-how and skills to ultimately be better, every day, bit-by-bit, in what we do.

Happy shooting!

andrea buso said:

What about that?

Click to expand...

...Some souvenir shots, taken at your own home-town, under grueling conditions (NO LEVELS, NO CURVES, just making the very best of your tools):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/44661272/original
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/50090436/original

These shots involve a MASSIVE recovery of dynamic range, not only at the tail-end of the cam's reproduction curve, but also BETWEEN them, by being able to control (non-linearly) contrast distribution, noise, and overall density.

To give you a very precise idea of what dyanmic range is comprised on this shot, this chart tells you EVERYTHING, as I this is where the initial tuning took place before going to the field:

http://www.pbase.com/image/50804197/original

I will look for the RAW files and, once I locate them (they are in my last multi-CD back-up), I will let folks grab them.

Happy shooting!

...The 0.5-0.7 EV that I talked about, well... you do not need my tools for that, as we were working our way with the 5D's own assets.

Simply shoot, on-board .JPGs on either sRGB or AdobeRGB. Set Picture Style to Standard, and set Contrast two (2) notches up from zero. Then set sharpening to ZERO, and leave color saturation at default. Voila! A real 0.5-0.7 EV increment, with clearly less tendency to blow highlights, as you will be able to -EC a bit more, because you will have a bit more shadows. I have found, many times, that an extra 0.3 to 0.5EV help A LOT, on the field, and when RAW is not an option.

The above was described on the mega 150+ posts thread.

That's what the ability to analyze your equipment's manners and behavior allows to do, for FREE!!!

Happy shooting!

PIXSurgeon said:

Just look at yourself: what you are saying is like "geez, should I
believe my factory-calibrated speedometer reading (now at 100 mph)
or should I believe my eyes?" Guess what, sir: when you get stopped
by a state trooper, he's going to give you a $400 speeding ticket
that will come with a speed reading... and what your eyes told you
will be worthless .

Click to expand...

OK I'll play . . . . who is getting the best out of his car? The guy out driving it or the guy who has it in the shop re-calibrating his speedometer daily, obsessing about it's accuracy and then going online announcing (drum roll please) "I can get the speedometer calibrated within .00012 mph on the new ford Mustang where the old Pinto is capable of .0000004! This should be of major concern to all out there in trying to make sure you avoid speeding tickets . . . . "

got anymore stupid analogies?

PIXSurgeon said:

That is not the direction of the discussion. That's your personal
(and painful) interpretation of the results which (for the first
round) were not favorable, EXCEPT for my final on-board
optimization, which leveled things out pretty well. Geez, there you
have some specific settings (described on the thread) to improve
(and squeez out) an extra 0.5-0.7 EV of DR on-board the 5D) and you
still don't know how to do it? That is called "medieval
obscurantism".

Click to expand...

That number I posted was a fully sarcastic shot at you but it seems with your reply above you're not quite getting that fact. And I don't care what your current results are showing, this isn't your thread or discussion. This is a thread started for the purpose of ridiculing (yes for lack of a more politically correct term) those who feel looking at a graph is more important then looking at a really well done picture of something. I'm just throwing out my take on it. Sorry it's poking at your "bubble of self-importance"

PIXSurgeon said:

Tell me: WHO in this world, seeking for getting the best out
his/her equipment, would EVER agree with you? (read the question,
carefully, before you answer)... I can't come up with a single
name. Why don't you open up a thread (on this EQUIPMENT forum)
asking the same question I just wrote, and let's see the answers...

Click to expand...

Agree with me about what? My speedometer? what question? WTF?

Start here (with the genius' words, onward):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=16007093

As for the details:

-Basaline capture is a high-quality .CR2 file that I will supply (virgin, as-shot).

-Workflow needs to be supported by real or non real-time TOOLS (not hand drawing / pasting, etc.)

-Workflow has to be as simple as possible (with lowest possible execution times of tool's CODE).

-The goal is to maximize Tonal, Chroma and Spatial response, while maintaining the HIGHEST possible levels of image integrity (highlights rendition, shadow detail, contrast and MAXIMUM possible signal-to-noise ratio).

-NO noise reduction of any kind allowed, except that included (and disabled) on RAW converter.

-External color profiles / management is allowed.

-Final output is to be printed at 200dpi or more.

-A max. of +10%-size (pixel count) of upsampling is allowed (any tool).

Results are to be made available for anyone to compare, both ON-SCREEN and ON-PRINT. The idea is that folks PRINT the results and see the paper, and see the screen as well.

That's

balance. indeed. balance. thank you.

it seems in this thread we are a little carried away with emotions.

let me reiterate something.

more dynamic range means less noise and bigger enlargements.

more dynamic range means your camera is capable of capturing more details in highlights and shadows.

more dynamic range means you can shoot under less favorable light.

more dynamic range means it is less probable to ruin the shot with under- or overexposure

,ore dynamic range means more latitude

more dynamic range - well, how do you chose your film, your developer, your lab, whatever?

I'm sure you read 'The Negative", and know the process of "film calibration".

why one of the main parameters of a scanner is Dmax?

why camera makers are struggling to gain the best dynamic range they can?

what is so different between older N-megapixel cameras and newer N-megapixel cameras?

Are we going to splash a child out of a font?

--
Julia

PIXSurgeon said:

-Basaline capture is a high-quality .CR2 file that I will supply
(virgin, as-shot).

Click to expand...

All participants should make their shots available in raw format. This will eliminate cheating.

PIXSurgeon said:

-NO noise reduction of any kind allowed, except that included (and
disabled) on RAW converter.

Click to expand...

I will argue this point strongly. All current demosaicing methods include something which you can (if you wish) identify as noise reduction.

--
Julia

...this will be for fun, and, even though this is my challenge, I could relax that (and only that) restriction, for you. However, NO Neat Image, NO Noise Ninja, etc., because you want to look at actual workflow's efficiency, as well.

There is no point in having a, say, sharpening tool that sharpens and forces you to later run noise-reduction, because of the sharpening tools' poor "spatial selectivity". Minimal waste and by-products is the key.

As for the other "low-lander", nothing will be relaxed, as I will make sure he gets crushed (in the context of the challenge, of course).

And there will be ONLY one .CR2 file: it will be mine, as I was the one that called this contest (otherwise the matrix of comparisons will be huge, and we will dillute our attention away from the process).

Happy shooting!

PIXSurgeon said:

And there will be ONLY one .CR2 file: it will be mine,

Click to expand...

no way I will take this.

--
Julia

...A perfectly focused, ISO100, daylight-shot, from a high-end DSLR? Do you ever believe that I will set somebody up for something? :-/

Would you like to take a look at it, first, before working on it and responding here? Let me know, in private.

Be cool!

because I prefer real competitions, with deadlines, unexpected tasks, and not a shadow of doubt from the side of our judges

--
Julia

Julia Borg said:

balance. indeed. balance. thank you.

Click to expand...

You're amazing.

I simply go balistic when I read a note like the one you managed to respond so civily to.

Arguing that there's something wrong with discussing technical issues on a hardware forum is increadibly common and unbelievably stupid.

And it's pretty much always someone who's picked the wrong end of a technical discussion who we see claiming that "great photographers can use any camera".

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan