Dynamic range advice

RebelCake said:

...

Am I better off (in terms of dynamic range) setting ISO 100 manually?

Click to expand...

According to empirical results, ISO 100 results in a higher dynamic range.

In general the purpose of automated camera settings is convenience. The people who designed the automation algorithm were at an extreme disadvantage. They have zero knowledge whatsoever about the actual circumstances faced by the photographer. It can be a risky to delegate camera setting decisions to people who have no idea about the actual challenges you face. The more challenging the situation, the less useful their uninformed guesses become.

In your case, it appears the goal of auto ISO is to intentionally underexpose the sensor by 1 stop (camera ISO setting is set to one stop above the sensor's native setting). This protects inexperienced photographers from overexposing the sensor (it does not protect them from clipping the ADC!). Still, this goal increases the chance inexperienced photographers will be happy with the camera.

But your goal was to make full use of the sensor's analog dynamic range. Your goal and the product design goal were in conflict.

___________________
“…the mathematical rules of probability theory are not merely rules for calculating frequencies of random variables; they are also the unique consistent rules for conducting inference (i.e., plausible reasoning)”
E.T Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

alcelc said:

Is indeed 200.

ISO100 is the extended ISO on the lowest end. Therefore under Auto ISO, ISO200 is the lowest ISO it will use.

You need to do manual ISO for 100.

Click to expand...

In this case you should inform Bill Claff his graph is mislabeled. He always uses an open symbol to represent data outside of the sensor's analog range. Here is an example for extending ISO on the lowest end.

RebelCake said:

I'm looking for some advice on dynamic range.

Recently, I was on a long vacation in the US, and took lots of photos. I used mostly the GX80 with 14-140, and also a GX800 with the 7-14. I'm a casual photographer and use mostly SOOC Jpegs. I was generally pretty happy with the photos, except for the skies sometimes. I took the following photos in Chicago. I took the first picture with the GX80, and the sky looked really flat. I then took the same picture with my S22+ phone.





In reviewing the pictures later, to my surprise, the sky looked much better on the S22+ image. I had checked the ISO to make sure it was at 200 on the GX80, and I thought that should maximize the dynamic range.

Am I being unrealistic as to what to expect a m43 sensor from 2016 to do?

I'm hoping that there are things I can improve, to avoid this issue in the future. Looking forward to hearing feedback on this.

(I know, shooting raw might be better, but it is not my cup of tea, so I shoot jpg only.)

Click to expand...

The phone has presumably done an HDR shot (combining different exposures) so I'd suggest doing that. Or for a single Raw shot underexposing (so the sky doesn't clip) and raising the brightness of all but the sky in post.

Turn your mode dial to iA. Then...

Press [MENU] → [



Intelligent Auto] / [



Intelligent Auto Plus] →Right Arrow [iHDR] →Right Arrow [ON / OFF]



If you don't want to shoot in RAW, and you want your camera to automatically take an HDR JPEG when the dynamic range in the scene exceeds that of the sensor, then follow the steps above to enable iHDR (automatic 3 shot burst, with one shot underexposed, one shot overexposed, one correctly exposed, then merged in camera).

When your camera "sees" a scene such as the one you highlighted, the iHDR icon will appear on your screen. Hold your camera extra steady and fire away. If you're successful, your image will turn out very similar or better than your S22 image.

As many others have noted, this is exactly what your phone is doing automatically.

If you want your camera to do the "auto-goodness" thing, too, you should shoot it in automatic mode (iA) with iHDR on, too.

Good luck!

If you have the camera, or is using the recent models of Panasonic M43 (IIRC Panasonic has used ISO200 as base ISO for many years), you will know it.

The manual of GX85 has also such info.

I think if Bill has seen this thread he would do something about it.

cjones63 said:

RebelCake said:

I'm looking for some advice on dynamic range.

Recently, I was on a long vacation in the US, and took lots of photos. I used mostly the GX80 with 14-140, and also a GX800 with the 7-14. I'm a casual photographer and use mostly SOOC Jpegs. I was generally pretty happy with the photos, except for the skies sometimes. I took the following photos in Chicago. I took the first picture with the GX80, and the sky looked really flat. I then took the same picture with my S22+ phone.

In reviewing the pictures later, to my surprise, the sky looked much better on the S22+ image. I had checked the ISO to make sure it was at 200 on the GX80, and I thought that should maximize the dynamic range.

Am I being unrealistic as to what to expect a m43 sensor from 2016 to do?

I'm hoping that there are things I can improve, to avoid this issue in the future. Looking forward to hearing feedback on this.

(I know, shooting raw might be better, but it is not my cup of tea, so I shoot jpg only.)

Click to expand...

Your problem is not DR but that you took a photo in a dull uninspiring background for which there is no solution other than taking a better photo.

Click to expand...

The sky is relatively featureless, but it doesn't mean there isn't a DR problem.

Star Geezer said:

You get what you shoot. Next time wait for better background, clouds etc.

Click to expand...

When you're sightseeing, you don't always have time to wait. This isn't the OP's home town. He may not have the luxury of sitting around for hours waiting for a better sky to appear.

Star Geezer said:

Amazing that virtually every reply had misguided solutions and missed the obvious issue with one notable exception suggesting a Luminar sky replacement.

I guess that's expected in a gear forum rather than a photographic forum. Gear nor software is the real answer. Just take a good photo.

Click to expand...

The OP noticed that two different gear took two different pictures and he wanted to know why.

Your answer of "take a good photo" does nothing to answer his question, and is about as unhelpful an answer as I've ever seen on these forums.

RebelCake said:

I'm looking for some advice on dynamic range.

Recently, I was on a long vacation in the US, and took lots of photos. I used mostly the GX80 with 14-140, and also a GX800 with the 7-14. I'm a casual photographer and use mostly SOOC Jpegs. I was generally pretty happy with the photos, except for the skies sometimes. I took the following photos in Chicago. I took the first picture with the GX80, and the sky looked really flat. I then took the same picture with my S22+ phone.

In reviewing the pictures later, to my surprise, the sky looked much better on the S22+ image. I had checked the ISO to make sure it was at 200 on the GX80, and I thought that should maximize the dynamic range.

Am I being unrealistic as to what to expect a m43 sensor from 2016 to do?

I'm hoping that there are things I can improve, to avoid this issue in the future. Looking forward to hearing feedback on this.

(I know, shooting raw might be better, but it is not my cup of tea, so I shoot jpg only.)

Click to expand...

Realistically, there's not a lot of options available to you here for SOOC jpeg. Your smartphone looks better because it's doing in-camera HDR: it's taken multiple shots at different EVs and stacked them to expand the dynamic range. I can't remember if the GX80 can do in-camera HDR, but if not, your options are:

• expose for the sky and hope the dynamic range is not so high that you can lift the shadows in post without clipping
• exposure bracket and stack in post
• expose for the sky and take one shot, then expose for the building and take a shot and stack in post
• buy a camera with more dynamic range--means going with a bigger sensor or a m4/3 camera that can pixel shift

Yes, it's more work and yes, it's the reason why smartphones are eating up the camera market. It's pretty shocking how good a modern smartphone is (my wife's iPhone 14 Pro with ProRes gives me pause), but the flipside is a camera will give you a lot more creative control.

Two examples of OOC jpegs, both set with the default jpeg parameters, sharpness, contrast, etc. Both photos have the same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. In the first photo, the lampstand is overexposed. In the second shot with HDR, the lamp is not overexposed, and the two lens bottles are pretty close in exposure. (Perhaps the HDR photo could benefit from a slight increase in exposure.) So, without post-processing, you may get closer to what you want. You can also try setting your "photo style" setting to vivid, and/or trying the two sky settings in the scene mode setting.




OOC jpeg with default settings.






OOC jpeg using the in-camera HDR setting.

It is what HDR will do, the highlight would be darkened slightly and the shadow would be brightened slightly too. This could save some post editing work, and keep absolute ETTR goal easier.

The cost is a more flat output having lower contrast.

If you would like a more dramatic result, might shoot with Exposure Bracketing and merge for HDR in post.

You can also play on the Shadow/ highlight as well. For your paticular example, might apply a curve of +0 (Highlight) & +2 or +3 (Shadow) and take the shot with +2/3ev after first zebra (@105%) appearing in screen. The contrast might come out slightly better than HDR too (I guessed).

The merit on using S/H is no merging, can see the result in Live View before it was taken (HDR effect can be seen after the shooting), in a sense of better control (more predictable). The draw back is unlike HDR, the DR will not be expanded (limit to a single shot). However these are interesting tools for us to use whenever they are applicable .

alcelc said:

alcelc wrote:.......

IMHO upon more powerful processing power and improved AI, phone camera output could be close to proper camera one day. Just not today yet.

How do you take the result would be up to you.

Click to expand...

For me, phone output is fine today for viewing on up to a 24" office grade monitor (which is rather smallish nowdays), or for printing A4 size (if no cropping is needed, up to A3 in many cases). IQ is better than what my 35mm film SLS's could ever do.

The problem is not anymore IQ. The problem is that phones are ergonomically not well suited to capture many slightly out of the ordinary scenes. Especially where speed, timing or precision matters (framing, settings selection and shooting). And I doubt if that can be solved in my remaining lifetime. It would need several physical wheels at the edge of phones, making them far better cameras - but worse phones.

We surely have different standard of acceptance level.

On a HD monitor, the image would be scale down to 2Mp, for a becoming more popular 4K monitor, would be 8Mp. An image from the older 12Mp, or >20Mp resolution phone output, we are actually looking at a scale down version of it having the imperectnesss (technically of course) hidden up. The size of monitor has nothing to do with it.

When I am going to appreciate the beauty of the screnery or composition, a scale down view would work for me.

But when I am looking to compare the IQ from a phone vs a proper camera, or even to compare IQ among cameras, I would look at the technical performance. 1:1 examination to look at their pixel level quality is my ruler. It is my comment based on.

Expensive phones are doing better now is true. But more like the development of camera and generation/class of camera, their shooting enevlops are restricted by their smaller size sensor, their smaller size lens and also the degree of maturity of the AI applied. Hence IMHO their IQ (upon the objective technical standard ) could be good as cameras of today, just not today yet.

I am yet to see phone output could meet with my satisfaction, specially those from more difficult lighting conditions. Please prove me wrong with SOOC output from phone (any post processing would complicated the purpose of this discussion). I am always more than happy to be corrected.

cba_melbourne said:

cba_melbourne said:

alcelc wrote:.......

IMHO upon more powerful processing power and improved AI, phone camera output could be close to proper camera one day. Just not today yet.

How do you take the result would be up to you.

Click to expand...

For me, phone output is fine today for viewing on up to a 24" office grade monitor (which is rather smallish nowdays), or for printing A4 size (if no cropping is needed, up to A3 in many cases). IQ is better than what my 35mm film SLS's could ever do.

The problem is not anymore IQ. The problem is that phones are ergonomically not well suited to capture many slightly out of the ordinary scenes. Especially where speed, timing or precision matters (framing, settings selection and shooting). And I doubt if that can be solved in my remaining lifetime. It would need several physical wheels at the edge of phones, making them far better cameras - but worse phones.

Click to expand...

This seem to be the issue that bedevils M4/3 - 'the mobile phones are coming to get us', but wait .... 'we are being assailed by the FF sensor' at the same time.

So can we make up our minds. The mobile phone camera offers convenience photography always in your pocket. M4/3 can also offer a form of convenience photography in the form of effectively point and shoot (if that is what is the siren call). AF and the camera getting it right most of the time makes the snap easier. Arguably the MFC has other convenience attributes that no M4/3 camera can compete with.

But as soon as you put a mount system on the MFC most of the convenience of in your pocket evaporates. Somehow the laws of physics allow the MFC to have multiple tiny lenses and even lenses on the other side of the body for selfies.

.... and yet M4/3 insists on huge lenses that fit on to that awkward mount stub. I take an example known to me of the PL 200/2.8 - alone worth more than most if not all Mobile Phones that can be bought. Why is Panasonic 'forcing' me to buy such a large expensive lens when apparently some other manufacturer can do much the same thing in a compact very pocketable Mobile Phone?

Will some clever manufacturer soon enough compress the wonders of this remarkable lens so much as to insert it within a pocketable mobile phone? Is there anyone who truly believes that this can be done? Or are we current fooling ourselves with such recent high quality hits of the new compact Panasonic Leica GD Summilux f1.7 9mm ASPH lens whose swept volume and weight are easily as much as a mobile phone body even before a M4/3 camera body is attached? The MFC takes excellent wide angle images ... where are we going wrong? Has anyone any idea of what the equivalent aperture is in the MFC wide angle lens and do they care even if they knew. I makes great images, doesn't it?

Visions of Birders with mobile phones from their pockets using long telephoto function that can equal or surpass the best telephoto lenses that M4/3 can offer?

We don't see MFC camera owners desperate to update their gear to the 'large' 4/3 sensor kit. But as 'M4/3 people' we feel it is necessary to genuflect in both directions - to the MFC threat on one hand and to the FF sensor spectre on the other. It certainly is destined to be the worry-wart of systems - neither truly pocketable and a few stops short of being acceptable as perfect on the other hand.

The need for easy-captures meets technical-skills.

We all love to discuss it even if the answers are obvious.

Tom Caldwell said:

We don't see MFC camera owners desperate to update their gear to the 'large' 4/3 sensor kit. But as 'M4/3 people' we feel it is necessary to genuflect in both directions - to the MFC threat on one hand and to the FF sensor spectre on the other. It certainly is destined to be the worry-wart of systems - neither truly pocketable and a few stops short of being acceptable as perfect on the other hand.

Click to expand...

+100

genuflect (verb)

• lower one's body briefly by bending one knee to the ground, typically in worship
• show deference

While many people want to believe they “do photography,” their photos are no more special than the “snapshots” created by people who are willing to spend big chunks of money to buy and upgrade their smartphones on a regular basis.

The adage “the best camera is the one that’s with you” has a new twist: it is the smartphone camera I always have in my pocket — always.

Usually, Cupertino 1, Tokyo/Osaka 0.




earlier today, during my afternoon walk

If you are shooting jpg, then look in the camera menu for a feature called iDynamics.Set that to STANDARD, which will cover most situations where the sky is over exposed. Have a look in the manual and on Youtube for an idea of how iDynamics handles over exposed bits.