Why DR matters and why, for me, the 5DS doesn't have "enough"

[Arizona Sunset]

I`m serious, it looks like a noisy shot of a painting ..

 

[Digitalis32]

Does every single image you make require 15.5 stop tonal range? actually narrow DR images can often be quite successful. If you print your images, you have to cram that tonal range down several stops otherwise your images are going to look really flat and uninteresting, Printing papers and Inks have only handle a 10.5 stop tonal range at a stretch.


Taken on a camera with a 8.5 stop DR sensor. (Pentax K10D)


Taken on a camera with a 8.5 stop DR sensor. (Pentax K10D)



Are you familiar with the phrase, more is less?

 

[Arizona Sunset]

Does every single image you make require 15.5 stop tonal range? actually narrow DR images can often be quite successful. If you print your images, you have to cram that tonal range down several stops otherwise your images are going to look really flat and uninteresting, Printing papers and Inks have only handle a 10.5 stop tonal range at a stretch.

Are you familiar with the phrase, more is less?

Agree with the premise, but I print so few. And DR doesn't complicate anything - it doesn't change the process - it opens possibilities - but doesn't create "more" of anything if you don't want it to.

 

[Arizona Sunset]

Does every single image you make require 15.5 stop tonal range? actually narrow DR images can often be quite successful. If you print your images, you have to cram that tonal range down several stops otherwise your images are going to look really flat and uninteresting, Printing papers and Inks have only handle a 10.5 stop tonal range at a stretch.

Are you familiar with the phrase, more is less?

Agree with the premise, but I print so few. And DR doesn't complicate anything - it doesn't change the process - it opens possibilities - but doesn't create "more" of anything if you don't want it to.

Beautiful photos by the way! Great examples and point.

 

[biza43]

Just a few comments:

1. I moved from Canon FF to Sony A7 not because of DR, but because I wanted a smaller and lighter kit without compromising on IQ.

2. I shoot landscapes at extremes of light, never had a shot ruined due to Canon's lack of DR...

3. I think some people here would benefit from shooting slide film, just to learn proper exposure technique; if you need to open up shadows 4, 5, or 6 stops, you are doing something wrong...

4. DR is not the most important factor in landscape photography, and I will leave it at that...

Some examples below from my handicapped Canon's...







































--
www.paulobizarro.com

PauloBizarroPHOTOBLOG – Some of my photography

 

[CraigArnold]

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

I take lots of pictures with that kind of lighting and mix of hightlights and shadows. The 5DS result isn't acceptable to me for a new $4,000 camera in 2015.

I hear a lot of people saying that the Canon has "plenty" of dynamic range - but not for the kind of landscape images I want to make.

Could you link to some examples of your photographs where you would not have been able to cope with a mere 12.7 stops of DR?

Also I would be interested in what monitors you are using and what papers you print on. I am always curious to know how people who work in very high HDR cope with mapping a 15-stop image capture onto 10 stop monitors and 7 stop papers. It's very technically demanding I think.

I look forward to your insights as I am somewhat interested in exploiting the full range of DR on the Sony sensors.

I mostly tend to work in high-contrast low DR scenarios and print to matt papers which often only really display 5-6 stops of DR.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

Not sure the dynamic range advantage, which is only significant at ISO 400 and below, is that significant to most photographers. Exposure bracketing landscapes is an option that can yield much more dynamic range. The linked phot is a good example of one that would work better bracketed.

 

[mdcromer]

Not sure the dynamic range advantage, which is only significant at ISO 400 and below, is that significant to most photographers. Exposure bracketing landscapes is an option that can yield much more dynamic range. The linked phot is a good example of one that would work better bracketed.

Would work perfectly fine with an EXMOR sensor too.

 

[mdcromer]

Could you link to some examples of your photographs where you would not have been able to cope with a mere 12.7 stops of DR?

That's 12.7 stops of *engineering* dynamic range - which is about 7.7 stops of clean dynamic range.

You can look at my portfolio - many of my images use 9-10 stops of dynamic range, and often times the shadows are noisier than I would like. That's why I will be buying the A7R2.

 

[mdcromer]

Could you link to some examples of your photographs where you would not have been able to cope with a mere 12.7 stops of DR?

This is an example of a scene that would have benefited from 15+ stops of engineering dynamic range (would have meant 10+ stops of truly CLEAN dynamic range):

Loading…

lightskyland.com

If you view the image at 100%, you can see the serious shadow noise with my Sony Alpha 65. Pretty much comparable to the Canon 5DS.

With an A7, A7R, A7R2, Nikon D800/810 or other modern Sony FF sensor you would have clean shadows.

Also I would be interested in what monitors you are using and what papers you print on. I am always curious to know how people who work in very high HDR cope with mapping a 15-stop image capture onto 10 stop monitors and 7 stop papers. It's very technically demanding I think.

I don't do specialized HDR, just normal landscape photography.

I rarely print (mostly just for customers) - I prefer looking at my images on LCD monitors, retina iPads etc.

I recently purchased a 5K retina iMac and that's what I am targeting now in my image production.

 

[stevo23]

I`m serious, it looks like a noisy shot of a painting ..

 

[tko]

This is kind of like showing a YouTube video of a Porsche and stating "my car needs that performance, because this is how I want to drive."

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

I take lots of pictures with that kind of lighting and mix of hightlights and shadows. The 5DS result isn't acceptable to me for a new $4,000 camera in 2015.

Then why not show one of your to illustrate your point?

I hear a lot of people saying that the Canon has "plenty" of dynamic range - but not for the kind of landscape images I want to make.

It's easy to dream about taking great photos. Another thing to take them. Have you taken any photos worth $3000-$4000 bodies?

 

[mdcromer]

The image was shot on a 5DS (the file name gives it away) and that the article it was pulled from was about the 5DS:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/71...d-to-canon-eos-5ds-r-first-impressions-review

I'm not sure if the OP was praising the photo, or panning it. It's very noisy if you get at all close.

The shadows are very noisy indeed.

 

[mdcromer]

Have you taken any photos worth $3000-$4000 bodies?

You are welcome to peruse my website.

Loading…

lightskyland.com

 

[Midwest]

This is kind of like showing a YouTube video of a Porsche and stating "my car needs that performance, because this is how I want to drive."

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

I take lots of pictures with that kind of lighting and mix of hightlights and shadows. The 5DS result isn't acceptable to me for a new $4,000 camera in 2015.

Then why not show one of your to illustrate your point?

I was wondering about that. His gallery is empty and no links to anything external of his own, at least so far as I've seen. I like to see a gallery, not so much to critique someone's photos but to see what kind of shooting they like. I've seen people cry about how they need (say) more FPS or whatever and their gallery is full of photos of ducks and statues.

I hear a lot of people saying that the Canon has "plenty" of dynamic range - but not for the kind of landscape images I want to make.

It's easy to dream about taking great photos. Another thing to take them. Have you taken any photos worth $3000-$4000 bodies?

Love to see those.

 

[CraigArnold]

Could you link to some examples of your photographs where you would not have been able to cope with a mere 12.7 stops of DR?

That's 12.7 stops of *engineering* dynamic range - which is about 7.7 stops of clean dynamic range.

You can look at my portfolio - many of my images use 9-10 stops of dynamic range, and often times the shadows are noisier than I would like. That's why I will be buying the A7R2.

Perhaps you are famous, but I'm afraid I have no idea how to find your portfolio. You don't link it in your sig and you have no photos in your gallery.

 

[mdcromer]

Could you link to some examples of your photographs where you would not have been able to cope with a mere 12.7 stops of DR?

That's 12.7 stops of *engineering* dynamic range - which is about 7.7 stops of clean dynamic range.

You can look at my portfolio - many of my images use 9-10 stops of dynamic range, and often times the shadows are noisier than I would like. That's why I will be buying the A7R2.

Perhaps you are famous, but I'm afraid I have no idea how to find your portfolio. You don't link it in your sig and you have no photos in your gallery.

 

[mdcromer]

This is kind of like showing a YouTube video of a Porsche and stating "my car needs that performance, because this is how I want to drive."

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

I take lots of pictures with that kind of lighting and mix of hightlights and shadows. The 5DS result isn't acceptable to me for a new $4,000 camera in 2015.

Then why not show one of your to illustrate your point?

I was wondering about that. His gallery is empty and no links to anything external of his own, at least so far as I've seen. I like to see a gallery, not so much to critique someone's photos but to see what kind of shooting they like. I've seen people cry about how they need (say) more FPS or whatever and their gallery is full of photos of ducks and statues.

I hear a lot of people saying that the Canon has "plenty" of dynamic range - but not for the kind of landscape images I want to make.

It's easy to dream about taking great photos. Another thing to take them. Have you taken any photos worth $3000-$4000 bodies?

Love to see those.

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue0;}
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\partightenfactor0

Thought it was in my profile page.

Anyway:

Loading…

lightskyland.com

 

[exapixel]

A feature need only apply to some images to be useful. It need not apply to all. Your argument is basically the same as saying that not every patient in the ER needs the MRI machine, so the hospital shouldn't buy one.

The narrower dynamic ranges available in prints and monitors are not relevant.

The point is to capture as much detail as possible in a single exposure so that more options are available in post. You may not want to boost shadow detail on every image, but if your sensor didn't get that detail in the first place, you won't have the option later when you might want it.

 

[Arizona Sunset]

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3673531883/5DS-TulipSunrise-FullSize.jpeg

I take lots of pictures with that kind of lighting and mix of hightlights and shadows. The 5DS result isn't acceptable to me for a new $4,000 camera in 2015.

I hear a lot of people saying that the Canon has "plenty" of dynamic range - but not for the kind of landscape images I want to make.

Could you clarify if this is sarcasm?

Honestly

I think it is interesting, because the image is beautiful, but then you look at it full size and it degrades a bit, as others have said, and it is not pushed too much in PP, so it came out of the camera like th at. It is certainly good enough to print large with, but as a full size background, or cropped background on any 1440p monitor, let alone 4k, let alone 5k, it is not.