Best dynamic range techniques and tips for the D810

[beatboxa]

Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post.

Heads up: the Pentax 645z has less than 1/3 stop more RAW dynamic range at it's peak (@ ISO 100) than than the D810 (@ ISO 64). That's really not much.

Landscapes can be tough because the scenes themselves have a lot of dynamic range and the in-camera JPEG's can get confused. That's why you should shoot in RAW and process manually. For example, if you want '3D pop', you can't use Nikon's Active D-Lighting; nor can you boost shadows alone; you have to boost 'structure' to boost micro-contrast. Take a look here or at that other post I linked about processing.

As an example, if your scene naturally has a very wide dynamic range, sometimes all you can get will be something like this (this is a flattened RAW). The scene had a wide dynamic range, and now I've captured an image at the camera's max dynamic range--the sun and quite a bit around it is clipped--it's your choice in exposure to figure out how much of the brights get clipped here. Doesn't matter what type of lens I use: if I exposed more, I'd clip more of the sky. Simple as that. You could do things like use an ND graduated filter, etc.--but that's also not without downsides.



That's obviously not an acceptable image as is--but I've got a lot of DR & info there. I can always have the camera render that differently--for example, using "Active D-Lighting", etc.--but then I lose micro-contrast & the image would gain a strange glow. Why use Zeiss glass if you're going to ruin the micro-contrast it can provide by doing this?

Instead, I can process that single image however I want, and really bring that 'pop' without going overboard. There are a lot of tools that can help. Here's one example: Google Nik HDR Efex Pro (Free). You could also just use any standard editor, like Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX-D, Darktable, etc. But these all give me processing options. The goal is to find that balance between compressing the dynamic range of the image, increasing overall, localized, and micro-contrast & color rendering, and not going overboard with any of these.



Here's, for example, one way to render it--this is overdoing it a bit and I forgot to correct vignetting, but it helps illustrate the point below.



You could alternatively go for a more subtle or more pronounced look--it's all up to you.

As an example, compare the above with if you just boost shadows, contrast, and saturation, as a camera JPEG would do. This is where things look "flat":



Of course, you've got to have the raw data in the image in the first place--but it won't make a difference to the final image unless you process appropriately. The D810 & many Zeiss lenses are about as forgiving as you're going to get.

If the scene doesn't have a high dynamic range to begin with (for example, if I just took the trees and not the sky), then you really don't need to capture a lot of dynamic range anyway because it's not going to offer any benefits to the final image.

As a note: all of the above was done on a single shot (single raw file) taken from a Nikon D7000 & Tokina lens. The D810 can capture about 1 - 1.5 more stops of DR than the D7000--much more than the difference between a D810 and a Pentax 645z.

 

[primeshooter]

Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post.

Heads up: the Pentax 645z has less than 1/3 stop more RAW dynamic range at it's peak (@ ISO 100) than than the D810 (@ ISO 64). That's really not much.

Landscapes can be tough because the scenes themselves have a lot of dynamic range and the in-camera JPEG's can get confused. That's why you should shoot in RAW and process manually. For example, if you want '3D pop', you can't use Nikon's Active D-Lighting; nor can you boost shadows alone; you have to boost 'structure' to boost micro-contrast. Take a look here or at that other post I linked about processing.

As an example, if your scene naturally has a very wide dynamic range, sometimes all you can get will be something like this (this is a flattened RAW). The scene had a wide dynamic range, and now I've captured an image at the camera's max dynamic range--the sun and quite a bit around it is clipped--it's your choice in exposure to figure out how much of the brights get clipped here. Doesn't matter what type of lens I use: if I exposed more, I'd clip more of the sky. Simple as that. You could do things like use an ND graduated filter, etc.--but that's also not without downsides.



That's obviously not an acceptable image as is--but I've got a lot of DR & info there. I can always have the camera render that differently--for example, using "Active D-Lighting", etc.--but then I lose micro-contrast & the image would gain a strange glow. Why use Zeiss glass if you're going to ruin the micro-contrast it can provide by doing this?

Instead, I can process that single image however I want, and really bring that 'pop' without going overboard. There are a lot of tools that can help. Here's one example: Google Nik HDR Efex Pro (Free). You could also just use any standard editor, like Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX-D, Darktable, etc. But these all give me processing options. The goal is to find that balance between compressing the dynamic range of the image, increasing overall, localized, and micro-contrast & color rendering, and not going overboard with any of these.



Here's, for example, one way to render it--this is overdoing it a bit and I forgot to correct vignetting, but it helps illustrate the point below.



You could alternatively go for a more subtle or more pronounced look--it's all up to you.

As an example, compare the above with if you just boost shadows, contrast, and saturation, as a camera JPEG would do. This is where things look "flat":



Of course, you've got to have the raw data in the image in the first place--but it won't make a difference to the final image unless you process appropriately. The D810 & many Zeiss lenses are about as forgiving as you're going to get.

If the scene doesn't have a high dynamic range to begin with (for example, if I just took the trees and not the sky), then you really don't need to capture a lot of dynamic range anyway because it's not going to offer any benefits to the final image.

As a note: all of the above was done on a single shot (single raw file) taken from a Nikon D7000 & Tokina lens. The D810 can capture about 1 - 1.5 more stops of DR than the D7000--much more than the difference between a D810 and a Pentax 645z.

Hate to tell you but the first image is much better than the pushed and pulled final result which is also IMO over saturated, a fine example of overdone digital looking colour - those greens and oranges. If you've got a pro monitor that displays good black and white points, I am seeing detail all over in the first picture, without the pulling and it's more natural. A tiny lift to the foreground in post and a contrast curve and I'd be done. Good RAW. YMMV.

--
facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

 

[beatboxa]

Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post.

Heads up: the Pentax 645z has less than 1/3 stop more RAW dynamic range at it's peak (@ ISO 100) than than the D810 (@ ISO 64). That's really not much.

Landscapes can be tough because the scenes themselves have a lot of dynamic range and the in-camera JPEG's can get confused. That's why you should shoot in RAW and process manually. For example, if you want '3D pop', you can't use Nikon's Active D-Lighting; nor can you boost shadows alone; you have to boost 'structure' to boost micro-contrast. Take a look here or at that other post I linked about processing.

As an example, if your scene naturally has a very wide dynamic range, sometimes all you can get will be something like this (this is a flattened RAW). The scene had a wide dynamic range, and now I've captured an image at the camera's max dynamic range--the sun and quite a bit around it is clipped--it's your choice in exposure to figure out how much of the brights get clipped here. Doesn't matter what type of lens I use: if I exposed more, I'd clip more of the sky. Simple as that. You could do things like use an ND graduated filter, etc.--but that's also not without downsides.



That's obviously not an acceptable image as is--but I've got a lot of DR & info there. I can always have the camera render that differently--for example, using "Active D-Lighting", etc.--but then I lose micro-contrast & the image would gain a strange glow. Why use Zeiss glass if you're going to ruin the micro-contrast it can provide by doing this?

Instead, I can process that single image however I want, and really bring that 'pop' without going overboard. There are a lot of tools that can help. Here's one example: Google Nik HDR Efex Pro (Free). You could also just use any standard editor, like Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX-D, Darktable, etc. But these all give me processing options. The goal is to find that balance between compressing the dynamic range of the image, increasing overall, localized, and micro-contrast & color rendering, and not going overboard with any of these.



Here's, for example, one way to render it--this is overdoing it a bit and I forgot to correct vignetting, but it helps illustrate the point below.



You could alternatively go for a more subtle or more pronounced look--it's all up to you.

As an example, compare the above with if you just boost shadows, contrast, and saturation, as a camera JPEG would do. This is where things look "flat":



Of course, you've got to have the raw data in the image in the first place--but it won't make a difference to the final image unless you process appropriately. The D810 & many Zeiss lenses are about as forgiving as you're going to get.

If the scene doesn't have a high dynamic range to begin with (for example, if I just took the trees and not the sky), then you really don't need to capture a lot of dynamic range anyway because it's not going to offer any benefits to the final image.

As a note: all of the above was done on a single shot (single raw file) taken from a Nikon D7000 & Tokina lens. The D810 can capture about 1 - 1.5 more stops of DR than the D7000--much more than the difference between a D810 and a Pentax 645z.

Hate to tell you but the first image is much better than the pushed and pulled final result which is also IMO over saturated, a fine example of overdone digital looking colour - those greens and oranges. If you've got a pro monitor that displays good black and white points, I am seeing detail all over in the first picture, without the pulling and it's more natural. A tiny lift to the foreground in post and a contrast curve and I'd be done. Good RAW. YMMV.

--
facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

I don't think you quite comprehended the point of my post. The post wasn't at all in any way saying that those latter images were 'better'.

I explicitly said that I was overdoing it in order to provide a clear comparison and capabilities of these cameras. The point of altering localized dynamic range is for the rendering medium, since our eyes constantly adjust as we look around in real life.

I don't care what type of monitor you have; no monitor will give you the dynamic range of that scene because no monitor will be as bright as the sun. A printout will be even less forgiving.

As I mentioned, rendering and processing is completely subjective. Some people may like the first, others may like the second, and others may like something in-between. So you like the first? Great. Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't the purpose of the post.

By the way, I know there's plenty of detail in the first image, but it is interesting that you can apparently see more detail all over in the first picture, since it's rendered as a JPEG and much of that fine color detail no longer exists.

 

[primeshooter]

Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post.

Heads up: the Pentax 645z has less than 1/3 stop more RAW dynamic range at it's peak (@ ISO 100) than than the D810 (@ ISO 64). That's really not much.

Landscapes can be tough because the scenes themselves have a lot of dynamic range and the in-camera JPEG's can get confused. That's why you should shoot in RAW and process manually. For example, if you want '3D pop', you can't use Nikon's Active D-Lighting; nor can you boost shadows alone; you have to boost 'structure' to boost micro-contrast. Take a look here or at that other post I linked about processing.

As an example, if your scene naturally has a very wide dynamic range, sometimes all you can get will be something like this (this is a flattened RAW). The scene had a wide dynamic range, and now I've captured an image at the camera's max dynamic range--the sun and quite a bit around it is clipped--it's your choice in exposure to figure out how much of the brights get clipped here. Doesn't matter what type of lens I use: if I exposed more, I'd clip more of the sky. Simple as that. You could do things like use an ND graduated filter, etc.--but that's also not without downsides.



That's obviously not an acceptable image as is--but I've got a lot of DR & info there. I can always have the camera render that differently--for example, using "Active D-Lighting", etc.--but then I lose micro-contrast & the image would gain a strange glow. Why use Zeiss glass if you're going to ruin the micro-contrast it can provide by doing this?

Instead, I can process that single image however I want, and really bring that 'pop' without going overboard. There are a lot of tools that can help. Here's one example: Google Nik HDR Efex Pro (Free). You could also just use any standard editor, like Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX-D, Darktable, etc. But these all give me processing options. The goal is to find that balance between compressing the dynamic range of the image, increasing overall, localized, and micro-contrast & color rendering, and not going overboard with any of these.



Here's, for example, one way to render it--this is overdoing it a bit and I forgot to correct vignetting, but it helps illustrate the point below.



You could alternatively go for a more subtle or more pronounced look--it's all up to you.

As an example, compare the above with if you just boost shadows, contrast, and saturation, as a camera JPEG would do. This is where things look "flat":



Of course, you've got to have the raw data in the image in the first place--but it won't make a difference to the final image unless you process appropriately. The D810 & many Zeiss lenses are about as forgiving as you're going to get.

If the scene doesn't have a high dynamic range to begin with (for example, if I just took the trees and not the sky), then you really don't need to capture a lot of dynamic range anyway because it's not going to offer any benefits to the final image.

As a note: all of the above was done on a single shot (single raw file) taken from a Nikon D7000 & Tokina lens. The D810 can capture about 1 - 1.5 more stops of DR than the D7000--much more than the difference between a D810 and a Pentax 645z.

Hate to tell you but the first image is much better than the pushed and pulled final result which is also IMO over saturated, a fine example of overdone digital looking colour - those greens and oranges. If you've got a pro monitor that displays good black and white points, I am seeing detail all over in the first picture, without the pulling and it's more natural. A tiny lift to the foreground in post and a contrast curve and I'd be done. Good RAW. YMMV.

--
facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

I don't think you quite comprehended the point of my post. The post wasn't at all in any way saying that those latter images were 'better'.

Then why are you posting a tutorial on how to do horrible pushed / pulled over saturated images? To show us that shadows can be pushed and the saturation slider over done? Yeh we know!

I explicitly said that I was overdoing it in order to provide a clear comparison and capabilities of these cameras. The point of altering localized dynamic range is for the rendering medium, since our eyes constantly adjust as we look around in real life.

I think people are aware of this already! Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I don't care what type of monitor you have; no monitor will give you the dynamic range of that scene because no monitor will be as bright as the sun. A printout will be even less forgiving.

As I mentioned, rendering and processing is completely subjective. Some people may like the first, others may like the second, and others may like something in-between. So you like the first? Great. Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't the purpose of the post.

By the way, I know there's plenty of detail in the first image, but it is interesting that you can apparently see more detail all over in the first picture, since it's rendered as a JPEG and much of that fine color detail no longer exists.

The first image is better than any of the others.



--
facebook - https://www.facebook.com/steverphotographer
google + - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StevenRobinsonPhotographer/posts
flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/steverphotographer/
500px - https://500px.com/steverphotographer

 

[beatboxa]

I don't think you quite comprehended the point of my post. The post wasn't at all in any way saying that those latter images were 'better'.

Then why are you posting a tutorial on how to do horrible pushed / pulled over saturated images? To show us that shadows can be pushed and the saturation slider over done? Yeh we know!

That is in no ways a tutorial. A tutorial would go through explicit settings, and what each does, etc. This also wasn't just pushing shadows or saturation sliders--it was also things like localized contrast (which you'll see is why I included the third image).

The purpose of this was to show that difference processing styles can make a difference and that the cameras are already capturing huge amounts of DR & colors.

I explicitly said that I was overdoing it in order to provide a clear comparison and capabilities of these cameras. The point of altering localized dynamic range is for the rendering medium, since our eyes constantly adjust as we look around in real life.

I think people are aware of this already! Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Is the OP aware of this or how this stuff works? Because if so, why post the question? I didn't post that for you--it was for the OP. By the way, I forgot--where was your response to the OP's question...? I may have missed it...

I also didn't say you should to that extent. But what do you think you're doing when you, for example, use a 'Flat' picture control...? All images will do this stuff to an extent. The key is controlling it well. And it's easier to explain when you exaggerate the effects.

Would it have been more effective to have shown how much color detail was there by posting a black & white image? Or you know all that additional detail that supposedly exists in the first image around the sun that you can supposedly see in your monitor? Are you using a CSI monitor? Enhance!

I don't care what type of monitor you have; no monitor will give you the dynamic range of that scene because no monitor will be as bright as the sun. A printout will be even less forgiving.

As I mentioned, rendering and processing is completely subjective. Some people may like the first, others may like the second, and others may like something in-between. So you like the first? Great. Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't the purpose of the post.

By the way, I know there's plenty of detail in the first image, but it is interesting that you can apparently see more detail all over in the first picture, since it's rendered as a JPEG and much of that fine color detail no longer exists.

The first image is better than any of the others.

Good for you. That's a subjective preference. Again, nothing to do with the post.

 

[primeshooter]

I don't think you quite comprehended the point of my post. The post wasn't at all in any way saying that those latter images were 'better'.

Then why are you posting a tutorial on how to do horrible pushed / pulled over saturated images? To show us that shadows can be pushed and the saturation slider over done? Yeh we know!

That is in no ways a tutorial. A tutorial would go through explicit settings, and what each does, etc. This also wasn't just pushing shadows or saturation sliders--it was also things like localized contrast (which you'll see is why I included the third image).

The purpose of this was to show that difference processing styles can make a difference and that the cameras are already capturing huge amounts of DR & colors.

I explicitly said that I was overdoing it in order to provide a clear comparison and capabilities of these cameras. The point of altering localized dynamic range is for the rendering medium, since our eyes constantly adjust as we look around in real life.

I think people are aware of this already! Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Is the OP aware of this or how this stuff works? Because if so, why post the question? I didn't post that for you--it was for the OP. By the way, I forgot--where was your response to the OP's question...? I may have missed it...

I also didn't say you should to that extent. But what do you think you're doing when you, for example, use a 'Flat' picture control...? All images will do this stuff to an extent. The key is controlling it well. And it's easier to explain when you exaggerate the effects.

Would it have been more effective to have shown how much color detail was there by posting a black & white image? Or you know all that additional detail that supposedly exists in the first image around the sun that you can supposedly see in your monitor? Are you using a CSI monitor? Enhance!

I don't care what type of monitor you have; no monitor will give you the dynamic range of that scene because no monitor will be as bright as the sun. A printout will be even less forgiving.

As I mentioned, rendering and processing is completely subjective. Some people may like the first, others may like the second, and others may like something in-between. So you like the first? Great. Hate to break it to you, but that wasn't the purpose of the post.

By the way, I know there's plenty of detail in the first image, but it is interesting that you can apparently see more detail all over in the first picture, since it's rendered as a JPEG and much of that fine color detail no longer exists.

The first image is better than any of the others.

Good for you. That's a subjective preference. Again, nothing to do with the post.

Yep some bad pulling work here.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I shoot a lot of landscape on my D810. I am always looking for more dynamic range, color fidelity, smooth gradual transitions. Basically the sort of output I might expect from medium format.

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process.

...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me.

A person my want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not ding HDR

Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'...

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

Ian wrote:

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

beatboxa wrote:

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

Ian wrote:

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

I'm not here to argue with you. I don't dispute any of the above.

If you don't dispute any of the above that is underlined then what are you doing here.

Lets have a look at the OP original question.

"I shoot a lot of landscape on my D810. I am always looking for more dynamic range, color fidelity, smooth gradual transitions. Basically the sort of output I might expect from medium format.

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process."

So you can see that the OP is asking how to get the best DR out of the D810, this would require the OP to optimise how he shoots the camera

Your first post the thread

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

HERE you are directly questions as to why the OP would want to optimise how they use the camera for the best DR they can capture. Why are you questioning the OP as to why they want to maximise what the camera and capture? when as you stated above that you agree with maximising the camera will give you the very best data to decrease the noise in the image.

My post

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

I come in and explain to you and clarify why someone would want to optimise how they shoot their camera to maximise that data their camera can capture.

your second post

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

And clearly you have no clue as the shadows contain less light and thus will show more shot noise. If the OP optimises how much light the camera can capture then yes indeed the shadows will contain less noise, this is something that you cannot argue against and later on agree with

So instead of dragging this thread around any further I have 2 very simple questions



Question #1 IF the OP implements a exposure management that allows them to maximises the DR they can capture with the D810( like this one ) will this decrease the amount of noise found throughout the image?

Question #2 IF you answer question 1 with a yes what are you still doing here?

I think the OP should try to maximize the dynamic range the camera will capture. You're skipping a lot of the other posts about exposure metering methods--but that's on you. However the OP does it (manual or using the camera), he/she should maximize the dynamic range captured by the camera. I never said he/she shouldn't--but I think you thought I said that.

___________________________________________________________________

You keep saying "what the camera metered", but you could have just used highlight metering instead. That's why cameras have different metering modes. And even then, you take a shot that has relatively low dynamic range anyway.

The whole thread by the OP was to maximise what the D810 can give him, you then go and question him why he would want to increase the DR of capture if he does not want to have the HDR look.

I explain why one might want to maximise what the camera captures and in doing so you can decrease the noise in the shadows. As shown in the set of images. Both jepg images show the same amount of jepg DR while one of the images show less noise in shadows that is hardly pushed if any other than what the software used for a standard processing.

The reason why this image was selected, it was a low DR range image, by maximising the what DR data the sensor could collect I reduced the level of noise in the shadows which where not lifted to the look like a HDR image. If I want to really push the shadow to 1-5 stops then the noise would become even more evident but was something the OP was not interested in.

The OP explicitly said he/she is interested in capturing more dynamic range. Maybe we interpreted this differently...but for me, the JPEG's you posted have effectively the same dynamic range. My interpretation was that the OP wanted more dynamic range.

What does a low dynamic range image have to do with high dynamic range shooting? Also, how can you prove that these two post-processed jpeg images have different dynamic ranges?

DR is all based on the noise floor you would find acceptable, If one image has less noise in the same shadows that would mean that raw file captured more DR (this is what the OP wants to know). I could say that the extra noise found in the one image is an unacceptable noise level, with both raw files being processed to the same jpg brightness clearly the raw file that captured more noise in the same shadows has less DR.

The OP was all about increase what they can getting from the D810, that would be to collect as much DR that sensor has the ability to capture. This requires you to place as much of that DR of the scene and placing as much of it into that raw file. When this is done this will not only give you greater DR for deeper shadow pushing but it will also decrease the level of noise found in shadows even when they are not pushed. As shown in my images.

See above. You still haven't responded to when the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the capabilities of the sensors (as I posted), but let's just agree to let the OP decide on whether he/she is looking for landscape DR or DR of a scene that naturally doesn't require much dynamic range.

Have you ever seen or conducted a dynamic range test ? Before you answer, you should know that I have. This is my Panasonic GM1 that Bill & I conducted--which are the GM1 results are on that site. And they weren't low dynamic range processed jpegs.

The OP was not interested in HDR processed jpegs, they wanted to know about how to put as much DR into the raw file as they can. Shooting base iso will not guarantee this. They must first insure they place as much of the scenes DR into the raw and in doing this it will reduce the noise found in all of the tones and improve color. ( what the OP really wants to know but you keep side tracking it to HDR)

It really has nothing to do with how much DR the sensor can capture that is set, they want to know how to maximise what the D810 can do!

See above. We may have interpreted the OP's requirements differently. I think the OP is fine when the scene doesn't naturally have a lot of dynamic range but was looking for how to maximize dynamic range (which requires a scene with a lot of dynamic range). I think you'll agree that the scene you provided has a limited dynamic range.

Either way, it's completely irrelevant to what my post was about. Reread my post and explain what any of this has to do with it.

Something you said could not be done in a single exposure

Where did I say that? Take a picture on a sunny day with the sun & sky and dark shadows in the scene, like this link I gave you that you didn't respond to. Then tell me how you would do that in a single exposure. But even then, my point was about how to process an image with a (truly) high dynamic range like my link.

The dynamic range of the scene I provided exceeds the camera's dynamic range. The image you provided above doesn't come anywhere close to the camera's dynamic range. You might as well have taken a shot of a uniformly lit wall. This is why it's irrelevant to my post.

The OP was not interested in HDR

Again, see above. The OP was interested in increasing dynamic range. Processing the scene you required would result in the "HDR effect" because the scene itself has a low dynamic range.

Want to know what dynamic range tests look like? Here is just one example of many images I took when we were testing the dynamic range of the Panasonic GM1:

You do realize that the jpeg you posted (like every JPEG) is processed, right?

Yup

Doesn't seem like you do because you keep posting them as if they have anything to do with my original post or as if they are a measure for dynamic range. Somehow.

They are not about the DR of the jpeg, they are about maximising the DR captured in the raw file. I increased the DR captured in the raw file while not blowing out the image. and doing so there is less noise in the shadows. ( I better place the scenes DR inline with what the sensor can capture) what the OP really wants to know.

The JPEG has a far smaller DR than the RAW. If the OP is interesting in maximizing DR, I hope you'd agree that RAW's have far more dynamic range than JPEG's. Let's just agree to let the OP decide.

Shadows were lifted there--by the renderer. But everyone has a choice in how to process the scene, is the point. I'm talking about single shots, not HDR-stacked images.

the shadows are lifted the same amount in my setup

I thought you said they weren't lifted? Changing that now? Your exact words were: "No shadows are lifted in this setup".

They are only lifted by the standard profile used to render the jepg.

Correct. Which is exactly what I said. However, you said they are not lifted at all, which I hope you'd agree is not correct now.

Take a look at my example here and here . Those are all rendered from the same (not bracketed) image. Single shot. Maximizing dynamic range.

You first have to understand that to get the maximum DR from a camera does not come from shooting at base iso alone it needs light and the image with more light has more DR.

I never said it does come from base iSO alone. You're making stuff up in your head. You have to understand that sometimes a scene will exceed the dynamic range that the camera is capable of capturing. This is called: "High Dynamic Range ". Do you know what HDR means? The definition?:

Yup nothing I don't already know but the OP wants to know how to get the best DR out of their camera and to do this they maximise the DR the camera captures so that they can increase the IQ of their images, even the ones that don't have the HDR look

This is an assumption. See above.

• High-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI) is a high dynamic range (HDR) technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques. The aim is to present a similar range of luminance to that experienced through the human visual system.

Now, can you explain how your scene is an example of high dynamic range imaging? Because this is the exact same reason that your little setup doesn't apply. It is in no ways relevant to high dynamic range shooting.

Never said it was a HDR image, it was to show that by maximising the DR that the raw file was able to capture you can lower noise even in the shadows that are not lifted.

Again, an assumption that the scenes the OP is taking don't have a naturally wide dynamic range.

Processing differently. Exactly what I was recommending to the OP, though it sounds like you're arguing that I was talking about brackeing images or something...?

Nope single exposure only maximised the DR that raw file captured

Reread the green above that is underlined and in bold

"Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. "

Reread my post, and tell me what anything you're saying has to do with my post.

Sure it does maximising how much DR the camera puts into the raw file will reduce the noise found throughout the entire image and HDR processing is not need to see the difference. This is what the OP wanted to know

No. You're making assumptions about what I said again. Show me the specifics I wrote that you disagree with.

It's completely irrelevant. You seem to be making things up in your head. I never said the OP shouldn't maximize DR with a single shot.

they want to know how!

You ask why do they want more DR if they are not going to do HDR my answer less noise everywhere and not limited to HDR pushing, this is by maximise the captured DR of the D810 file *** what they want to Know****

Again, you're making assumptions about metering.

I said that the dynamic range captured by the camera can be very large (14+ stops), and that it needs to be processed & compressed when its displayed.

And this can either be heavily compressed locally (like in the 'HDR look') or it can be done in a natural way. Explain what any of what you're saying has to do with that.

As the OP wanted to know ( how to get the best out of the camera) and was not interested in the HDR look but better overall IQ it is only you that keeps bringing HDR to the discussion?

OP " I want to increase the captured DR of the D810"

you" why would you want to do that is you are not doing HDR"

Me" some people do this to decrease the noise in the image"

you "Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows "

Me " yes if you increase the DR captured by the sensor" <--- this is what the OP asked not the DR of the sensor but how to get the best DR into the raw file.

No. You're putting words into my mouth. I never said any of this. You misinterpreted what I said and made some incorrect assumptions.

What I said was that the OP should be careful about processing a scene with naturally high DR, since the D810 has a very vast DR that it is already capable of. Do you disagree with this?

I don't want to waste time or argue...at this point, let's just agree to let the OP take in the relevant facts and what's relevant to his/her use case.

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I shoot a lot of landscape on my D810. I am always looking for more dynamic range, color fidelity, smooth gradual transitions. Basically the sort of output I might expect from medium format.

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process.

...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me.

A person my want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not ding HDR

Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'...

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

Ian wrote:

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

beatboxa wrote:

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

Ian wrote:

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

___________________________________________________________________

You keep saying "what the camera metered", but you could have just used highlight metering instead. That's why cameras have different metering modes. And even then, you take a shot that has relatively low dynamic range anyway.

The whole thread by the OP was to maximise what the D810 can give him, you then go and question him why he would want to increase the DR of capture if he does not want to have the HDR look.

I explain why one might want to maximise what the camera captures and in doing so you can decrease the noise in the shadows. As shown in the set of images. Both jepg images show the same amount of jepg DR while one of the images show less noise in shadows that is hardly pushed if any other than what the software used for a standard processing.

The reason why this image was selected, it was a low DR range image, by maximising the what DR data the sensor could collect I reduced the level of noise in the shadows which where not lifted to the look like a HDR image. If I want to really push the shadow to 1-5 stops then the noise would become even more evident but was something the OP was not interested in.

What does a low dynamic range image have to do with high dynamic range shooting? Also, how can you prove that these two post-processed jpeg images have different dynamic ranges?

DR is all based on the noise floor you would find acceptable, If one image has less noise in the same shadows that would mean that raw file captured more DR (this is what the OP wants to know). I could say that the extra noise found in the one image is an unacceptable noise level, with both raw files being processed to the same jpg brightness clearly the raw file that captured more noise in the same shadows has less DR.

The OP was all about increase what they can getting from the D810, that would be to collect as much DR that sensor has the ability to capture. This requires you to place as much of that DR of the scene and placing as much of it into that raw file. When this is done this will not only give you greater DR for deeper shadow pushing but it will also decrease the level of noise found in shadows even when they are not pushed. As shown in my images.

Have you ever seen or conducted a dynamic range test ? Before you answer, you should know that I have. This is my Panasonic GM1 that Bill & I conducted--which are the GM1 results are on that site. And they weren't low dynamic range processed jpegs.

The OP was not interested in HDR processed jpegs, they wanted to know about how to put as much DR into the raw file as they can. Shooting base iso will not guarantee this. They must first insure they place as much of the scenes DR into the raw and in doing this it will reduce the noise found in all of the tones and improve color. ( what the OP really wants to know but you keep side tracking it to HDR)

It really has nothing to do with how much DR the sensor can capture that is set, they want to know how to maximise what the D810 can do!

Either way, it's completely irrelevant to what my post was about. Reread my post and explain what any of this has to do with it.

Something you said could not be done in a single exposure

Where did I say that? Take a picture on a sunny day with the sun & sky and dark shadows in the scene, like this link I gave you that you didn't respond to. Then tell me how you would do that in a single exposure. But even then, my point was about how to process an image with a (truly) high dynamic range like my link.

The dynamic range of the scene I provided exceeds the camera's dynamic range. The image you provided above doesn't come anywhere close to the camera's dynamic range. You might as well have taken a shot of a uniformly lit wall. This is why it's irrelevant to my post.

The OP was not interested in HDR

Want to know what dynamic range tests look like? Here is just one example of many images I took when we were testing the dynamic range of the Panasonic GM1:

You do realize that the jpeg you posted (like every JPEG) is processed, right?

Yup

Doesn't seem like you do because you keep posting them as if they have anything to do with my original post or as if they are a measure for dynamic range. Somehow.

They are not about the DR of the jpeg, they are about maximising the DR captured in the raw file. I increased the DR captured in the raw file while not blowing out the image. and doing so there is less noise in the shadows. ( I better place the scenes DR inline with what the sensor can capture) what the OP really wants to know.

Shadows were lifted there--by the renderer. But everyone has a choice in how to process the scene, is the point. I'm talking about single shots, not HDR-stacked images.

the shadows are lifted the same amount in my setup

I thought you said they weren't lifted? Changing that now? Your exact words were: "No shadows are lifted in this setup".

They are only lifted by the standard profile used to render the jepg.

Take a look at my example here and here . Those are all rendered from the same (not bracketed) image. Single shot. Maximizing dynamic range.

You first have to understand that to get the maximum DR from a camera does not come from shooting at base iso alone it needs light and the image with more light has more DR.

I never said it does come from base iSO alone. You're making stuff up in your head. You have to understand that sometimes a scene will exceed the dynamic range that the camera is capable of capturing. This is called: "High Dynamic Range ". Do you know what HDR means? The definition?:

Yup nothing I don't already know but the OP wants to know how to get the best DR out of their camera and to do this they maximise the DR the camera captures so that they can increase the IQ of their images, even the ones that don't have the HDR look

• High-dynamic-range imaging (HDRI) is a high dynamic range (HDR) technique used in imaging and photography to reproduce a greater dynamic range of luminosity than is possible with standard digital imaging or photographic techniques. The aim is to present a similar range of luminance to that experienced through the human visual system.

Now, can you explain how your scene is an example of high dynamic range imaging? Because this is the exact same reason that your little setup doesn't apply. It is in no ways relevant to high dynamic range shooting.

Never said it was a HDR image, it was to show that by maximising the DR that the raw file was able to capture you can lower noise even in the shadows that are not lifted.

Processing differently. Exactly what I was recommending to the OP, though it sounds like you're arguing that I was talking about brackeing images or something...?

Nope single exposure only maximised the DR that raw file captured

Reread the green above that is underlined and in bold

"Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. "

Reread my post, and tell me what anything you're saying has to do with my post.

Sure it does maximising how much DR the camera puts into the raw file will reduce the noise found throughout the entire image and HDR processing is not need to see the difference. This is what the OP wanted to know

It's completely irrelevant. You seem to be making things up in your head. I never said the OP shouldn't maximize DR with a single shot.

they want to know how!

You ask why do they want more DR if they are not going to do HDR my answer less noise everywhere and not limited to HDR pushing, this is by maximise the captured DR of the D810 file *** what they want to Know****

I said that the dynamic range captured by the camera can be very large (14+ stops), and that it needs to be processed & compressed when its displayed.

And this can either be heavily compressed locally (like in the 'HDR look') or it can be done in a natural way. Explain what any of what you're saying has to do with that.

As the OP wanted to know ( how to get the best out of the camera) and was not interested in the HDR look but better overall IQ it is only you that keeps bringing HDR to the discussion?

OP " I want to increase the captured DR of the D810"

you" why would you want to do that is you are not doing HDR"

Me" some people do this to decrease the noise in the image"

you "Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows "

Me " yes if you increase the DR captured by the sensor" <--- this is what the OP asked not the DR of the sensor but how to get the best DR into the raw file.

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post.

You can increase all of these by maximising how much DR you can store on the D810 sensor using an exposure management other than the one supplied in the D810. This article is the best way to understand how to achieve this http://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera

This way you will be deciding how the DR of a scene will be captured on the raw file( basically where the raw file clips) With the D810 they have designed the metering system to give you around a 1 stop buffer as a best fit. When looking at the raw data and know where the camera clips you then can fine tune the metering system to better fit the DR of a scene to that of what the raw file can store. And in doing this you will see a decrease to the noise found throughout the image with better colors



Here are the images I posted further up in the post







here is the image that was captured using the spot metering on middle grey and as seen on the back of the camera. This looks to be about the best exposure but is it





same image but viewing the highlights contained in the raw, as you can see that there is no clipping and if you look close in the raw histogram I have around 1stop that I could increase the exposure .





here is the second image with a 1 stop increase to the exposure and what it would look like when viewed on the back of the camera. As you can see it looks as if there is a bunch of clipping and would be considered as a bad exposure for the DR of the scene





Here is what the highlights look like in the raw file with less than 3 percent of the green data clipped. So clearly for the DR of the scene this was a better exposure to gather better data

here is a side by side comparison of the 2 image

One of which the camera metered on middle grey and the second basing my exposure on maximising the DR the camera can capture with that of scene.




view at 100% to see the difference

I will let you decide which was taken with which method



--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[beatboxa]

Explain your exact methods here. EXIF Data? What did the camera decide on vs what you did?

Again, what does this have to do with what I was talking about?

beatboxa wrote:

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

Ian wrote:

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

beatboxa wrote:

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

Ian wrote:

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

I'm not here to argue with you. I don't dispute any of the above.

If you don't dispute any of the above that is underlined then what are you doing here.

There is a leap between what you said and the pictures you posted.

Lets have a look at the OP original question.

"I shoot a lot of landscape on my D810. I am always looking for more dynamic range, color fidelity, smooth gradual transitions. Basically the sort of output I might expect from medium format.

How many landscape scenes have the same amount of dynamic range as the image you posted?

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process."

So you can see that the OP is asking how to get the best DR out of the D810, this would require the OP to optimise how he shoots the camera

Your first post the thread

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

HERE you are directly questions as to why the OP would want to optimise how they use the camera for the best DR they can capture. Why are you questioning the OP as to why they want to maximise what the camera and capture? when as you stated above that you agree with maximising the camera will give you the very best data to decrease the noise in the image.

No I'm not questioning why the OP would want to optimize the exposure. I never disputed this. This is the leap you are making.

What I did say was that in addition to optimizing exposure, the rendering should be optimized. There are 2 parts to the equation, not just 1. You keep putting words in my mouth as if I told the OP it doesn't matter how they expose. I never said that.

My post

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

I come in and explain to you and clarify why someone would want to optimise how they shoot their camera to maximise that data their camera can capture.

your second post

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

You came in and explained this using a scene with low dynamic range. Let me offer you a challenge. The OP talked about landscapes: Post another image of a landscape with a high dynamic range--for example bright sky, sunlight, and shadows. Then try your method. You'll note that it won't work as well because of the dynamic range of the scene. If you take a higher exposure shot, you'll blow highlights and if you maintain highlights, you'll have dark shadows that need to be pushed.

And clearly you have no clue as the shadows contain less light and thus will show more shot noise. If the OP optimises how much light the camera can capture then yes indeed the shadows will contain less noise, this is something that you cannot argue against and later on agree with

Clearly I do, but you have no idea what 'high dynamic range' means. An indoor shot of a uniformly lit object is not high dynamic range. Do a landscape.

So instead of dragging this thread around any further I have 2 very simple questions

Question #1 IF the OP implements a exposure management that allows them to maximises the DR they can capture with the D810( like this one ) will this decrease the amount of noise found throughout the image?

Once again, this is only possible if the scene's natural dynamic range allows it--that is if the dynamic range of the scene does not approach or exceed the dynamic range that the camera is capable of capturing. This is a common occurrence in landscape shots, not indoor studio test shots. Go try it and post one of these. Take a shot outside of a scene that has at least 13 stops of DR and then post that here.

Question #2 IF you answer question 1 with a yes what are you still doing here?

See above. You're ignoring the "landscape" and "high dynamic range" aspect of the OP's question.

 

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Explain your exact methods here. EXIF Data? What did the camera decide on vs what you did?

Again, what does this have to do with what I was talking about?

beatboxa wrote:

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

Ian wrote:

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

beatboxa wrote:

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

Ian wrote:

Most cameras will allow you to capture around 1stop more light than what the cameras histogram will show you as clipped or the meter of the camera records. When you know where the camera clips you can then maximise what data is collected (more light) more data less noise. When you maximise what the camera captures ( by 1 stop) those shadows will contain ( 1stop) more data or 1 stop less noise.

I'm not here to argue with you. I don't dispute any of the above.

If you don't dispute any of the above that is underlined then what are you doing here.

There is a leap between what you said and the pictures you posted.

How so the OP asked how to maximise the DR of what the camera can capture

I optimised the camera by ignore where the camera metered middle grey and I deceased the noise in the shadows THIS IS WHAT THE OP IS ASKING how to get the best IQ

How many landscape scenes have the same amount of dynamic range as the image you posted?

The OP wanted to know how to optimise how they shoot the D810 and that is even beside the point as they are not interested in HDR , what they are interested in is increasing the IQ from the D810. To do this he must better fit the DR of the scene to that of what the raw file can capture

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process."

So you can see that the OP is asking how to get the best DR out of the D810, this would require the OP to optimise how he shoots the camera

Your first post the thread

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

HERE you are directly questions as to why the OP would want to optimise how they use the camera for the best DR they can capture. Why are you questioning the OP as to why they want to maximise what the camera and capture? when as you stated above that you agree with maximising the camera will give you the very best data to decrease the noise in the image.

No I'm not questioning why the OP would want to optimize the exposure. I never disputed this. This is the leap you are making.

Sure sounds like it when you asked why would they want to increase the DR the camera collected

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

As pointed out if they increase the DR the camera captured then the overall noise will be less -->THIS IS WHAT THE OP WANT TO DO<----- NOT HDR

What I did say was that in addition to optimizing exposure, the rendering should be optimized.

And where is this said in here

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

He want more DR captured in the raw file to increase overall IQ and not to do HDR

"That's exactly what HDR is--it's sometimes abused in how people configure the compression, but it's also exactly what you're asking for. A single shot out of the the D810 (or many of the Nikons with 14+ stops) can easily make that "HDR" look."

DR is not HDR he wants to maximise the DR he can capture to reduce the overall image noise

B"ut at some point, you have to compress the dynamic range in order to be able to display the image--unless you have an extremely bright monitor with pure blacks."

He just want to decrease the noise in his non HDR image

"The built in picture controls can be a good starting point for this--I personally use 'Flat' more than anything. HDR tools can also help--if you use them responsibly and pay close attention to the settings."

Again they are not after HDR the OP wants to maximise what he can capture from the D810 and that is to use as much of the DR the D810 raw file can capture.

Just as shown here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58998444 when a person places as much of a scenes DR on to the sensor that the overall IQ increases and that includes shadows that are not lifted ( what the OP really wants to know how to do)

CAPTURING THE BEST DR IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT HDR PROCESSING as the OP Clearly wants

OP

"Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58995905

There are 2 parts to the equation, not just 1. You keep putting words in my mouth as if I told the OP it doesn't matter how they expose. I never said that.

Not putting words into your mouth

My post

"A person may want to maximise the camera to reduce the noise in the shadows even when they are not doing HDR"

I come in and explain to you and clarify why someone would want to optimise how they shoot their camera to maximise that data their camera can capture.

your second post

"Noise won't be any more visible in the shadows than elsewhere unless they boost the shadows...thus compressing the scene's 'high dynamic range'..."

You came in and explained this using a scene with low dynamic range.

Let me offer you a challenge. The OP talked about landscapes: Post another image of a landscape with a high dynamic range--for example bright sky, sunlight, and shadows.

The OP is asked to increase the DR the camera can capture in the raw file, they are not into HDR processing however they are interested placing as much of the landscapes scenes DR they want into the raw file and in doing so that reduces the level of noise in the entire image. Is this going right over your head or what?

Then try your method. You'll note that it won't work as well because of the dynamic range of the scene.

Again the OP is not interested in HDR, If the OP just as I did place the DR of the scene they hope to capture better inline with the DR allotted to you by the sensor then the noise in the image will be less throughout the frame.

If you take a higher exposure shot, you'll blow highlights and if you maintain highlights, you'll have dark shadows that need to be pushed.

And clearly you have no clue as the shadows contain less light and thus will show more shot noise. If the OP optimises how much light the camera can capture then yes indeed the shadows will contain less noise, this is something that you cannot argue against and later on agree with

Clearly I do, but you have no idea what 'high dynamic range'

I do know what HDR is but the OP is not interested in HDR he just wants to capture the greatest DR the D810 can capture this way they increase the IQ they get from the sensor

means. An indoor shot of a uniformly lit object is not high dynamic range. Do a landscape.

Many great landscape images are taken with HDR but the OP does not want to do HDR they just want to capture the greatest DR the camera can capture this way their shadows (that are not HDR processed) contain less noise, and again I will state to do this he must place the scenes DR he wants inline with DR the sensor can capture.

So instead of dragging this thread around any further I have 2 very simple questions

Question #1 IF the OP implements a exposure management that allows them to maximises the DR they can capture with the D810( like this one ) will this decrease the amount of noise found throughout the image?

Once again, this is only possible if the scene's natural dynamic range allows it--that is if the dynamic range of the scene does not approach or exceed the dynamic range that the camera is capable of capturing. This is a common occurrence in landscape shots, not indoor studio test shots. Go try it and post one of these. Take a shot outside of a scene that has at least 13 stops of DR and then post that here.

Right over your head again

The OP is not after HDR he wants to capture the best DR from a scene and maximise how much of that DR he can place onto the sensor. to lower the noise found throughout the image

Question #2 IF you answer question 1 with a yes what are you still doing here?

See above. You're ignoring the "landscape" and "high dynamic range" aspect of the OP's question.

And you are ignoring what the op wants NO HDR but to increase the IQ throughout image.

this is done by placing as much of a scenes DR they want into the raw file.

This does not mean that they must capture all of that DR found the landscapes scene just that they place as much of that scenes DR they want into what that raw file can store.

OP no HDR

OP no HDR

OP no HDR

OP I want better IQ

OP I want better IQ

OP I want better IQ

hopefully you read this and maybe it would sink in

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

 

[Dave Sanders]

Myself; I have my D800e set to -1 to how it meters, that way I don't need to worry about exposure compensation settings while in Aperture Priority for example.

Since the sensor easily pulls out more information from the shadows than the highlights I always tend to shoot around 1½ to 2 stops under what the camera would meter at factory reset.

I think the key difference between the D800 and the D810 is that the D810 can pull a lot from the highlights...maybe a stop more.

 

[michaeladawson]

Myself; I have my D800e set to -1 to how it meters, that way I don't need to worry about exposure compensation settings while in Aperture Priority for example.

Since the sensor easily pulls out more information from the shadows than the highlights I always tend to shoot around 1½ to 2 stops under what the camera would meter at factory reset.

I think the key difference between the D800 and the D810 is that the D810 can pull a lot from the highlights...maybe a stop more.

 

[beatboxa]

Before you respond, you should read this (which I linked to earlier). You have been confusing "HDR" with "the HDR look". Every RAW image from the D810 is an HDR image. The keys are in how you capture and how you render this into a low dynamic range image, like a JPEG. So unless you're recommending that the OP doesn't shoot in RAW and instead only shoots in JPEG, you're recommending that the OP capture an HDR image. Does that make sense now?

My whole post(s) were about taking advantage of the HDR that the OP already captured and producing a low dynamic range image from it.

And (once again), it's clear that you have been interpreting what I was saying with a limited or incorrect definition of HDR.

How so the OP asked how to maximise the DR of what the camera can capture

I optimised the camera by ignore where the camera metered middle grey and I deceased the noise in the shadows THIS IS WHAT THE OP IS ASKING how to get the best IQ

You interpreted the "capture" part.

Can you explain how this is going to offer any benefits or improve the '3D pop' without any sort of processing?

Using the 'flat' color profile as many recommended (including myself), is processing an HDR image. As I said, there are 2 parts to the equation. You keep saying that the rendering or processing has nothing go do this or that it is synonymous with the 'HDR look'. These are not the same thing.

How many landscape scenes have the same amount of dynamic range as the image you posted?

The OP wanted to know how to optimise how they shoot the D810 and that is even beside the point as they are not interested in HDR , what they are interested in is increasing the IQ from the D810. To do this he must better fit the DR of the scene to that of what the raw file can capture

You're (again) confusing the "HDR look / output effect" with a scene that has a high dynamic range or an HDR capture.

No I'm not questioning why the OP would want to optimize the exposure. I never disputed this. This is the leap you are making.

Sure sounds like it when you asked why would they want to increase the DR the camera collected

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

As pointed out if they increase the DR the camera captured then the overall noise will be less -->THIS IS WHAT THE OP WANT TO DO<----- NOT HDR

I never asked why he/she wanted to increase the DR the camera collected. Even in that quote above. In fact, I said the opposite: that there are 2 parts to the equation: the capture and the rendering.

The overall noise will only be less when you have the ability to expose higher. The moment you overexpose, you have maximized a camera's dynamic range. Exposing higher than this point reduces the captured dynamic range.

The reduced noise won't manifest itself until you process the RAW image.

Are you saying that there's no way to improve the '3d pop' and color rendition through the RAW rendering? Because anyone who mentioned lightroom, using a flat profile, or anything else related to shooting in RAW would disagree with you. There is no point in shooting in RAW if you don't process because you can't view the image without this step.

What I did say was that in addition to optimizing exposure, the rendering should be optimized.

And where is this said in here

"...you want 'more dynamic range', but you don't like 'High Dynamic Range..?' That doesn't make sense to me."

He want more DR captured in the raw file to increase overall IQ and not to do HDR

"That's exactly what HDR is--it's sometimes abused in how people configure the compression, but it's also exactly what you're asking for. A single shot out of the the D810 (or many of the Nikons with 14+ stops) can easily make that "HDR" look."

DR is not HDR he wants to maximise the DR he can capture to reduce the overall image noise

As I previously mentioned, you're confusing and interchanging 'HDR imaging techniques' with HDR. HDR simply means 'producing higher-than-normal' dynamic range. Your exposure technique you were describing is an HDR technique.

You must not have read the article I posted for you earlier , so I'll paste a snippet from it:

• Modern CMOS image sensors can often capture a high dynamic range from a single exposure. The wide dynamic range of the captured image is non-linearly compressed into a smaller dynamic range electronic representation. However, with proper processing, the information from a single exposure can be used to create an HDR image.

You keep acting as though I am talking about something other than this--and yet that is exactly what I said earlier in my first post.

I know you're going to jump on "he/she doesn't want an HDR image!" But that's not what the above says (and that's not what I'm recommending). An HDR image is a very specific type of image--not a JPEG. When you render a JPEG, you're producing a low-dynamic-range image. You can read about these here .

The OP does want an HDR image--a RAW file (which is an HDR image). The OP doesn't want the artificial HDR 'look'.

I never once recommended that the OP outputs an artificial 'HDR look' image--just that the OP takes advantage of the high dynamic range image (ie. "RAW file") that was captured by the D810. You made all the rest up in your head because you misinterpreted "high dynamic range."

B"ut at some point, you have to compress the dynamic range in order to be able to display the image--unless you have an extremely bright monitor with pure blacks."

He just want to decrease the noise in his non HDR image

I don't believe that is the only thing he wants to do. For example, this is not consistent with when he said he wants to improve the '3d pop'--3d pop is not the same thing 'decreased noise'.

"The built in picture controls can be a good starting point for this--I personally use 'Flat' more than anything. HDR tools can also help--if you use them responsibly and pay close attention to the settings."

Again they are not after HDR the OP wants to maximise what he can capture from the D810 and that is to use as much of the DR the D810 raw file can capture.

Just as shown here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58998444 when a person places as much of a scenes DR on to the sensor that the overall IQ increases and that includes shadows that are not lifted ( what the OP really wants to know how to do)

CAPTURING THE BEST DR IS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT HDR PROCESSING as the OP Clearly wants

OP

"Just to clarify, I think you have my OP thoughts well understood. I obviously want as high as possible DR from the images I capture from the D810, but I don't want that artificial HDR look which I only use for some "special effect".

I hope to get as much color depth, tonal range and fidelity as possible from the camera. In many cases, for landscape and still life, I don't think I can improve much on the color rendition from the Zeiss zf.2 lenses which makes up most of my glass for the Nikon. So I am really trying to get as much "range" as possible.

If I am honest I am very interested in the DR and color depth look/3d pop which comes from some of the medium format systems out there, while realizing that is not easily achieved with FF. Much of this look is achieved by the large DR of these cameras (Pentax 645z, Leica S et al)

Hopes that helps to clarify my question and intention on the post." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58995905

I'm glad the OP clarified, but you're again interpreting this. The DR means nothing unless it's rendered, so there are 2 parts to this.

There are 2 parts to the equation, not just 1. You keep putting words in my mouth as if I told the OP it doesn't matter how they expose. I never said that.

Not putting words into your mouth

...yes you are. You keep saying that I'm recommending that the OP creates an HDR image, when I never once said that.

You came in and explained this using a scene with low dynamic range.

Let me offer you a challenge. The OP talked about landscapes: Post another image of a landscape with a high dynamic range--for example bright sky, sunlight, and shadows.

The OP is asked to increase the DR the camera can capture in the raw file, they are not into HDR processing however they are interested placing as much of the landscapes scenes DR they want into the raw file and in doing so that reduces the level of noise in the entire image. Is this going right over your head or what?

Again, never said the OP is into HDR processing. You're confusing the terms again.

Then try your method. You'll note that it won't work as well because of the dynamic range of the scene.

Again the OP is not interested in HDR, If the OP just as I did place the DR of the scene they hope to capture better inline with the DR allotted to you by the sensor then the noise in the image will be less throughout the frame.

(see above)

Clearly I do, but you have no idea what 'high dynamic range'

I do know what HDR is but the OP is not interested in HDR he just wants to capture the greatest DR the D810 can capture this way they increase the IQ they get from the sensor

I don't think you do know what HDR is, because you keep using the term "HDR" synonymously with "HDR processing" or "HDR Images." By definition , the OP is interested in HDR. You don't seem to know this definition.

means. An indoor shot of a uniformly lit object is not high dynamic range. Do a landscape.

Many great landscape images are taken with HDR but the OP does not want to do HDR they just want to capture the greatest DR the camera can capture this way their shadows (that are not HDR processed) contain less noise, and again I will state to do this he must place the scenes DR he wants inline with DR the sensor can capture.

See above.

Right over your head again

The OP is not after HDR he wants to capture the best DR from a scene and maximise how much of that DR he can place onto the sensor. to lower the noise found throughout the image

See above. "HDR" is right over your vocabulary level, apparently.

See above. You're ignoring the "landscape" and "high dynamic range" aspect of the OP's question.

And you are ignoring what the op wants NO HDR but to increase the IQ throughout image.

this is done by placing as much of a scenes DR they want into the raw file.

This does not mean that they must capture all of that DR found the landscapes scene just that they place as much of that scenes DR they want into what that raw file can store.

OP no HDR

OP no HDR

OP no HDR

OP I want better IQ

OP I want better IQ

OP I want better IQ

hopefully you read this and maybe it would sink in

You're ignoring the definition of HDR and ignoring that the OP doesn't want the "artificial HDR look". There are very big differences here. Hopefully, you read this and add some terms to your vocabulary.

Also, it's tiresome to have a one-way conversation--especially with someone who doesn't quite seem to have the right vocabulary. I've been responding to your challenges, but you haven't responded to mine yet. Please do--otherwise, it's a waste of time to say anything further if you can't quite comprehend it.

 

[AM4L]

Just shoot to save the highlights, usually you can recover 1-1.5 stops at the top end, however, you really need to make sure your not clipping critical details.

Then in lightroom you can lower the EV to get your highlights and recover as much shadow as you either can or wish to tolerate. You can add saturation and blacks as needed to prevent the washed out look... sometimes you have to monkey around a few rounds of those adjustments to see the best result... i.e. You may have to raise the ev a little and then go back through the circle until you nail it.

The better the ISO you shoot the more DR you can squeeze out of your shots.

This photo was created using these techniques.



--
MF Lens Website - http://www.manualfocusglass.com - We openly embrace MFNAS!
Favorites @ 500PX - https://500px.com/am4l
Book - www.AM4L.com
Mark

 

[Dave Sanders]

Myself; I have my D800e set to -1 to how it meters, that way I don't need to worry about exposure compensation settings while in Aperture Priority for example.

Since the sensor easily pulls out more information from the shadows than the highlights I always tend to shoot around 1½ to 2 stops under what the camera would meter at factory reset.

I think the key difference between the D800 and the D810 is that the D810 can pull a lot from the highlights...maybe a stop more.

 

[BirgerH]

Myself; I have my D800e set to -1 to how it meters, that way I don't need to worry about exposure compensation settings while in Aperture Priority for example.

Since the sensor easily pulls out more information from the shadows than the highlights I always tend to shoot around 1½ to 2 stops under what the camera would meter at factory reset.

I think the key difference between the D800 and the D810 is that the D810 can pull a lot from the highlights...maybe a stop more.

--
Dave Sanders

Hmm...

Could you elaborate that theory a bit more.

Yes, but Ming is more articulate than I am ;-)

https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/03/22/long-term-review-the-nikon-d810/

His findings echo mine. I don't think there is more absolute DR (DXO says 0.4 more but I don't know if that's actually the case), just that I can get more out of the highlights well after it says it clips. This is really just another argument for an actual RAW histogram.

--
Dave Sanders

Hi Dave.

Yes - I have read Ming - more than once - and I have never been really impressed. He makes a lot of statements - and very few actual experiments to document them. But it's somewhat okay, he's making reviews, and reviews have to have included personal feelings and preferences.

I don't have the D800e - though the D800 - and when I bring RAW-files from them into FastRawViewer, the RAW histogram tells me, just as Ming tells, that there is a latitude in the highlights at about a stop or little more comparing to the histogram, based on the embedded jpg.

This is actually true with my D7000 and D90 as well.

What Ming does refer to though, is that the software rendering (the on-bard processing) might have been different for the three cameras, he mentions, and so it is, the D810 has, if I recall, Expeed 4 - which will affect the jpg-engine, and with that, maybe the jpg histogram.

With that in mind, he ( and you) might be right in the statement, that you have more room in the highlight compared to the jpg-histogram with the D810 than the D800(e) - though this is not the same, as there is "more to pull" from the highlights - just that it (the D810) might "blow" highlights before in the jpg-histogram.

I simply don't think - and haven't seen it reported, that the two (three) sensors is placing the Dynamic range that different as two stops in the sample area of DR.

Left is - if the onboard processor is able to "change" the captured Dynamic Range to a specific higher "place" on the scale - afterwards software processing is able to do the same.

The in-camera RAW histogram is, I think, far away. (Unfortunately)

It will demand the camera to actually make a RAW-image, which the camera does not, it's just writing somewhat processed data to a file, never comparing them to each other. To be honest, I really don't know, if the lcd histogram is based on the low res. lcd image or the high res embedded jpg-image.

No matter what - it will take up processor time and power - and slow down i.e. fps - without giving you anything, you do not all ready know, that you can expose one or two stops further to the right - or "pull" it in PP.

And you would leave a lot of jpg-shooters with overexposed images. Can you hear it - "Shame on you, Nikon - my camera overexposes"?

Still hmm......

Regards

BirgerH.

 

[Old Greenlander]

I shoot a lot of landscape on my D810. I am always looking for more dynamic range, color fidelity, smooth gradual transitions. Basically the sort of output I might expect from medium format.

I don't like the output of "HDR" except for special subject treatment, so am looking for ways to get the very best out of the D810.

I currently have a good range of Zeiss lenses and the 24-35 Sigma Art and am wondering if there are any tips that might help in this process.

Mike

I do BIF and I have this problem even more stringent. My shutter speed is 1/3200

low iso 64-200

RAW

expose to the left like 1-2 stops

a very good software to pull the shadows--

success!


Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
35 years of photography and still learning

 

[Dave Sanders]

With that in mind, he ( and you) might be right in the statement, that you have more room in the highlight compared to the jpg-histogram with the D810 than the D800(e) - though this is not the same, as there is "more to pull" from the highlights - just that it (the D810) might "blow" highlights before in the jpg-histogram.

I think you have misunderstood my intent...the OP was asking for tips to maximize DR from his D810. My advice was to not be afraid of overexposing as the D810 has a lot to the right...metering or whatever, it doesn't change that fact. You can pull shadows all you want but you can't get back the DR you left off the right hand side of the table, so to speak.

 

[BirgerH]

With that in mind, he ( and you) might be right in the statement, that you have more room in the highlight compared to the jpg-histogram with the D810 than the D800(e) - though this is not the same, as there is "more to pull" from the highlights - just that it (the D810) might "blow" highlights before in the jpg-histogram.

I think you have misunderstood my intent...the OP was asking for tips to maximize DR from his D810. My advice was to not be afraid of overexposing as the D810 has a lot to the right...metering or whatever, it doesn't change that fact. You can pull shadows all you want but you can't get back the DR you left off the right hand side of the table, so to speak.

--
Dave Sanders

Yes - I agree.

What i pointed at was, that this is true for most cameras - and that there is no, as far as I know, documented reason to believe, that the D810 should have a 2 stop of advantage to the D800(e) in the highlights headroom.

By the way, I don't think, the D800(e) has any advantage to the D810 speaking shadows pulling - just as I think, that metering differences would hardly be any nearby 2 stops - a third of a stop might be plausible.

BirgerH.

 

[theonetruepath]

The in-camera RAW histogram is, I think, far away. (Unfortunately)

It will demand the camera to actually make a RAW-image, which the camera does not, it's just writing somewhat processed data to a file, never comparing them to each other. To be honest, I really don't know, if the lcd histogram is based on the low res. lcd image or the high res embedded jpg-image.

No matter what - it will take up processor time and power - and slow down i.e. fps - without giving you anything, you do not all ready know, that you can expose one or two stops further to the right - or "pull" it in PP.

And you would leave a lot of jpg-shooters with overexposed images. Can you hear it - "Shame on you, Nikon - my camera overexposes"?

Super easy fix. Don't generate it until the user selects the replay screen which has 'RAW histogram' displayed. There are already a bunch of user-selectable screens in playback review, just add another one, leave it off by default, users that know what they want can turn it on, and even leave it selected if they want, so that it is generated automatically.

Everyone else will leave it off and it will never be generated and never slow things down.