POLL: Dynamic Range - Do we need more?

[Rick Knepper]

You didn't specify whether you're referring to pixel level ("Engineering" Dynamic Range (EDR) or a normalized measure such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR).
I assume you mean something like PDR (or DxOMark Landscape score).

You also didn't specify low ISO setting (lot's of light and using high dynamic range) versus high ISO setting (low light but requiring some minimum dynamic range).
I assume you mean low light / high ISO setting.

I think that despite the fact that most cameras have more PDR at base ISO than many of us need more PDR is desired primarily because it raises the ISO setting at which you can get reasonable PDR ("a rising tide raises all boats").

--

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

We don't know Bill.

 

[digidog]

Someone suggested here in the forum that "99.99% of users have stopped caring about dynamic range".

So what do you think, do we need more?

See page 4 of:

http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf

Scene dynamic range is the key concept to understand. Scene dynamic range is simply the range of the brightness that is measured from the darkest element to the lightest. In the real world, this ratio can be very large. e specular highlight of a chrome car bumper under the noonday sun could emit a luminance of 50,000 cd/m2. A portion of the same car’s black tire deep in the shadow of its fender may only emit .5 cd/m2. is represents a scene dynamic range of 100,000:1.





--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

 

[Glen Barrington]

I left Lr about 5 years ago.

 

[Kung Fu]

Someone suggested here in the forum that "99.99% of users have stopped caring about dynamic range".

So what do you think, do we need more?

But it seems that every other beginner question says "I need a camera that's good in low light".

Low light performance is largely due to dynamic range.

No, low light performance is largely due to sensor size.

The size of the sensor is not quite right. It is pixel size that makes it more sensitive to low light. Of course, if you compare an APS-C sensor with 24M pixels, and a Full Frame with 24M pixels, the pixel size is going to be automatically larger due to the larger real estate available.

With CCD cameras, we use something called "Binning" to increase sensitivity. For example, 4 pixels can be ganged together to create one really big pixel with corresponding increase in sensitivity. I do this when originally setting up and not knowing how far from actual focus I might be. Of course, when binning, resolution goes down.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's total light that matters, which is due to sensor size.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

This is a comparison of an HDR produced with Photomatix Pro 5 and ACDSee Ultimate (v9, if I recall).

I'd be interested to see what you think of using the Lightroom merge feature. Instead of the effect-y results that often come from Photomatix, I find the LR merge to be a bit more natural looking and yet it still retains more detail in the shadows.

The LR HDR feature is pretty crude; it works but with very little in the way of control if you don't like its basic output. The same routine was added to Adobe Camera Raw, so it's easy to compare ease of use between that and the HDRPro routine in Photoshop.

I've seen natural-looking output from Photomatix but never managed to get it myself. It's easy in Photoshop although anyone wanting the weird look can get it. The LR/ACR version spares you that, at least.

 

[Great Bustard]

You didn't specify whether you're referring to pixel level ("Engineering" Dynamic Range (EDR) or a normalized measure such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR).
I assume you mean something like PDR (or DxOMark Landscape score).

You also didn't specify low ISO setting (lot's of light and using high dynamic range) versus high ISO setting (low light but requiring some minimum dynamic range).
I assume you mean low light / high ISO setting.

I think that despite the fact that most cameras have more PDR at base ISO than many of us need more PDR is desired primarily because it raises the ISO setting at which you can get reasonable PDR ("a rising tide raises all boats").

Any and all, unless you are saying improvements in one form of DR come at the expense of performance of another form of DR.

 

[Glen Barrington]

But in my experience, most people, even reasonably experienced photographers, don't really know how to maximise the DR their current cameras give them. DR is maximised not only at the time of exposure, but in Post processing as well.

Depends on how you define "experienced" photographers. To me, an experienced photographer shooting RAW includes having a healthy knowledge of post processing unless that person is a pro who has a dedicated processor back in the office.

I'm just now beginning to understand how PP can affect the appearance of dynamic range and offering the best tonality your gear can offer.

This is a fail in terms of logic. If you are just beginning to understand PPing, how can you make a judgment as to what experienced photographers know or do not know?

I don't think you read my post the way I intended it to be read. I did not mean to say I am only beginning to understand Post processing, I am saying I am beginning to have a deeper understanding between the appearance of DR and that of post processing.

Actually, I think I'm pretty damn good at post processing. My processing skills came first and then my understanding. I learned what worked, and then I learned WHY.

I think I understand your 'main' point though, that is, PPing is an important component of the image making work flow, that one can work with the DR one has (until one runs out of that DR).

That's partly my point. The main part of my point is that many of the "experts" regarding DR wouldn't know dynamic range if it bit them on the butt. I think their time would be better spent in learning how to effectively use the DR their camera is giving them.

I'd be willing to bet that DR would be less of an issue if more people spent some time in practicing with their software specifically on squeezing out the maximum tonality from a variety of photos taken in a variety of situations.

 

[JimH123]

Someone suggested here in the forum that "99.99% of users have stopped caring about dynamic range".

So what do you think, do we need more?

But it seems that every other beginner question says "I need a camera that's good in low light".

Low light performance is largely due to dynamic range.

No, low light performance is largely due to sensor size.

The size of the sensor is not quite right. It is pixel size that makes it more sensitive to low light. Of course, if you compare an APS-C sensor with 24M pixels, and a Full Frame with 24M pixels, the pixel size is going to be automatically larger due to the larger real estate available.

With CCD cameras, we use something called "Binning" to increase sensitivity. For example, 4 pixels can be ganged together to create one really big pixel with corresponding increase in sensitivity. I do this when originally setting up and not knowing how far from actual focus I might be. Of course, when binning, resolution goes down.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's total light that matters, which is due to sensor size.

Here is an article that is quite technical, but the bottom line is that the answer is quite complex. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/

And this: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15684/why-are-larger-sensors-better-at-low-light

 

[n3eg]

We need more of everything.

 

[Graham Meale]

I wish for greater dynamic range in less than 1% of shots. And in those situations, HDR can often come to the rescue.

 

[j tokarz]

I would sooner have more DR than megapixels any time. I have seen awesome big pictures (prints) taken with 12 mpxl cameras.

 

[Rick Knepper]

But in my experience, most people, even reasonably experienced photographers, don't really know how to maximise the DR their current cameras give them. DR is maximised not only at the time of exposure, but in Post processing as well.

Depends on how you define "experienced" photographers. To me, an experienced photographer shooting RAW includes having a healthy knowledge of post processing unless that person is a pro who has a dedicated processor back in the office.

I'm just now beginning to understand how PP can affect the appearance of dynamic range and offering the best tonality your gear can offer.

This is a fail in terms of logic. If you are just beginning to understand PPing, how can you make a judgment as to what experienced photographers know or do not know?

I don't think you read my post the way I intended it to be read. I did not mean to say I am only beginning to understand Post processing, I am saying I am beginning to have a deeper understanding between the appearance of DR and that of post processing.

Actually, I think I'm pretty damn good at post processing. My processing skills came first and then my understanding. I learned what worked, and then I learned WHY.

I think I understand your 'main' point though, that is, PPing is an important component of the image making work flow, that one can work with the DR one has (until one runs out of that DR).

That's partly my point. The main part of my point is that many of the "experts" regarding DR wouldn't know dynamic range if it bit them on the butt. I think their time would be better spent in learning how to effectively use the DR their camera is giving them.

Perhaps you were being facetious regarding the term "expert" and I was reading it too literally. I consider folks like Bill Claff & Illiah Borg experts on dynamic range (and much more) and I would find it difficult to believe that either of them or similar folks would be unable to use Photoshop to access dynamic range.

I'd be willing to bet that DR would be less of an issue if more people spent some time in practicing with their software specifically on squeezing out the maximum tonality from a variety of photos taken in a variety of situations.

--
I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

In the end, though, I'm only responsible for the work I do, not the work of others. So if people want to yap on about DR when their grasp of the issue is vague at best, it's no problem for me.
|

--

I will admit that my grasp of the terminology is weak. Every time I think I understand the definition of dynamic range, one guru or another says that such and such ain't it. What I do understand is what I can do with images in PPing that come from cameras with a wide difference in dynamic range. And if this is part of your part, I agree that among several cameras I own, the camera with the poorest measured dynamic range has not affected my photography as much as many in this thread would have us think. This is not to say I wouldn't prefer a wider dynamic range in my next 5DsR.

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

--
Once you've done fifty, everything else is iffy.

 

[digidog]

But in my experience, most people, even reasonably experienced photographers, don't really know how to maximise the DR their current cameras give them. DR is maximised not only at the time of exposure, but in Post processing as well.

Depends on how you define "experienced" photographers. To me, an experienced photographer shooting RAW includes having a healthy knowledge of post processing unless that person is a pro who has a dedicated processor back in the office.

I'm just now beginning to understand how PP can affect the appearance of dynamic range and offering the best tonality your gear can offer.

This is a fail in terms of logic. If you are just beginning to understand PPing, how can you make a judgment as to what experienced photographers know or do not know?

I don't think you read my post the way I intended it to be read. I did not mean to say I am only beginning to understand Post processing, I am saying I am beginning to have a deeper understanding between the appearance of DR and that of post processing.

Actually, I think I'm pretty damn good at post processing. My processing skills came first and then my understanding. I learned what worked, and then I learned WHY.

I think I understand your 'main' point though, that is, PPing is an important component of the image making work flow, that one can work with the DR one has (until one runs out of that DR).

That's partly my point. The main part of my point is that many of the "experts" regarding DR wouldn't know dynamic range if it bit them on the butt. I think their time would be better spent in learning how to effectively use the DR their camera is giving them.

Perhaps you were being facetious regarding the term "expert" and I was reading it too literally. I consider folks like Bill Claff & Illiah Borg experts on dynamic range (and much more) and I would find it difficult to believe that either of them or similar folks would be unable to use Photoshop to access dynamic range.

Correct. Some mentioned actually make a living doing this. Those that knock them, those that have no proof to dismiss their writings, those with little or no transparency as to what they do? Heck, it's the DPR forums; thank dog we have such experts to clean up the noise from the signal!

 

[Austinian]

Perhaps you were being facetious regarding the term "expert" and I was reading it too literally. I consider folks like Bill Claff & Illiah Borg experts on dynamic range (and much more) and I would find it difficult to believe that either of them or similar folks would be unable to use Photoshop to access dynamic range.

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but just in case no one else has already mentioned this, Iliah has had some interesting things to say about the limiting effects of glare and flare on dynamic range:

Dynamic Range: Your Fair Share of Flare and Glare

Fairly often, the dynamic range of a camera is calculated in a perfunctory manner, based only on measurements derived from the sensor and electronics, and ignoring the limitations to the dynamic range imposed by glare and flare. Glare and flare, two effects very well known in photography, occur...

www.rawdigger.com

 

[bclaff]

Perhaps you were being facetious regarding the term "expert" and I was reading it too literally. I consider folks like Bill Claff & Illiah Borg experts on dynamic range (and much more) and I would find it difficult to believe that either of them or similar folks would be unable to use Photoshop to access dynamic range.

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but just in case no one else has already mentioned this, Iliah has had some interesting things to say about the limiting effects of glare and flare on dynamic range:

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Dynamic-range-fair-share-of-flare-and-glare

Yeah. This is very hard to quantify because size, shape, placement, etc. changes the effect dramatically. So whether this is a limiting factor in practice probably has a lot to do with the scene being photographed.

 

[Austinian]

Perhaps you were being facetious regarding the term "expert" and I was reading it too literally. I consider folks like Bill Claff & Illiah Borg experts on dynamic range (and much more) and I would find it difficult to believe that either of them or similar folks would be unable to use Photoshop to access dynamic range.

I'm a latecomer to this thread, but just in case no one else has already mentioned this, Iliah has had some interesting things to say about the limiting effects of glare and flare on dynamic range:

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/Dynamic-range-fair-share-of-flare-and-glare

Yeah. This is very hard to quantify because size, shape, placement, etc. changes the effect dramatically. So whether this is a limiting factor in practice probably has a lot to do with the scene being photographed.

Agreed. There are many situations where the scene DR is low enough that neither the sensor nor the lens will be a limiting factor.

And thanks for the excellent work you've done and made publicly available.

 

[Mark_A]

I work within the limitations of my camera.

I tend to take photos it is suitable for.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 2!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58832936

 

[JDC1958]

Of course we do. I bought my K1 over everything else for high dynamic range and low light performance. In camera stabilization was another top priority.

Provided it is not bad for your health, one can never have to much of a good thing :-D

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Someone suggested here in the forum that "99.99% of users have stopped caring about dynamic range".

So what do you think, do we need more?

A simple yes/no poll question.

If you typically shoot a scene with a single frame then yes dynamic range is very important. I on the other hand shoot almost everything important to me with 7 shot bracketed sets so I get more than enough dynamic range for every scene I shoot.

If I were in the market for a new wildlife camera dynamic range would be a lot more important.

 

[mahidoes]

That's where sensor research should be done more.

Next priority is low light. I don't know whether they are interrelated. But my problem is always DR and noise. That's why i tried to shoot in low ISO. But it's not always possible.