« on: November 29, 2014, 01:31:15 AM »
They're using JPEGs it looks like, and even admit that real-world testing is inferior to the 12.7 stops they found on the test wedge...
And yet they're more credible than a company measuring raw sensor data? Why? Oh right, you want to agree with them.
Who cares? If you need more DR get a Nikon, few people are regularly shooting scenes with 14+ EV.... it's hard to make that look any good on the print. Remember zone system is designed only for 10 stops and TBH Ansel Adam's work is pretty heavily baked by any standard! Those going much further go into some deep tone mapping nonsense more often than not.
I wouldn't trust this review if DR is the most important factor to you. If it is the most important factor, I'd ask why.
Not to quibble but it's not correct to equate the zones in the zone system to stops. The Zones represent tonal values and the change in the values between zones varies and are not logarithmic steps the way stops are. A scene with 6 stops of DR or a scene with 20 both map to the same ten zones. The zone system is about how you map the DR in the scene to the ten zones using expansion and contraction of the tonal scale.
It is all a bit "overbaked" by modern standards but they were doing the best they could with the crude tools they had available. The concept still has value however.
BTW in the Sierra Nevada 20 stops of DR in a scene is not uncommon. Hence "the Range of Light". Adams was compressing that to prehistoric wet plates and printing papers. It was an impressive technical achievement regardless of how you feel about his pictures artistic merit. Personally I'm not always a fan.
Not usually a nit-picker but its an important distinction. The histograms we all use today are a modern evolution of Adam's Zone System. When you move the sliders in lightroom to fill out the histogram, that is the zone method's modern equivalent.
A stop correlates with a zone, all this talk of steps, stops, EV, and zones sounds like a mess but really they're pretty interchangeable. Ok... a zone is a stop of reflective rather than incident light. A stop through the spot meter.
I agree that Ansel Adams overbaked, but he overbaked well. His work is among the best HDR I've seen.
I figure if you're printing on paper that can render 4-5 stops of contrast at best you'll run into trouble once your camera reaches for more than 5-6 (velvia, for instance, got it well). But since B&W reduces information significantly you can get away with a 10 stop zone system with real artistry and it still reads on print...
Monitors show a lot more contrast. I can see the need, but I don't need more than 12 stops unless I expose wrong.
That said, this figure is taken from JPEGs with noise reduction. It's not accurate. It doesn't matter to me, but if it matters to you how much way extra DR you have buried in shadows, Nikon does offer more.
But Ektar offers more than Velvia and yuck lol. Thought Portra is quite nice.