Preorder: Canon EOS RP camera and kits

M_S

EOS 80D
Jul 31, 2013
146
5
If you cannot comprehend facts and make a logical deduction based upon those facts, then yes...I am ‘suggesting that I have knowledge or a good insight that you don’t have’. Canon’s competitors have delivered better low ISO DR for a decade. Canon has not lost market share to those competitors. Canon is also the top seller of FF ILCs. Therefore, low ISO DR is not a critical factor in the purchasing decisions for the majority of ILC buyers. Facts and a logical deduction. Simple.

Enjoy doing those ‘better things’, hopefully they don’t require logic or deductive reasoning.
I rest my case as this is exactly the tone I am referring to!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,670
740
I rest my case as this is exactly the tone I am referring to!
LOL. You have to actually make some sort of case before you can rest it. As for tone, let’s revisit where the combative tone entered into the discussion, shall we?
Says who? Unproven alternative facts? Just let us speak for ourselfs and be done with it. Everybodys mileage may vary.
I replied with the facts that support my statement, but it seems you found them unpalatable or chose to ignore them...a regrettably common reaction for some when their statements are challenged by data.


Oh, and obviously you were wrong about this, too:
Anyhow, I am done with this conversation, I have better things to do.
:rolleyes:
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
423
147
I'm surprised when photographers dismiss dynamic range as being unimportant in a camera.
Maybe they didn't experience earlier cameras.
Lee Filters, Kase, Hitech etc are all making money from balancing high contrast scenes.
It would be much easier if it could be done without filters and I'm sure it will be possible in the future with computational photography.
Have you ever shot with Pan-X, Tri-X, or HP5? How about Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50/100? In medium or large format? One still needed filters for many types of scenes that exceeded the 14 stops of DR of the best B&W film stocks.

Then you're at ISO 3200? 6400? And your DR is the same as everyone else. DR differences due to on vs off chip ADCs occur at low ISOs.
BINGO!!!

The stones don't move, but what you've described is not HDR. It's exposure blending.
It's all HDR imaging.

The only difference is how broadly or narrowly you decide to define the term High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDR). Do you use the broader term as it has been historically used for over 150 years to reference techniques used to display details in a scene with higher dynamic range than the dynamic range of the display medium? Or do you insist on a very narrow definition that uses techniques that have only been around a couple of decades to argue that the only legitimate definition of HDR is an 8-bit tone-mapped version of a 32-bit floating point light map created by combining multiple bracketed exposures? That's pretty much it.

HDR as the term is commonly used today is only one form of High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDRI) that has been going on since at least the 1850s.

Gustave Le Gray took multiple exposures at different exposure values to create seascapes that used the bright sky from one glass plate negative and the darker sea and shore from another.

The zone system when shooting and developing and tone mapping performed in the darkroom in the mid-20th century was raised to an art form by Ansel Adams and others as they used developing times of film and dodging and burning of prints to lower the total dynamic range of a scene to what the photo papers they were using were capable of displaying. That's a form of HDR imaging.

In the realm of digital photography there are multiple techniques used to depict a scene with a High Dynamic Range using a medium, such as a computer monitor or print, that is not capable of as great a contrast between the brightest and darkest parts of a scene as the scene itself contains. The narrow understanding that many people mean when they say HDR is only one such technique among many that can all legitimately be considered High Dynamic Range Imaging.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,670
740
It's all HDR imaging.

The only difference is how broadly or narrowly you decide to define the term High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDR). Do you use the broader term as it has been historically used for over 150 years to reference techniques used to display details in a scene with higher dynamic range than the dynamic range of the display medium? Or do you insist on a very narrow definition that uses techniques that have only been around a couple of decades to argue that the only legitimate definition of HDR is an 8-bit tone-mapped version of a 32-bit floating point light map created by combining multiple bracketed exposures? That's pretty much it.

HDR as the term is commonly used today is only one form of High Dynamic Range Imaging (HDRI) that has been going on since at least the 1850s.

Gustave Le Gray took multiple exposures at different exposure values to create seascapes that used the bright sky from one glass plate negative and the darker sea and shore from another.

The zone system when shooting and developing and tone mapping performed in the darkroom in the mid-20th century was raised to an art form by Ansel Adams and others as they used developing times of film and dodging and burning of prints to lower the total dynamic range of a scene to what the photo papers they were using were capable of displaying. That's a form of HDR imaging.

In the realm of digital photography there are multiple techniques used to depict a scene with a High Dynamic Range using a medium, such as a computer monitor or print, that is not capable of as great a contrast between the brightest and darkest parts of a scene as the scene itself contains. The narrow understanding that many people mean when they say HDR is only one such technique among many that can all legitimately be considered High Dynamic Range Imaging.
No. Or more appropriately, 01001110 01101111 (which is ‘no’ in binary for the Luddites out there). Get with the program. This is the digital age.

HDR is a menu choice on an image processing program. More than that, it really only counts as HDR if you use the options dialog to select grunge or painterly.

I don’t know what all that other stuff is, but I do know it’s not HDR (well, I do know that dodging is something children play with a ball, and if something is burning you need to call the fire department).

Anyone who thinks all of that other mumbo-jumbo is actually HDR has clearly been spending too much time memorizing the answers to the yellow questions of Trivial Pursuit: Photography Edition.

Well, enough chitchat…a friend just rang me up on the party line, I’m off to do some portrait photography, just need to pick up my cable release and a tin of flash powder.

;):p:D
 
Reactions: ethanz

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
221
90
Key word in my previous comment: Sometimes.

But as one who does a lot of band photos in low light bars, sometimes you have more control than you think. Asking whoever handles the lights for the bar to turn up the green LEDs (when they use those nasty magenta/green/blue LED spots on stage) if only the magenta and blue LEDs are on, for instance, can make a huge difference in your results.

(5D Mark III, EF 135mm f/2. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80. Pushed 1/2 stop and a green filter applied.)
I was addressing this "Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector. " which was a BS answer. I had already said 'sometimes' as well, so yes I agree sometimes people can just move around or use things to control their lighting, but there are MANY valid reasons you can't and having additional capabilities helps.

Try putting reflectors in most bars and you'll be booted out. Too much flash and same. Glad you do take band pics, and while interesting it's a fairly different venue/style than I usually get access to.

You have options to move around and of a 2nd floor.. I'm often jostling with the fans. I hear you on the color correction and lighting, but most venues ignore you and you don't have a choice, especially ones that mix 'dance EDM' lighting with live bands. Too much colour correction and it doesn't look like the vibe of the venue either.

What I did find interesting is just how much better you can push your ISOs with a full frame. I can't realistically go above 3200 on a crop without major noise. FF does seem to give you up to 6400 (and maybe 10k now) as a usable option.

Animals don't take to reflectors as they fly off. Sports in an arena don't either. High ISO, High aperture, high shutter, able to pull shadows.. that helps.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
423
147
I was addressing this "Sometimes you do, but are just too lazy to set up a proper reflector. " which was a BS answer. I had already said 'sometimes' as well, so yes I agree sometimes people can just move around or use things to control their lighting, but there are MANY valid reasons you can't and having additional capabilities helps.

Try putting reflectors in most bars and you'll be booted out. Too much flash and same. Glad you do take band pics, and while interesting it's a fairly different venue/style than I usually get access to.

You have options to move around and of a 2nd floor.. I'm often jostling with the fans. I hear you on the color correction and lighting, but most venues ignore you and you don't have a choice, especially ones that mix 'dance EDM' lighting with live bands. Too much colour correction and it doesn't look like the vibe of the venue either.

What I did find interesting is just how much better you can push your ISOs with a full frame. I can't realistically go above 3200 on a crop without major noise. FF does seem to give you up to 6400 (and maybe 10k now) as a usable option.

Animals don't take to reflectors as they fly off. Sports in an arena don't either. High ISO, High aperture, high shutter, able to pull shadows.. that helps.
Ehhh, I can go ISO 5000/6400 with the 7D Mark II when I have to as well, but the FF sensors do handle it better. The highlights blow quicker, but if you pull exposure to save the highlights, the shadows look worse when you push them back up. Websized images at 960 px on the long side do cover a lot of noise compared to full resolution.

Just because the images don't show it doesn't mean I wasn't getting beer spilled on me when some of those were taken, LOL. Sometimes the places I shoot can be packed. Sometimes I'm standing on chairs just to see the stage. But you are right, I don't shoot much in "dance" clubs. Sometimes bands I shoot use multi-colored stage lighting that flashes on/off rapidly. Sometimes you just have to set exposure for one combination and then sit on it already pre-focused until the lights come back to the combo you're waiting on.

The only time I use flash in a bar is if I've been hired to shoot an event that's being held there (class reunion, charity fundraiser, etc.). I'm pretty sure I didn't even have a flash on me for any of the images I posted here. As far as reflectors, you don't need your own in a lot of bars. I've never set one of mine up in a bar that was open at the time. There are mirrors or coolers with glass doors or large plate windows or something (even TV screens are reflective) already there. It's just up to you to find a spot where those things are reflecting some of the brighter light sources in the room on your intended subjects.

I've only shot in that place with the balcony two or three times. It is not in my immediate area. I just used it because my "main lights" in those images were the TVs over the bar! The brightest thing in the image below, from the last time I shot there, are the lights inside one of the coolers. That's what is reflecting off the singer's face and giving nice separation from the background. That was after the place started emptying out a little. The balcony was even worse earlier in the evening. It was like a mosh pit just trying to walk through. It's full width, if you call about 25 feet wide and 125 feet long "full" width, in the very front upstairs (there's a second bar across the front of the second floor) and near the back, but it's only about 4 feet wide above the bar on the left wall on the main floor below. This shot was taken from the stairs leading up to the balcony. I had to grab it and keep moving to keep from getting trampled by drunk patrons. (By the way, the name of the band is The Lamont Landers Band. They were on 'Showtime at the Apollo' last Spring and Montel Williams liked them so much he flew them out to L.A. to be on his talk show last Fall. Look them up on Spotify or iTunes if you like old style funk/R&B. I've know the leader since he was in high school - the same one I attended 25-30 years earlier. Ol' red can sing.)

201807210012LR.JPG
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
221
90
Ehhh, I can go ISO 5000/6400 with the 7D Mark II when I have to as well, but the FF sensors do handle it better. The highlights blow quicker, but if you pull exposure to save the highlights, the shadows look worse when you push them back up. Websized images at 960 px on the long side do cover a lot of noise compared to full resolution.
oh yeah I do a fair bit of what you describe and it's a pleasure that someone else gets it, but I what I was rebutting the answer about not knowing or caring about controlling your environment. Meh I think point has been hammered to death.

this is the kinds of shots I try to take, FF really might help.. Trying to freeze motion in low light is... challenging. now to see if I can convince wife n kids to allow me to plonk $3-4k on my non-paying hobby.

51046117_10157911243252316_7341484437680422912_o.jpg51246669_10157912058687316_317785227231494144_o.jpg
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
423
147
oh yeah I do a fair bit of what you describe and it's a pleasure that someone else gets it, but I what I was rebutting the answer about not knowing or caring about controlling your environment. Meh I think point has been hammered to death.

this is the kinds of shots I try to take, FF really might help.. Trying to freeze motion in low light is... challenging. now to see if I can convince wife n kids to allow me to plonk $3-4k on my non-paying hobby.

View attachment 183280View attachment 183281
Timing is everything. If you can catch them at the apex of the jump, there's that split second between when they are going up and coming back down...

Ditto for convincing the SO/kids: timing is everything!