5DS-R DR test on DPReview

[Loswr]

And, what if it doesn't sell well?

Then I expect that would send a different sort of message to Canon. Either way, those are the messages they listen to, not complaints about lack of DR on the interweb forums.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro u have mocked the supposed failure of d800 stating so many mp are redundant

When have I done that? Show me a quote or two, please...

In fact, I stated on many (many!) occasions that if landscape photography were my primary interest, I'd have a D800 and 14-24... I've also stated that 18 MP are sufficient for me, but that I wouldn't say no to more. I, for one, won't be getting a 5Ds/R.

Got any more revisionist history to share?

 

[sanj]

I thought so. Must be mistaken. No energy to go into history. But thought u did. Sorry

 

[Loswr]

I thought so. Must be mistaken. No energy to go into history. But thought u did. Sorry

I've mocked other things about the D800 - like the green cast, and Tony Northrup's views on the camera. But not the MP count.

 

[sanj]

I thought so. Must be mistaken. No energy to go into history. But thought u did. Sorry

I've mocked other things about the D800 - like the green cast, and Tony Northrup's views on the camera. But not the MP count.

I stand corrected.

 

[sanj]

Agree with most. It makes sense. What I do find odd is that for last 5 years Canon has not chosen, in their limited R&D resources, to fix the DR and banding of their sensors. You must be right, there are not enough 'we'. They obviously know the business better than others.

I think Canon over the years has listened to their customers quite well.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just trying to explain from a business standpoint that Canon is of course trying to sell as many cameras as possible.

Exactly the point. Canon does listen to their customers, but their responses are based on their own priority, namely to return value to shareholders. If they believe they need to do something to sell more cameras, they'll do it.

Some people seem to take it very personally when Canon doesn't incorporate a feature they personally want. It's just business.

If the 5Ds has <12 stops of DR and still sells strongly (as I expect it will), what message will that send to Canon?

That they can go on longer on their brandname and that their advertising is in place.

 

[Lee Jay]

If the 5Ds has <12 stops of DR and still sells strongly (as I expect it will), what message will that send to Canon?

That base ISO DR isn't a real issue.

Which it isn't.

 

[9VIII]

I just love the demonization of dynamic range here. It's an expanded capability. More dynamic range means less noise. How could that ever be a bad thing? You don't even have to lift the shadows to see improved IQ at ISO 100 from having 1/10th the read noise.

Have you actually fallen so far?
Have you actually forgotten that all of these comments are in the context of a constant barrage of absurd statements implying that a camera is useless without 14 stops of DR?

I visit the forum whenever I can. I have never seen anyone say that a camera is useless without 14 stops DR. But I have seen people pointing out that Canon has lower DR than some other cameras and they should fix that. Something so wrong with that?

It's like pointing out to your amputee friend that he's missing a leg every time you see him.
Yes there is something wrong with that.

 

[dak723]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

 

[jrista]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

Dead black shadows lacking any detail and are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The only reason shadows in photography often have no detail is because photographers are trying to hide noise. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. ??? ??? The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

DR advocates are frequently called out for bashing on the brand, as if doing so was some kind of personal insult to Canon users. (For the record, IT'S NOT! It's not intended as a personal insult, in general it should be taken as a critique on and frustration about Canon's sensor technology, and only that. This:

It's like pointing out to your amputee friend that he's missing a leg every time you see him.
Yes there is something wrong with that.

This is a load of crap. It blows the entire situation WAAAY out of proportion.)

Canon advocates, upon hearing DR advocates bash on an inanimate object, then turn around and bash the DR advocates themselves. One group complains about unfeeling inanimate hardware, the other group insults, mocks and berates actual people. Now there is truly something wrong with that. There is a serious misunderstanding on these forums about dynamic range and why some people want it. It's truly sad. I mean, really, truly sad. This forum could be a really great place, but somehow the mention & discussion of, and yes often complaining about dynamic range became synonymous with "personal insult" on these forums. However that conflation occurred, I honestly do not know. (It's a rather disturbing conflation, that a brand choice for a camera becomes so important that when someone "insults" the brand, you take it deeply personally...as if someone was reminding you that your leg was amputated ???) Outside of a couple personalities who have shown up on these forums in the past and persistently hated on Canon just for the sake of hating on Canon, most DR advocates just want Canon to deliver competitive IQ on all fronts, and it should be understandable that they are frustrated after many, many years without much progress on the issue they personally consider most important. It's personal frustration with a brand 99% of the time...not some backhanded means of throwing around personal insults to all Canon fans on these forums. The blatant mockery and insults dished out to DR advocates (and yes the subsequent reciprocation, and reciprocated reciprocation, etc. etc. ad. inf.) is the true travesty here. There is such a thing as the high road, guys...

Anyway...this same old straw man, that DR "techno-geeks" just want to remove all hint of shadow, or the other common insulting mockery that "they don't know how to expose"...none of that has any shred of truth to it. That isn't the goal of wanting more DR, and those who want more DR are not automatically buffoons who can't expose properly. We know exactly how to expose, and our goal for having more DR really has nothing to do with removing all hint of shadow. Just for the record.

 

[Eldar]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

Dead black shadows are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

I wonder why this is so difficult to understand and accept ...

 

[johnnycash]

I think Canon over the years has listened to their customers quite well. Remember the 5D Mark II? To me that was a fairly revolutionary camera. A big complaint at the time was high ISO noise. And so Canon came through big with that one. It pretty much changed the game with regards to high ISO shooting. People didn't have to spend $8k on a 1Ds3 either. But then people complained about the AF system on the 5D2. So what did Canon do? They introduced the 5D3 which pretty much matched every spec of the 5D2 except with class-leading AF. It's like there is just not as big of a concern over low ISO DR because people in general don't notice that. They sure as heck notice high ISO noise, however. I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm just trying to explain from a business standpoint that Canon is of course trying to sell as many cameras as possible.

Good point.

 

[jrista]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

Dead black shadows are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

I wonder why this is so difficult to understand and accept ...

I don't really think it is. I think it is understood...it's just that we must be discredited.

 

[9VIII]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

Dead black shadows are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

I have to disagree, when you look into a basement window on a sunny day you can't see anything inside until you shade your eyes and allow them to adjust.
Maybe looking into a hole in the Earth is an extreme example and not particularly applicable to general landscape photography, but there certainly are deep shadows in real life.The extent of which is debatable.
We've had this conversation before and I don't think either of us will ever be satisfied with answers from the other.
As someone who has done a lot of reading and debating on similar topics I can certainly understand how it feels though.
In both our cases (mine is resolution and yours seems to be DR) most people will never have the same appreciation or drive for new technology as we do, even among enthusiasts and the elite of the genre.
I want an 8K resolution laptop, I've done the testing and according to my experiences it's within the abilities of my body to use. If every human alive today had the same experiences as me we would probably have 8K laptops next year. But is it ever actually going to happen? Probably not, I'm sitting here typing on a 1 megapixel resolution screen and for the transmission of text it works flawlessly. Most people will truly never care about anything more than minimum specs required (e.g. MP3). Even among enthusiasts it's a bleak situation. Only a small fraction of people will bother to pick up a high end camera, and only a small fraction of those will pursue that hobby past their first purchase, and only a small fraction of those will have any passion for the subject left to put out any effort into one particular aspect of it.
You love your shadow detail, you've seen new possibilities and it's exciting and you want everyone to share your excitement, I get that, but there's nothing wrong with people having a different focus. Whether the topic is MP3's, Computer Monitors, keyboards, Archive Grade Paper, Minivans, Toolboxes, Ammunition... We can't all get excited about everything.

 

[Sporgon]

Well before the days of photography artists generally exaggerated shadow depth and general contrast. These artists could of course have painted their shadows as light as they wished - but they didn't wish.

http://www.artble.com/artists/john_constable/more_information/style_and_technique

 

[pvalpha]

I looked at the images for the 5DS-R. I was suitably impressed by what I saw and liked what the camera was capable of. The images were very Canon. And I own canon cameras because I like those images. But I'd never get a camera like the 5Ds and 5Ds-R because the files are too "expensive" in terms of size and storage, and pushing that many bits out to your card is going to take a while until we have SSD speeds on SDXC/CF/CFast. It doesn't suit well to what I want to photograph. Your buffer is small, and you have a lot of work to set up a good shot, because that's what the camera demands.

DR is one element of a very large range of optical and technical properties that combine to form the image. In the long run, it means jack-all if your goal is *art* and you're satisfied with the results the system produces. If your goal is squeezing very last possible usable photon to most accurately represent what the sensor is technically capable of (and don't give a crap about your subject, only how much you can manipulate it after the fact)- then you might be disappointed and canon might not be the instrument for you to use.

Otherwise the passionate discourse on this subject is almost entertaining. While the math might point to some interesting ideas - when taken out of context with the rest of the technical aspects of the Camera, DR is miniscule in importance. However, if you like "pushing" your photos outside your camera, then it has value to allow you to manipulate the image as you will. Then again, there are other ways to push the image in pleasing ways. I have never been left wanting with an image from my canon cameras when everything was in focus and exposed correctly. I wouldn't say "no" to more DR. But at the end of the day, the camera does what I want it to do. Isn't that the ultimate proof of success for any tool?

 

[jrista]

Well before the days of photography artists generally exaggerated shadow depth and general contrast. These artists could of course have painted their shadows as light as they wished - but they didn't wish.

http://www.artble.com/artists/john_constable/more_information/style_and_technique

And because some artists in the past preferred exaggerated contrast, everyone in every form of art throughout time always should?

 

[Sunnystate]

I am sorry but as an trained and professionally active for over 30 years artist, I have to say that this statement about classical art is ridiculous.

One of the first thing you learn studying classical paintings in the art school is to never use pure black straight from the tube, as well as pure white especially on large areas.
Please show me a classical, prephotography era, known painting with blown off highlights (like sky, white dresses, windows views, painted with pure white) or shadows painted with pure black without any details avail.

I am so sick of people here making completely false statements as needed counting on lack of knowledge of others just to make a false point.
Thank you.

Well before the days of photography artists generally exaggerated shadow depth and general contrast. These artists could of course have painted their shadows as light as they wished - but they didn't wish.

http://www.artble.com/artists/john_constable/more_information/style_and_technique

 

[jrista]

I can't wait for the day when cameras have 15 or 16 stops of DR. All the techno-geeks will be overjoyed as they process their photos and remove all hint of shadow. And the real photographers who understand that contrast is more important than DR will be wondering why they have to process their photos so much to give them the "punch' that they used to have in the old days.

I understand that in certain situations, more DR would definitely be a plus, but having bought a Sony A7 II to compare with my Canon 6D, the Sony was returned because it did not - under any circumstance I shoot, which is landscapes under daylight conditions including sunsets - produce a single better photo than my Canon. It numerous cases, in my opinion, of course, the results of the Sony were sub-par as it produced photos that seemed washed out in comparison, both in terms of contrast and color. I realize that the image we get is the result of tone curves and other algorithms that may have nothing to do with the sensor, but all I can go by is the image (both RAW and JPG) that those algorithms give me. Sure, I like to bring up the exposure slightly in the shadows, too - but there was nothing within the range of adjustment that the Sony did better than the Canon.

So all the DR enthusiasts - no we do not all think the Sony Exmor is better. If you have tried both sensors, you are free to choose the one you think is better and wish Canon could equal the results. That is what i have done. I choose the Canon because 1) Contrast is more important. 2) I prefer the overall look of the pics from my Canon and need to do minimal or no post processing. 3) I don't need to print any larger than 8" x 12" in which case all the noise issues and banding have never, ever, been an issue.

This is not what DR advocates want, to remove all hint of shadow. That is a myth perpetrated by the die hard pro Canon fans on this forum as part of their mockery of those who don't see photography or camera technology the same way they do. It's a straw man.

Dead black shadows are not realistic. In real life, there are very few circumstances where you have shadows completely devoid of detail. The benefit of having more DR is that you can reveal detail IN the shadows, without them having unsightly noise characteristics (banding, blotch, salt & pepper, etc.) We want shadows to be shadows, we just don't want them to be dead and devoid of detail. The goal isn't to lift shadows to the point where they become highlights. The goal is to lift shadows so we can replicate what we see in real life.

I have to disagree, when you look into a basement window on a sunny day you can't see anything inside until you shade your eyes and allow them to adjust.

Again, I have to ask, because you look into a basement window and just see black until you give your eyes time to adjust, therefor, everyone does?

My guess is you disagree because you see something different than I do. When I look into a basement window on a sunny day, I don't see pitch black. I see shadow for sure, but I can see things within those shadows. More importantly than that...when I look at a landscape, at the trees, and the shadows under the trees...again, I don't see pitch black. I see, within the shadows, a scattered blanket of pine needles, boulders, deadfall, small plants and tiny splashes of color from flowers, etc. There is detail within the shadow. Shadows, at least for me, are never devoid of form or structure in all but more rare circumstances (i.e. on a moonless night, shadows get deep enough to become formless black...but even if there is only a crescent moon, I can look out a window and see some faint detail in the shadows without having to wait ten minutes for my eyes to adjust. (Of course, I don't see any horizontal banding when I look out the window either. ;P)

When I look at the world, I don't see a world of high contrast, clipped highlights, and crushed black shadows devoid of detail. That doesn't mean I don't see the world with contrast and color, but it doesn't seem to me as though the world is crushed into a very limited range of contrast...not nearly as limited as some photography might otherwise indicate. For me, my photography and my photographic style is about rendering interesting things in the world as I see it, and maybe telling little stories to go along with the photos that depict what I saw. I want people to see what I saw...and sometimes, that means I need more DR.

Constantly having people tell me (or for that matter, people similar to me) I'm an idiot who doesn't know how to expose or that I'm just looking for DR to save me from my laziness or that I'm just interested in turning all shadows into midtones...that gets rather tiresome and irksome after a while. I regularly share my photography on these forums...every single one of you knows that I know how to expose, that I know how to create an artistic shot, and that I'm not some fumbling idiot who needs DR to save him from his "inexperience." I know what I'm talking about, and I know exactly what I want and why I want it when I say I want more dynamic range. I make no claim to be the world's greatest photographer by any means, but I do assert that I am a skilled photographer. Maybe I see the world differently than most of you guys...fine...but please, accept that you may not see the world the way I do, and please, accept that your goals for presenting the world through your photography are not the same as my goals. I don't want dead, crushed, formless black shadows in my work...and you guys should be mature enough to accept that, from me, or from anyone else who wants more dynamic range than Canon currently offers, to give them more freedom and opportunity to produce the kind of photography THEY want.



BTW, I'll take both more resolution and more DR, thanks. I've said this before...I really want the best quality across the board. I don't just want resolution, or just want DR, or just want sharpness. Thankfully, I can get that all in a single camera, so long as the camera isn't Canon. I'm quite fine with that, too, especially since many of those other cameras can be adapted to use my existing Canon lens kit if I need. I no longer have to fret about Canon not delivering something I personally need, so I don't care all that much what Canon does anymore.

The 5Ds looks like a good camera, but, it still doesn't meet my personal needs, and I'm not surprised it doesn't meet many other photographer's needs. I'm not surprised people on sites like DPR are still wondering why there is still banding and color blotch when you lift the shadows three stops. Some of us want more than that, and were well within our rights to want it. Personally I'd rather get an A7r II when they hit the shelves, and I'd be quite happy if it was still a 36mp sensor. I was impressed with the IQ from the original A7r, it was mostly body issues that held me back, and the Mark II should resolve at least some of those. It's an interesting new world of photography these days, and I for one am much happier with my choices since I decided to stop restricting myself to a single brand.

 

[Sporgon]

I am sorry but as an trained and professionally active for over 30 years artist, I have to say that this statement about classical art is ridiculous.

One of the first thing you learn studying classical paintings in the art school is to never use pure black straight from the tube, as well as pure white especially on large areas.
Please show me a classical, prephotography era, known painting with blown off highlights (like sky, white dresses, windows views, painted with pure white) or shadows painted with pure black without any details avail.

I am so sick of people here making completely false statements as needed counting on lack of knowledge of others just to make a false point.
Thank you.

Well before the days of photography artists generally exaggerated shadow depth and general contrast. These artists could of course have painted their shadows as light as they wished - but they didn't wish.

http://www.artble.com/artists/john_constable/more_information/style_and_technique

Well done Sunnystate, you'll fit into the DR debate on CR like hand in glove.

Pure black straight from the tube...

Pure white especially on large areas....

Blown off highlights...

Shadows painted pure black....

Without any details avail.....