Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery

[art_d]

TrumpetPower, you seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse on this.

Art, your own link quite clearly states that the cameras capture significantly more dynamic range than you can output, and that the challenge is compressing the input into the range of the output

That's exactly what I've been writing from the beginning of this thread -- including in the very sentence you quoted of mine that you stated was complete bollocks.

Somebody's clearly got some reading comprehension issues going on here.

b&

Let's provide some more context to what you said:

Yes, there is a huge limitation with respect to dynamic range and photography. Absolutely monstrous.

But the cameras aren't the problem.

The elephant in the room, the one that nobody ever seems to want to talk about, is the print.

There hasn't been a film / sensor made in decades that can't cleanly produce significantly more dynamic range than a print.

You called it the "elephant in the room." You said "the cameras aren't the problem." You were basically trying to make the claim that more dynamic range in cameras doesn't matter because cameras already have more dynamic range than prints. Read the below again please. It explains why you are wrong. It tells you why cameras are the problem.


"A big source of confusion is the range of the display media, whether it's printing paper or a monitor or anything else. You'll constantly come across people saying that since a certain range is all you can display, then that's all the DR you can have, or can use, or whatever. Not so. Any subject brightness range can potentially be represented accurately and proportionately within a given display range—as long as you captured the brightness levels of the subject correctly relative to each other in the first place."

(Emphasis added this time around is mine).

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Let's provide some more context to what you said:

If you were to provide just a weeee bit more context from that very same post, you might discover that I make the exact same point as the online source you found.

So what's yours? Point, I mean.

b&

 

[jrista]

Let's provide some more context to what you said:

If you were to provide just a weeee bit more context from that very same post, you might discover that I make the exact same point as the online source you found.

So what's yours? Point, I mean.

b&

That you are arguing AGAINST the value of using a camera with more DR. You've been arguing against it from the get-go, stating that you don't even need all the DR the 5D III has, let alone the D800. The only way we could interpret the print comment was that you were just making another argument against more DR, stating that since print has so little DR, having more couldn't possibly be valuable, because all the "extra" DR would just fall into "Zone 0-1", and thus just be "solid blacks".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you can compress dynamic range. If your camera has 14 stops, you can compress those 14 into the 8 stops of a computer screen, or even the 5 stops of a print. All it takes is a little tonemapping, assuming you have the DR to start with.

 

[jrista]

long story short
nice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Not really. My problem with you in the past has been that you have tried to make it sound as though Canon cameras are incapable of taking good photographs, period. My scene had EIGHTEEN STOPS of DR (at least). The D800 will fare better than the 5D III, but even the mighty Exmor will still fall short by four stops in that situation. You'll still have noise...the benefit of Exmor is that it won't be banded noise. As I've always stated in the past...that IS an EXTREME situation, and purposely puts Canon in the worst possible light (no pun intended). You've always made it sound as though Canon sucks donkey danglers, is incapable of producing a good camera, hell you (and Mikael and TheSuede) have even claimed they are incapable of innovating new technology and are literally incapable of producing a better sensor. I dispute those notions. Exmor is an advancement, no doubt about it. It doesn't instantly invalidate every previous sensor design and suddenly make them take crappy photos 100% of the time.

If you had provided a balanced argument in the past, I wouldn't have argued with you. But just like Trumpet, you have provided skewed arguments, straw men, etc., or refuse to accept the facts or prove your case with physical evidence. In the case of Mikael, I believe he frequently posted examples that were unequally weighted against Canon (a 1D X example comes to mind that appeared more underexposed than a D800 shot), and when I demanded actual RAW files, he refused to produce them. That made me even more suspicious, and gave me all the more reason to push harder for the truth. I'll debate the points with anyone who doesn't present a balanced argument or tries to obfuscate the facts. Yes, Canon has some nasty read noise. Read my posts here on CR, you'll see I've never denied that (although I will admit I had very high hopes for the 5D III at its release, and wasn't willing to accept the fact that its DR hadn't changed a bit in a generation until the evidence was too much to deny). However it DOES take an extreme scene with lots of DR to make that actually present as a problem...it does not occur in every single shot, which has been indicated in the past...particularly by Mikael.

There is a balanced argument here, somewhere. I just wish people would make it.

DR is good. There is nothing wrong with having more. More DR is always usable. In certain types of photography, having as much DR as you can get your hands on is critical. Shadow recovery with two extra stops of DR can be amazing, and in the case of Exmor is banding free.

Conversely DR is not the end-all, be-all for every kind of photography. Additional DR, in the case of 14-bit ADC, can only be had at the lowest ISO settings. At higher ISO SNR is the far more relevant factor, and currently Canon stands as the king of high ISO. Sensor IQ is also not the final factor in IQ, AF systems, frame rate, lens quality, etc. are just as important, and for many types of photography, more important than the sensor.

There are pros and cons to everything. Trumpet is arguing there is no value whatsoever to having more DR (probably because of the application of the Zone system, which I believe is invalidated by modern technology, and is skewing his understanding). Ankorwatt and Mikael (assuming they are actually different people) have argued that DR is the only thing that matters and everything else is moot if you don't have more DR.

Neither of those are true, and it really depends on the kind of photography whether more DR matters or not. For most of what I do, I use ISO 100 so rarely that it doesn't matter a wit. I am rarely below ISO 800. Right now, the best cameras I could get my hands on are the 5D III and 1D X, as both offer the cleanest high ISO I've ever seen (particularly the 1D X...I've seen ISO 51200 shots that floor me.) In the case of Art_d's work, it's clear that more DR can be a very valuable thing in a pinch. For pretty much every landscape photographer on earth, more DR will still not be enough, and I am sure people will still be using GND filters when we finally have cameras with 16 stops of DR.

 

[Loswr]

long story short
nice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Not really.......................................................

No one (at least, no one with a shred of objectivity) has denied that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon sensors. But jrista is correct - the suggestion that DR at low ISO is the be-all-end-all of what matters for camera performance - for every photographer - is ludicrous and absurd. Yet...that is exactly how the repeated Mikael/ankorwatt/etc. posts came off. That was the problem with the former persona, and I sincerely hope we don't go down that road again.

 

[art_d]

Let's provide some more context to what you said:

If you were to provide just a weeee bit more context from that very same post, you might discover that I make the exact same point as the online source you found.

So what's yours? Point, I mean.

b&

That you are arguing AGAINST the value of using a camera with more DR. You've been arguing against it from the get-go, stating that you don't even need all the DR the 5D III has, let alone the D800. The only way we could interpret the print comment was that you were just making another argument against more DR, stating that since print has so little DR, having more couldn't possibly be valuable, because all the "extra" DR would just fall into "Zone 0-1", and thus just be "solid blacks".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you can compress dynamic range. If your camera has 14 stops, you can compress those 14 into the 8 stops of a computer screen, or even the 5 stops of a print. All it takes is a little tonemapping, assuming you have the DR to start with.

Yes. Exactly what jrista wrote.

To remind you, TrumpetPower, this was my point:
"If we accept that GND filters and exposure blending are useful to address dynamic range limitations, then we come to the inevitable conclusion that sensors that natively posses more dynamic range are useful."

This is the point you then tried to refute by saying you don't gain anything by using a camera with more dynamic range because everything has to get compressed down to the dynamic range of a print. And that is just flat out wrong.

I don't know if you actually read the rest of Mike Johnston's article that I linked to, but you and he certainly were not making the same point. I will quote again from that the article (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/dynamic-range.html):

"So why, then, if people like higher contrast in the midtones, do photographers want devices with greater dynamic range?

The answer comes down to two things. The first is options. Creative options. Having more information in the file to start with simply gives you more creative and interpretive options for the end result...."

"....The second reason is that for those who love photography because of its power to show what the world looks like, adequate DR is a critical tool in the service of realism."

My impression is you have been arguing against that. If you have not, then we can be in agreement.

 

[Loswr]

long story short
nice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Not really.......................................................

No one (at least, no one with a shred of objectivity) has denied that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon sensors. But jrista is correct - the suggestion that DR at low ISO is the be-all-end-all of what matters for camera performance - for every photographer - is ludicrous and absurd. Yet...that is exactly how the repeated Mikael/ankorwatt/etc. posts came off. That was the problem with the former persona, and I sincerely hope we don't go down that road again.

your opinion, not mine.

The suggestion that DR at low ISO is the be-all-end-all of what matters for camera performance - for every photographer - IS ludicrous and absurd. Granted, it's my opinion that that's how your posts sounded - and clearly I'm not alone in that opinion. But maybe that's not what you meant...

 

[jrista]

long story short
nice that you have seen what I have tried to explain about read noise and banding since I started as a member here

Just to prove my point. Here is a full-sized JPEG of the "best fit" shot from my living room. The highlights are still blown...probably by about three stops (as this was one stop down from 0EC, and it took five stops down to fully recover the highlights). There is about a stop of super deep shadow detail that is also completely lost to noise and thus unrecoverable. There IS noise, even some banding, so we are definitely at the limits of our DR. Unlike the most extreme example before, which tried to capture the entirety of the full 18 stops of DR in a single shot and expose the worst qualities of a Canon sensor, this is a the best I could do without putting a Canon sensor in the worst possible light. This is a "reasonable" recovery. It is not as good as a D800...we wouldn't have lost the highlights with the D800, only a little bit of the shadows. But it is not the "worst case possible" scenario you/Mikael have frequently put forward:

Full size (100% crop): http://i.imgur.com/VAmOF7c.jpg

BTW, this image has no noise reduction of any kind. With a little bit of basic luma NR and some Topaz DeNoise 5, those shadows can be recovered quite nicely. We are still at least four stops short of fully resolving the DR of the scene, so noise reduction will only take us so far. We might gain a stop of DR with NR. The clipped highlights are gone for good, but we can probably gain on the shadow end. If one is willing to take NR to the limits, and spend the time to extract every last ounce of detail, you could probably get away with another stop, maybe two of underexposure and still recover. It won't be as clean as a D800, and will probably still have some clipped highlights, but it also won't be riddled with the nasty red banding that is the hallmark of Mikael/Ankorwatt's attempts to prove how terrible Canon cameras are.

Hopefully this rounds out the balanced argument.

 

[art_d]

Topaz DeNoise is a pretty useful tool that can help minimize banding. I will add the comment that it can make areas of the photo look smudgy and plasticky if overused, though. It can obliterate banding if you crank it up, but then you'll be left with lumpy/blotchy looking shadow areas. So, moderation is key. (Even in moderation, I find after trying to fix pattern noise with it, it's usually best to add grain back into the photo to help cover the plastic look.)