Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery

[TrumpetPower!]

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

I should point out that some of us believe in DR (should I call it 'salvation' in this context?), but don't find the tradeoffs worthwhile.

Our DR, Who art in Nikon, Exmor be Thy Name....

b&

 

[Sporgon]

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

I should point out that some of us believe in DR (should I call it 'salvation' in this context?), but don't find the tradeoffs worthwhile.

Our DR, Who art in Nikon, Exmor be Thy Name....

b&

;D ;D ;D ;D That is so funny !

We should go on tour.....

 

[jrista]

Here is an example of a scene with extreme dynamic range that perfectly demonstrates the "window test" that Art_d mentioned a page or two back:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26562595@N02/7043690229/#lightbox/

Nearly-blown highlights as well as areas that appear to be completely black, as the scene had around 13 stops of DR. I want to contrast this against the underexposed shed shot...which did not really have even moderately-bright highlights...I think pretty much every pixel was below a middle toned gray in the shed shot. That indicates it was not a DR-limited scene. The scene above, however, is definitely a DR-limited scene...you have every level from near total black to near pure white (and the pixels on the seat of the chair outside on the patio may indeed be clipped whites). This is exactly the kind of scene where having more DR than the 5D III offers is valuable.

The D800's additional two stops of DR allow both the highlights and the deep shadows to be recovered, and recovered completely cleanly, cleanly, devoid of any noise:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26562595@N02/6897594964/#lightbox/

Yes, it's clever that a camera allows you (or whoever's photo this is) to do that, but (and this is an aesthetic opinion more than anything else) I can't help noting that in this particular case it's been done rather heavy-handedly to what was evidently a botched (deliberately?) photo in the first place. Doesn't the "correction" look disconcertingly unreal? It's obvious from the still overblown highlights and other features of the exterior that it's bright and sunny outside, yet the exterior looks less bright than the interior (even though there doesn't seem to be any sunlight illuminating the room). If it really was brighter inside, would the original be so dark? (And could the horrible green and red fringing on the tree trunk not have been removed?)

It goes back to Art_d's question: If you are in a room that is lit only by sunlight from outside, and you look out the window...does the room suddenly become black?

Obviously the answer is no. The room looks...normal. Illuminated, colorful, even "bright"...as in the examples I posted. Our eyes are capable of seeing far more dynamic range in a scene than a camera, so...if one wishes to take a photo of such a room as the one I linked, they must either take bracketed shots and blend an HDR in post...or use something like the D800 which has more DR to start with.

I wouldn't say the room looks "surrealistic", which I believe is what you are getting at. I believe it is a bit over-saturated, but other than that I think it looks how a human standing in the room would see it...diffusely illuminated...not pitch black dark. I can stand in my living room right now. I have a black blanket over my sliding door/window, shutters closed over all the others, leaving only two short but wide windows near the ceiling open. I don't see a black room...I see a very brightly lit room. My Canon 7D, however, sees this:

Both the highlights from outside the window are clipped, and the room itself is largely shrouded in darkness. Not realistic at all. If I was a realtor, taking photographs of a home for sale, that would be entirely unacceptable. Having completely blown window highlights wouldn't be acceptable either. Granted, this IS an extreme scenario, but that does not make it an INVALID scenario, or one which the average photographer would never encounter...it is simply extreme, and probably fairly rare (at least, for interior design photography...one could easily encounter this kind of DR in landscapes every time you take a shot!) Normally, one would resort to HDR for this kind of thing. A camera with more dynamic range would be able to capture the scene in a single shot, or do significantly better in a single shot.

In my naive attempts to compensate for the excessive DR and determine the actual total DR of the scene, I underexposed by one stop at a time until the highlights in the window were no longer clipped, then overexposed by one stop at a time until the shadows were no longer blocked. I ended up with -5 EV for the highlights, and +2 EV for the shadows, around 0 EC. According to DXOMark, the 7D has 11.12 stops of DR at ISO 100 (even better than the 5D III by a small margin, however the 7D has significantly worse banding noise, so the 5D III would probably do better in this situation), which leaves us with a scene DR of 18 stops. Is my 7D sufficient to capture the scene in a single shot? Technically speaking, even a D800 couldn't capture this in a single shot, however I'm inclined to rent one and perform the same exposure...just to prove a point.

We cannot recover clipped highlights...so the only recovery option is to lift shadows (as you can never actually "clip" shadows...you just lose shadow detail to read noise.) If the scene is 18 stops, and my camera is capable of capturing 11 stops, then I need to lift by SIX STOPS to correct the exposure to something more realistic. The below shot, barring the noise, represents more what I saw with my own eyes:

Obviously, the shadow recovery capabilities of the 7D are not top shelf. This is similar to what people have demonstrated with a 5D II in equally extreme situations. The 5D III probably wouldn't do quite as bad when it comes to banding noise, however it also wouldn't do as well as the D800 (my DR is similar to the DR of the scene from Flickr that I linked before). If I use the most over-exposed shot and attempt to recover, well I can get better results, but I have clipped highlights. Unlike shadows, which can always be recovered, even if they contain noise...clipped highlights are gone for good:

The above shot is much more accurate, but those windows are painfully bright. I wouldn't show such a photo to a prospective buyer...and the shadows and midtones are still not great...too much contrast and not enough realistic detail. Blending an HDR from the the 0EV, -5EV, and +2EV in Nik HDR Efex results in the following:

Much more accurate...and, much more like the recovery of the D800 sample photos from Flickr. The highlights are in tact, one can actually see out the window. The midtones and shadows are richer and more realistic. I spent about 15 minutes tweaking this HDR, however even with some meticulous tweaks, it still isn't great. The top of my pine tree through the window has some nasty posterization. The clouds are starting to look a little surrealistic as well. There are some quirky CA effects that were present in the lens, and exacerbated by the HDR process. I could clean those up, but its more work, more time, more effort.

It would have, plain and simply, been easier with a D800. I'm not about to jump ship. Like I said, I like my Canon gear, and I primarily shoot high ISO, however I also primarily shoot wildlife and birds these days, as I would prefer to have more resolution, full frame, and more DR for my landscape work. If Canon doesn't release a camera with more DR, then I'll be picking up a 5D III for that purpose. Otherwise, I'll happily grab the next Canon camera that offers more than 11 stops of dynamic range, and be grateful for the benefit it'll most certainly provide in my landscape photography (which is almost always around sunset, sometimes around sunrise, where DR can even be more than 18 stops.)

 

[art_d]

@art_d, I agree that's not an extreme example of manipulation, and you haven't lifted it too much. The lighting however is quite extreme but the picture, to me, is demonstrating signs of under exposure in the first place.

If you've struggled with unacceptable results from lifting these low lights then you really have to review your technique and the programs you are using to post process.

This is the sort of thing that I've been talking about. When a legitimate example is provided, an attempt is made to discredit that example and call into question the competence of the photographer.

With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with my technique or my processing skills. The photo was exposed optimally for the shooting conditions. The photo was exposed as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the exposure, and then highlight recovery was used in post processing to reduce the brightness in the sky to bring out the colors and the textures in the clouds.

In other words, the photograph was properly exposed. Any more exposure would have blown the highlights. The problem here is not underexposure. The problem is the scene is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor.

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

That's a straw man tactic. I have never expressed an opinion that anyone should switch to Nikon, that Canon cameras were terrible, etc. I have tried to provide an explanation of dynamic range limitations and how they present in real world scenarios with Canon cameras. And to explain how it could benefit some photographers if Canon did improve their dynamic range.

 

[jrista]

BTW, I have a full set of Canon CR2 raw files that I used for my previous post above. If anyone wants them, I will be happy to upload the whole set.

I'd also offer that the 7D shot with all the noise could probably be cleaned up pretty well with Topaz DeNoise 5, which has debanding and DR recovery features. It would probably still be stuck with the rather extreme red cast, and you would have to deal with a loss of detail as well due to the NR. But, one COULD recover a fair amount of DR from that most extreme frame. Maybe a stop. I've done that a few times for some of my bird photography where shadows underneath a wing of an in-flight bird had a little bit of banding, and the results can be quite good.

Still...they aren't as good as what you can get out of a camera that doesn't have banding noise to start with.

 

[jrista]

@art_d, I agree that's not an extreme example of manipulation, and you haven't lifted it too much. The lighting however is quite extreme but the picture, to me, is demonstrating signs of under exposure in the first place.

If you've struggled with unacceptable results from lifting these low lights then you really have to review your technique and the programs you are using to post process.

This is the sort of thing that I've been talking about. When a legitimate example is provided, an attempt is made to discredit that example and call into question the competence of the photographer.

With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with my technique or my processing skills. The photo was exposed optimally for the shooting conditions. The photo was exposed as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the exposure, and then highlight recovery was used in post processing to reduce the brightness in the sky to bring out the colors and the textures in the clouds.

In other words, the photograph was properly exposed. Any more exposure would have blown the highlights. The problem here is not underexposure. The problem is the scene is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor.

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

That's a straw man tactic. I have never expressed an opinion that anyone should switch to Nikon, that Canon cameras were terrible, etc. I have tried to provide an explanation of dynamic range limitations and how they present in real world scenarios with Canon cameras. And to explain how it could benefit some photographers if Canon did improve their dynamic range.

To lay the issue to rest...it might help if you can post an example of the original, unedited exposure, to demonstrate where highlights and shadows fell before post-processing.

 

[art_d]

@art_d, I agree that's not an extreme example of manipulation, and you haven't lifted it too much. The lighting however is quite extreme but the picture, to me, is demonstrating signs of under exposure in the first place.

If you've struggled with unacceptable results from lifting these low lights then you really have to review your technique and the programs you are using to post process.

This is the sort of thing that I've been talking about. When a legitimate example is provided, an attempt is made to discredit that example and call into question the competence of the photographer.

With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with my technique or my processing skills. The photo was exposed optimally for the shooting conditions. The photo was exposed as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the exposure, and then highlight recovery was used in post processing to reduce the brightness in the sky to bring out the colors and the textures in the clouds.

In other words, the photograph was properly exposed. Any more exposure would have blown the highlights. The problem here is not underexposure. The problem is the scene is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor.

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

That's a straw man tactic. I have never expressed an opinion that anyone should switch to Nikon, that Canon cameras were terrible, etc. I have tried to provide an explanation of dynamic range limitations and how they present in real world scenarios with Canon cameras. And to explain how it could benefit some photographers if Canon did improve their dynamic range.

To lay the issue to rest...it might help if you can post an example of the original, unedited exposure, to demonstrate where highlights and shadows fell before post-processing.

A screenshot of the raw file at the default settings (except blacks which default at 5 but are pulled to 0 here):

 

[Sporgon]

@art_d, I agree that's not an extreme example of manipulation, and you haven't lifted it too much. The lighting however is quite extreme but the picture, to me, is demonstrating signs of under exposure in the first place.

If you've struggled with unacceptable results from lifting these low lights then you really have to review your technique and the programs you are using to post process.

This is the sort of thing that I've been talking about. When a legitimate example is provided, an attempt is made to discredit that example and call into question the competence of the photographer.

With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with my technique or my processing skills. The photo was exposed optimally for the shooting conditions. The photo was exposed as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the exposure, and then highlight recovery was used in post processing to reduce the brightness in the sky to bring out the colors and the textures in the clouds.

In other words, the photograph was properly exposed. Any more exposure would have blown the highlights. The problem here is not underexposure. The problem is the scene is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor.

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

That's a straw man tactic. I have never expressed an opinion that anyone should switch to Nikon, that Canon cameras were terrible, etc. I have tried to provide an explanation of dynamic range limitations and how they present in real world scenarios with Canon cameras. And to explain how it could benefit some photographers if Canon did improve their dynamic range.

So why doesn't the luminosity of the light source, the sky, match what it is illuminating ? The sky is too flat compared with the rest of the scene. Either you have under exposed or corrupted the balance in post.

As jrista rightly points out: you'd have to let us have access to the RAW data.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

A screenshot of the raw file at the default settings (except blacks which default at 5 but are pulled to 0 here):

Unless I'm quite mistraken, that's taken with a 5DII.

I'd comment further, but I'm not sure I can do so politely.

Just as I would comment on jrista comparing a 7D with the D800...if I wasn't certain there's no way I could do so politely.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

b&

 

[jrista]

@art_d, I agree that's not an extreme example of manipulation, and you haven't lifted it too much. The lighting however is quite extreme but the picture, to me, is demonstrating signs of under exposure in the first place.

If you've struggled with unacceptable results from lifting these low lights then you really have to review your technique and the programs you are using to post process.

This is the sort of thing that I've been talking about. When a legitimate example is provided, an attempt is made to discredit that example and call into question the competence of the photographer.

With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with my technique or my processing skills. The photo was exposed optimally for the shooting conditions. The photo was exposed as far to the right of the histogram as possible without blowing the exposure, and then highlight recovery was used in post processing to reduce the brightness in the sky to bring out the colors and the textures in the clouds.

In other words, the photograph was properly exposed. Any more exposure would have blown the highlights. The problem here is not underexposure. The problem is the scene is exceeding the dynamic range of the sensor.

Yourself and jrista are behaving like Nikon missionaries trying to spread your good word to the great unbelievers.

That's a straw man tactic. I have never expressed an opinion that anyone should switch to Nikon, that Canon cameras were terrible, etc. I have tried to provide an explanation of dynamic range limitations and how they present in real world scenarios with Canon cameras. And to explain how it could benefit some photographers if Canon did improve their dynamic range.

So why doesn't the luminosity of the light source, the sky, match what it is illuminating ? The sky is too flat compared with the rest of the scene. Either you have under exposed or corrupted the balance in post.

As jrista rightly points out: you'd have to let us have access to the RAW data.

I disagree that the sky is too "flat" in the unedited screenshot. It goes right up to the high white in the upper right corner, and down to fairly deep shadows in the lower left corner. The lighting is "flat" because of the angle...high angle, high reflectance and dispersion, less local contrast. The sky itself looks a bit hazy, which will quickly flatten out any depth and muddy up saturated colors. The histogram even rides up the right-hand side, and nearly touches the left-hand side. There is nothing wrong with Art_d's exposure...there is probably at least 12-13 stops of DR in that scene.

 

[Sporgon]

@jrista, agreed. I posted my reply without seeing that art_d had posted his screen shot.

From what I can tell from what I can see of the histogram there should be no problem in lifting lowlights. Appears to be a good example of bring back highlights.

The rest of the exposure settings I can't make head or tail of.

 

[art_d]

Unless I'm quite mistraken, that's taken with a 5DII.

I'd comment further, but I'm not sure I can do so politely.

What is the problem with it being a 5DII image? It has essentially the same DR as a 5DIII.

In fact, I have seen some reports that at ISO 100 (which is what this photo was shot at) the 5DIII actually has
a fraction less dynamic range and higher readout noise:

http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/1DX.html

The 5DIII does improve on the banding. But from what I have seen those improvements are not substantial enough to eliminate it.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

TrumpetPower, every time I call you out on this you ignore me. This is a straw man argument. Show me where I have complained about Canon gear or called it lousy. Is this really the best you can do? Sling mud at me?

 

[jrista]

Just as I would comment on jrista comparing a 7D with the D800...if I wasn't certain there's no way I could do so politely.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

I challenge you to try something similar with the 5D III. The results will be nearly exactly the same. The 7D and the 5D III have almost exactly the same DR, and the 5D III has not eliminated banding noise problems. You can complain all you want about me comparing a 7D to the D800, but in terms of DR, it is not any different than comparing the 5D III to the D800. I seriously CHALLENGE you to perform the exact same test.

Either you accept my challenge, honestly, and show the world that we aren't just full of shit, and that Canon has some areas to improve upon...or you are too afraid to be proven wrong, and you'll ignore my challenge. Assuming you'll be ignoring my challenge, I'll be renting a 5D III once I receive my lens back from being repaired by Canon (should be sometime next week), and redo the test myself. This is no joke, and it is the SOLE legitimate complaint I think Canon users have regarding Canon equipment. In every other respect, it's stellar gear.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Just as I would comment on jrista comparing a 7D with the D800...if I wasn't certain there's no way I could do so politely.

I'll just note that these are garden-variety Nikon troll tactics, whether intentional or otherwise: complain about how lousy Canon gear is, but compare two- or three-generation old Canon equipment with latest-generation Nikon equipment. And, for bonus points, compare APS-C to 135 format while you're at it. That doesn't exactly do a whole lot to your credibility, guys.

I challenge you to try something similar with the 5D III. The results will be nearly exactly the same. The 7D and the 5D III have almost exactly the same DR, and the 5D III has not eliminated banding noise problems. You can complain all you want about me comparing a 7D to the D800, but in terms of DR, it is not any different than comparing the 5D III to the D800. I seriously CHALLENGE you to perform the exact same test.

Either you accept my challenge, honestly, and show the world that we aren't just full of S___, and that Canon has some areas to improve upon...or you are too afraid to be proven wrong, and you'll ignore my challenge. Assuming you'll be ignoring my challenge, I'll be renting a 5D III once I receive my lens back from being repaired by Canon (should be sometime next week), and redo the test myself. This is no joke, and it is the SOLE legitimate complaint I think Canon users have regarding Canon equipment. In every other respect, it's stellar gear.

Dude.

I've done nothing but post exactly those sorts of tests.

Hell, the most recent one I posted had the Sun in the frame.

So, by all means. Tell me I'm full of it if it'll make you feel better about your Nikon love.

But I've proven everything I need to and then some.

b&

 

[art_d]

With respect, you haven't proved anything. When it is shown that an argument you've made is incorrect, instead of admitting you are wrong you either ignore that point, misdirect the conversation to a different point, or resort to straw man attacks.

Let's go back to this statement of yours:

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

Most photographers understand this is not true. I pointed out how this is not true and even provided the example of a print. You ignored my example for a while but then when I brought it up again and went so far as to post what the actual raw image looked like, you then claimed my example was not valid because it uses a 5DII and not a 5DIII. I then pointed out that the two cameras have essentially the same dynamic range. (I would also observe, in reference to your comment above, the 5DII does fall into the category of having been produced within the past few "decades.")

 

[TrumpetPower!]

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

Most photographers understand this is not true.

ORLY?

And what model printer with what paper, exactly, is it that can make 12-stop prints?

Do tell, please.

b&

 

[art_d]

TrumpetPower, you seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse on this. Do you really not understand how dynamic range applies to photography? Are you really trying to tell us that for all these "decades" that photographers who have been using graduated neutral density filters, fill flash, etc. to compensate for dynamic range limitations have been doing so needlessly?

If you are honestly confused on this topic, then rather me explaining it to you, I will provide you with a resource which I think already does an excellent job:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/02/dynamic-range.html

For your benefit I will quote a short excerpt from that article to show it might be worth your while:

"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."

There is much more there. If you are still not clear after reading that article (and in partciular the "Output" portion of that article) then let me know.

 

[sdsr]

It goes back to Art_d's question: If you are in a room that is lit only by sunlight from outside, and you look out the window...does the room suddenly become black?

Obviously the answer is no. The room looks...normal. Illuminated, colorful, even "bright"...as in the examples I posted. Our eyes are capable of seeing far more dynamic range in a scene than a camera, so...if one wishes to take a photo of such a room as the one I linked, they must either take bracketed shots and blend an HDR in post...or use something like the D800 which has more DR to start with.

I wouldn't say the room looks "surrealistic", which I believe is what you are getting at. I believe it is a bit over-saturated, but other than that I think it looks how a human standing in the room would see it...diffusely illuminated...not pitch black dark.

[snip]

[end quote]

When you look out a window onto sunny exterior, no, the interior doesn't *become* black, and it doesn't *appear* to be as dark as cameras "see" it if they're exposed for the exterior; but the interior doesn't *look* as bright as it does when you're looking directly at it either, and it certainly doesn't look *brighter* than the exterior does when it's sunny outside (unless there's an unusual level of artificial light inside). I assume that the point of the way this photo was processed was to make the exterior look as bright as it would look if you were looking through the window, and to make the interior look as bright as it would if you were looking at the darkest part of the room, simultaneously. If *that* was the point, the result strikes me as a failure: the interior is brighter, and has more saturated colors, than the exterior. (I don't much care for the intention either, but that's a purely aesthetic matter - I don't share the evidently rather common desire to shine lights onto every shadow.) The end result in the example you posted today looks much more successful to me.

This, of course, is a side issue to the general points being made re dynamic range. If you need or want more, go for it. (I think you would find that you can push shadows better with a 6D than with a 5DIII.) By the way, anyone who prefers APS-C and really likes being able to brighten shadows should check out, not Nikon (reviews suggest that their new APS-C sensors, which are no longer made by Sony, are noisier) but Pentax. I used to own a K-5, which was quite amazing in that regard, and its successors may be even better (but this comes at a price - worse lenses and less accurate focusing...).

 

[TrumpetPower!]

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&

 

[jrista]

It goes back to Art_d's question: If you are in a room that is lit only by sunlight from outside, and you look out the window...does the room suddenly become black?

Obviously the answer is no. The room looks...normal. Illuminated, colorful, even "bright"...as in the examples I posted. Our eyes are capable of seeing far more dynamic range in a scene than a camera, so...if one wishes to take a photo of such a room as the one I linked, they must either take bracketed shots and blend an HDR in post...or use something like the D800 which has more DR to start with.

I wouldn't say the room looks "surrealistic", which I believe is what you are getting at. I believe it is a bit over-saturated, but other than that I think it looks how a human standing in the room would see it...diffusely illuminated...not pitch black dark.

[snip]

[end quote]

When you look out a window onto sunny exterior, no, the interior doesn't *become* black, and it doesn't *appear* to be as dark as cameras "see" it if they're exposed for the exterior; but the interior doesn't *look* as bright as it does when you're looking directly at it either, and it certainly doesn't look *brighter* than the exterior does when it's sunny outside (unless there's an unusual level of artificial light inside). I assume that the point of the way this photo was processed was to make the exterior look as bright as it would look if you were looking through the window, and to make the interior look as bright as it would if you were looking at the darkest part of the room, simultaneously. If *that* was the point, the result strikes me as a failure: the interior is brighter, and has more saturated colors, than the exterior. (I don't much care for the intention either, but that's a purely aesthetic matter - I don't share the evidently rather common desire to shine lights onto every shadow.) The end result in the example you posted today looks much more successful to me.

Well, I'm not sure I've ever experienced what you stated, that looking outside the window makes the interior darker. I'm looking outside the same windows I photographed, and there is no darkening of the interior. The interior is lit by diffuse bounce from those very windows themselves...the lighting is fixed, and what I see remains fixed as well, whether I'm looking at a wall or looking out the window. I've never seen the "bloom" effect when looking out a window, however I have experienced something like that when I go outside into the bright sun for a while...which forces my irises to contract. Going back inside after THAT results in a slightly darker interior for a minute or two, after which it normalizes again.

The end result was an HDR image that had the full 18 stops of dynamic range. I had to spend about 15 minutes tweaking and tonemapping to get it to look that good in the first place, and it doesn't look great...there are definite and visible problems. The D800 probably wouldn't do quite as well on the DR front...but it would do nearly as well, and much better than any Canon camera could currently do. The shadows, and my black leather couch, would just have more random luma noise with the D800. Regardless, the point is, using a camera with more dynamic range means you can get good or better results with less work. That's kind of what it's all about.

This, of course, is a side issue to the general points being made re dynamic range. If you need or want more, go for it. (I think you would find that you can push shadows better with a 6D than with a 5DIII.) By the way, anyone who prefers APS-C and really likes being able to brighten shadows should check out, not Nikon (reviews suggest that their new APS-C sensors, which are no longer made by Sony, are noisier) but Pentax. I used to own a K-5, which was quite amazing in that regard, and its successors may be even better (but this comes at a price - worse lenses and less accurate focusing...).

Well, I use APS-C for reach when photographing birds. But to photograph birds, you are rarely ever below ISO 400. Any DR benefits you get at low ISO are usually gone or mostly gone by ISO 400, and entirely gone by 800. Canon read noise is actually better at higher ISO than the competition (until you get into the top one or two stops usually, then it just falls off a cliff like every other brand.) My 7D performs well enough for what I do now, and since I'm always at high ISO any potential gains by moving to any other brand are so marginal as to be meaningless.

I want more DR for my landscape photography. In the past, when I did landscapes much more, I frequently ran into the problem of too much DR in the scene. I often clipped highlights or blocked shadows, and was unable to lift the shadows due to noise. I'm sure a 5D III will do much better than any of my previous cameras, but I'm still going to see if Canon has something up their sleeve in the big mp camera that will improve their DR. There was a rumor a while back about them moving to 16 bit, which I can't imagine them doing unless they managed to improve their read noise. There were also rumors about them using some kind of active cooling, which if they cool their electronics enough, could have a fairly significant impact on reducing read noise.