Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

[Khalai]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Losing the sun would be a good thing, no longer having dueling subjects.

But how would you know it was a sunset?

Simple, add watermark with "#sunsetphotowithpoorexposure_availablelightwithnoflash"

 

[Point22]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It's dead easy to make a perfectly decent camera look bad as far as noise / shadow recovery is concerned. The key is to under expose in already low light, when the light is "thin" - fewer photons flying about. Raise your image, then add plenty of saturation and vibrance. This is what I call "data abuse". There's a reason why that image has been processed to have a psychedelic, almost radio active glow, it's got nothing to do with the photographer's lack of taste or inability to post process, it's there to exaggerate the "problem".

Here's a shot from the Pentax K5II that has, according to DXO, 14.5 stops of DR. OK, it's a lot better than the off-chip ADC Canon's could do, but it still looks bad, but only because of how I have dealt with it. Given good light and sensible PP this camera can easily raise 5 stops.

And this it?

 

[Point22]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It's dead easy to make a perfectly decent camera look bad as far as noise / shadow recovery is concerned. The key is to under expose in already low light, when the light is "thin" - fewer photons flying about. Raise your image, then add plenty of saturation and vibrance. This is what I call "data abuse". There's a reason why that image has been processed to have a psychedelic, almost radio active glow, it's got nothing to do with the photographer's lack of taste or inability to post process, it's there to exaggerate the "problem".

Here's a shot from the Pentax K5II that has, according to DXO, 14.5 stops of DR. OK, it's a lot better than the off-chip ADC Canon's could do, but it still looks bad, but only because of how I have dealt with it. Given good light and sensible PP this camera can easily raise 5 stops.

And this it?

ISO 12 800 and 25 600

 

[Point22]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Here is a Before/After, to me the IQ is looking pretty sterling. But then I am results driven not click driven....

 

[LonelyBoy]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Sure, result will be still abysmal photo with a bit cleaner shadows. Polish a turd, it's still a turd

Picture interesting. Almost exact to rules.

Sun near top left thirds corner. Sky/water close to top third. Rising angle from bottom right to left third. People close to right third line. Lead eye from people to sun. People looking left. Technically photo good.

But you think turd. ok.

Maybe photographer walk in surprise from dog so take this?

Just goes to show what 'rules' do for your photography. I agree, it is a turd.

While I don't like the composition, I think calling it "awful" is a bit harsh. It's better than 95% of the photos one sees just browsing social networks. And that's just from a composition standpoint. That's leaving out motion blur or harsh direct flash, poor white balance... the list goes on.

With that said, here's my constructive critique. I don't like how the guy's face overlaps the woman. In fact I don't like how much the guy dominates the portrait (blocks a lot of the bride). Another big distractor to me is the lines from the horizon and the concrete land. They make this natural arrow the points to the left. My eyes naturally follow them as they converge.

To me, if the photographer's shooting position is just rotated to his/her left in the realm of 30 to 45 degrees it becomes a much better picture. Sure you lose the sun, but you still get the sky (and you help alleviate your DR issues to boot) and now the concrete land line becomes more level, you separate the bride and groom faces, the guy and dog are actually looking more towards the camera, and you get rid of the grooms chest literally chopping the bride in half.

Besides the rotation, I might add to pan down just a bit, push the horizon closer to the top third line and give some breathing room to the feet, heaven forbid they print the photo and want to frame it and NOT cut of their legs in a real picture frame.

It's all subjective and hindsight is 20/20. But I think "awful" is too harsh and I couldn't in good conscience say that to the photographer. Even the portrait session of a wedding day is very much run and gun because of the limited time.

But then... but then the result wouldn't be as awful for the sensor, so they couldn't do that.

 

[rrcphoto]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Agreed, or at least the exposure compromise has been too much towards the impossible highlights.

It is such an ugly, pointless picture, I don't know what I would expose for. The rocks?

It's a perfect picture for DPR - it exaggerates a "weakness" in the 6DII

I'd have exposed to hold most of the sky, with just a natural blow out around the sun, and then filled with on camera flash bounced into a reflector held by my assistant. Failing that a guest, or catering staff, last resort direct fill. To try and use the camera's latitude to pull off a shot like that on their big day if you were being paid for it is just naff.

the dead eye look is a giveaway that it's a shot that should be tossed out.

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

We are talking from a photographic point of view. The client doesn't give a damn if they think the picture is romantic and reminds them of the day- which brings us back to the question of whether 1 stop DR matters at all if the photographer finds the camera nicer to use.

 

[stevelee]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Losing the sun would be a good thing, no longer having dueling subjects.

But how would you know it was a sunset?

As opposed to a sunrise?

 

[BillB]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

We are talking from a photographic point of view. The client doesn't give a damn if they think the picture is romantic and reminds them of the day- which brings us back to the question of whether 1 stop DR matters at all if the photographer finds the camera nicer to use.

OK, so where does that leave us?

There are people interested in the subject of the photograph and aren't overly critical of photographic quality

There are people who know how to expose properly and use Lightroom effectively

There are people interested in 5 EV shadow lifts

There are people who want all the low ISO shadow lifting capability they can get.

There are people who can really use cleaner shadows than Canon can deliver

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Pretty much....

 

[Lord_Zeppelin]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I haven't posted on this forum in a few years, and I'm far far from being a great pro, as photography is not my primary job, but this is the same garbage that went on with the first 6D, and with pretty much every camera in recent memory. You've got a review site looking for clicks, a product that isn't a complete homerun in literally EVERY aspect, and a bunch of people shouting opinions and insults at each other. This happened with the Nikon that had the oil splatter...the ergonomics on the Alphas, the controls on the Fuji...literally EVERY camera.

When the first 6D came out, this thread was about the focus points and lack of cross-type vs. the next level of body up, and the comparable Nikon, etc. And you know what happened? The camera shipped, still sold well, and has been adopted well, despite the pages upon pages of posts arguing about it.

Does this camera have the dynamic range of some others? Probably not. Is it as bad as the reactionary fools are making it seem? nope. Same way the 6D was. Were a few shots missed on the fringe with the original because of the narrow focus field and lack of cross type? Probably. Did it matter at the end of the day? nope. Would you have been better off working on fundamentals instead of relying on the fringe use of the camera? Yep.

I'm not trying to defend Canon, but really, they're not going to give you the Lexus for the price of the highest trim level Camry.

My 6D has served me very well over the years...and I'll be jumpin' on a 6D2 as soon as I can sell the old one. And I can guarantee that 90% of the shots I miss will be because of me, and not the camera's shortcomings, just as it always has been, whether it was a Nikon N70 or ELAN IIe or the AE-1 I learned to shoot on. Sometimes I feel like people want the camera to make them amazing photographers...when it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I haven't posted on this forum in a few years

I can see why...your logical and practical approach to these issues are really out of place around here.

Well done!

 

[Lord_Zeppelin]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I haven't posted on this forum in a few years

I can see why...your logical and practical approach to these issues are really out of place around here.

Well done!

Ha...I wish it were that. It's more of a time thing...a baby and crazy work schedule has eaten most of my time for photography as a whole, let alone an arguing a discussion forum...
I've been relegated to mostly iPhoneography...

 

[Jack Douglas]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I haven't posted on this forum in a few years

I can see why...your logical and practical approach to these issues are really out of place around here.

Well done!

Ha...I wish it were that. It's more of a time thing...a baby and crazy work schedule has eaten most of my time for photography as a whole, let alone an arguing a discussion forum...
I've been relegated to mostly iPhoneography...

If only I could have my babies back. Do take advantage of the opportunity.

Jack

 

[jmoya]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It's dead easy to make a perfectly decent camera look bad as far as noise / shadow recovery is concerned. The key is to under expose in already low light, when the light is "thin" - fewer photons flying about. Raise your image, then add plenty of saturation and vibrance. This is what I call "data abuse". There's a reason why that image has been processed to have a psychedelic, almost radio active glow, it's got nothing to do with the photographer's lack of taste or inability to post process, it's there to exaggerate the "problem".

Here's a shot from the Pentax K5II that has, according to DXO, 14.5 stops of DR. OK, it's a lot better than the off-chip ADC Canon's could do, but it still looks bad, but only because of how I have dealt with it. Given good light and sensible PP this camera can easily raise 5 stops.

And this it?

How are you opening files in Raw? I can't seem to open them unless I first convert to a tiff.

 

[jmoya]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It's dead easy to make a perfectly decent camera look bad as far as noise / shadow recovery is concerned. The key is to under expose in already low light, when the light is "thin" - fewer photons flying about. Raise your image, then add plenty of saturation and vibrance. This is what I call "data abuse". There's a reason why that image has been processed to have a psychedelic, almost radio active glow, it's got nothing to do with the photographer's lack of taste or inability to post process, it's there to exaggerate the "problem".

Here's a shot from the Pentax K5II that has, according to DXO, 14.5 stops of DR. OK, it's a lot better than the off-chip ADC Canon's could do, but it still looks bad, but only because of how I have dealt with it. Given good light and sensible PP this camera can easily raise 5 stops.

How are you opening thesee in lightroom? I tried and the files can't be opening. My 5d3 files open just fine?

 

[Khalai]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

How are you opening thesee in lightroom? I tried and the files can't be opening. My 5d3 files open just fine?

You need latest ACR module ver. 9.12. or latest Lightroom update ver. 6.12 or updated CC version.

 

[candyman]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

How are you opening thesee in lightroom? I tried and the files can't be opening. My 5d3 files open just fine?

You need latest ACR module ver. 9.12. or latest Lightroom update ver. 6.12 or updated CC version.

Yes.
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/lightroom-downloads.html


Click in this page on the link; Adobe photoshop Lightroom 6
It opens all the releases of MAC and Windows.
Choose your platform (MAC or windows) and the latest update version 6.12

 

[Aglet]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Well, sort of... Yes, the DR of the downsampled 6DII image will be higher, but downsampling doesn't change the DR when the image is captured. IMO, it's the latter that matters – if you have a 13-stop scene, and 12 stops of DR, you've clipped one or both sides. If you then downsample that image until you have 13 stops of DR, you don't get back what you clipped at capture.

It seems intuitive but, well, no, that's not exactly correct and has been pointed out by more technically savvy posters in the past.
Noise-dithered data-acquisition that is downsampled can actually record up to one extra bit of information. Specific dither signals and processing could increase that amount.

(just) clipped + noise = not always clipped and extra signal information can be extracted.
more applicable at the low end than the high in photographic applications

YMMV depending on how clipped, particular dither signal (noise), and amount of downsampling done in post processing.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Well, sort of... Yes, the DR of the downsampled 6DII image will be higher, but downsampling doesn't change the DR when the image is captured. IMO, it's the latter that matters – if you have a 13-stop scene, and 12 stops of DR, you've clipped one or both sides. If you then downsample that image until you have 13 stops of DR, you don't get back what you clipped at capture.

It seems intuitive but, well, no, that's not exactly correct and has been pointed out by more technically savvy posters in the past.
Noise-dithered data-acquisition that is downsampled can actually record up to one extra bit of information. Specific dither signals and processing could increase that amount.

(just) clipped + noise = not always clipped and extra signal information can be extracted.
more applicable at the low end than the high in photographic applications

YMMV depending on how clipped, particular dither signal (noise), and amount of downsampling done in post processing.

This has been debated ad nauseam, trouble is whilst you might be technically correct nobody has ever posted a Stouffer wedge actually illustrating the concept. The theory breaks down either because of the relatively limited downsample and/or the difference in the noise floor, might technically be there, the differences aren't observable in regular sized images viewed at regular distances.

I'd love somebody to actually post some visual proof of the theory, but nobody ever has.