DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy

[Don Haines]

The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.

for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

I take a lot of shots outside and end up with the problem of bright skies and dark trees... and bird shots where you can expose for the bird, you can expose for the sky, but not both. That said, although when you edit the pictures you can tell that you have run out of DR, almost all of the time (at least for me) it really doesn't make a noticeable difference in the final picture.

I am going to throw the following image out as an example.... In the original shot I ran out of DR to catch the highlights and the lowlights. Technically, I would have needed at least three stops on each end to capture the detail.... and in the end I ended up darkening the picture (artistic reasons to try and capture a mood) and had a picture with far less DR than the camera could capture. Yes, I know that if I lifted the shadows 5 stops to get detail in the trees that there would be noise...... but I wanted them dark anyway..... I ended up DROPPING the shadows, so for the final product none of that mattered


Conclusion: Although more DR is a good thing, quite often our current cameras have more than enough, and often the benefits of more DR are not noticeable on the final product.

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

 

[takesome1]

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

I'd say 'and' instead of 'or'. The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact. Consider the following sets of examples:

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
[*]"A Canon dSLR best meets my needs."
[*]"Canon dSLRs are the best."
[/list]

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
[*]"The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs."
[*]"Canon sensors have poor IQ."
[/list]


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed. Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion. Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact. Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned.

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish. Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.

Well done, you described the basics of newbie trolling.
You throw in a few #2's and get interest in what you are saying, then you drop in a #3 to explode the topic.
A thread will really get moving when you have a troll on each side.

People who post #3's are not required to provide back-up or proof to establish a statement. I think that bothers many in this forum as they are well educated and are in a profession that they have to provide proof to back up their work.

In this forum I can say "Lenses made by Nikon are not as good as those made by Canon". It is my choice whether I give hard proof, no proof or even respond at all to whoever questions the comment. Many find it frustrating when someone chooses not to offer proof.

 

[lintoni]

The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.

for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

There are posts that just stick to the facts, then there are posts where you implicitly or explicitly insult, or you make assumptions about what a person will do then tell the community that's what they are going to do in the future, such as when you said I'm just a complainer and Canon hater, and once Canon finally came out with a high DR camera, I'd move onto Nikon forums and find something else to complain about. I take issue with that. I have a specific complaint. I'm skeptical Canon is going to address it any time soon, and Canon's lack of action frustrates me, but that doesn't make me some kind of rabid Canon hater who is just going to hate on Canon because I want to hate on Canon...that's a misrepresentation of me, and yeah, I take that personally.

That kind of personal crap has been flying around these forums for weeks, and a lot of it is based on nothing but pure assumption. There is also the way "DRone" has become highly derogative, and that term is used with a number of members on these forums. There is the insulting and regular implication that "DRones" don't know how to use a camera or process their images. (These things aren't just directed at me, but at everyone you guys have decided to call a DRone.) You can't tell me that there isn't an intentionally personal and insulting aspect to most of the posts you guys write in response to anyone bringing up DR these days. IT IS PERSONAL. You guys have made it personal...maybe you don't realize you have...but you have. I've never seen so many insults flung on a forum outside of 4chan and reddit.

PBD, you haven't taken it as far as some, although you have made many of your posts personal recently. Neuro and Keith (and a couple others) seem to use the term DRone as a nasty derogative most frequently, alongside other thinly veiled insults. Kieth doesn't seem to be able to stop inferring that DRones are just bumbling idiots who don't know how to use a camera, don't know the first thing about post-processing, and regularly derides the photography of DRones when I'm quite sure he hasn't even seen the photography of most or any of them. There are a number of other members who have gotten quite personal and been deriding people's photography or artistic choices here as well...and that's just flat out rude. NONE of this has EVER been been done in a constructive manner...the reaction to "DRones" has always been a negative one, but lately it's down right rabid. Like a pack of wolves, you guys just pounce and never let up. If it was just about correcting someones incorrect facts, it could be done far, far more constructively...the way you guys go about it, it's (seemingly intentionally) destructive. (And again, I'm not just speaking for myself...there were pages upon pages of you guys and many others circling and attacking Dilbert on the D750 thread, over and over and over. I don't think much of Dilbert's opinions myself, I don't think he understands a lot of what he talks about...but wow, guys...)

It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though. There is a difference between pointing that and incorrect statement, and attacking and insulting those who make a mistake. You guys have added a personal undercurrent to this whole thing. Just the use of the term DRone, the way it's used, is quite insulting...let alone the defamation of character or defamation of people's work or anything like that.

Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?

 

[lintoni]

Do you think you may be accused of being a drone (with or without capital letters) because you post basically the same message(s) over and over again? What is it? Do you think that people are going to agree with what you say if you repeat it often enough?

What does that have to do with what I just posted? Does simple repetition give people an open door to get personal and be insulting? Really?

Well, simple repetition does become rather tedious, you don't help yourself.

As far as what you've just posted, you couldn't help taking a side swipe at dilbert, which is a bit hypocritical considering the number of lengthy posts from you complaining that it's getting insulting and personal. Oh dear, he didn't like a couple of your photos, so toss a personal insult his way?

Insulting. Really.

 

[Loswr]

The crux of the 'problem' is when people give an opinion that is personal and state that opinion as a spurious fact. Consider the following sets of examples:

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Canon sells more dSLRs than any other manufacturer."
[*]"A Canon dSLR best meets my needs."
[*]"Canon dSLRs are the best."
[/list]

[list type=decimal]
[*]"Current Canon sensors have less low ISO DR that their competitors."
[*]"The IQ of current Canon sensors doesn't meet my needs."
[*]"Canon sensors have poor IQ."
[/list]


In each case, statement (1) is simple fact, generally not disputed. Statement (2) is a personal opinion, and completely valid whether or not others share that opinion. Statement (3) is that personal opinion stated as a spurious fact. Statements like #3 are generally untenable, yet people who make statements like that tend to get defensive when their statements are rightfully questioned.

Stating your opinion as opinion is fine...stating your opinion as fact will draw a challenge. Defending that opinion as fact just makes you look foolish. Restating that spurious fact over and over in thread after thread will not only draw a challenge, it will piss people off.

Well done, you described the basics of newbie trolling.
You throw in a few #2's and get interest in what you are saying, then you drop in a #3 to explode the topic.
A thread will really get moving when you have a troll on each side.

People who post #3's are not required to provide back-up or proof to establish a statement. I think that bothers many in this forum as they are well educated and are in a profession that they have to provide proof to back up their work.

In this forum I can say "Lenses made by Nikon are not as good as those made by Canon". It is my choice whether I give hard proof, no proof or even respond at all to whoever questions the comment. Many find it frustrating when someone chooses not to offer proof.

Statements like #3 are opinions, they cannot be 'proven'. Instead, certain people post exhaustive evidence supporting a #1-type statement (which is already generally accepted), and they think it 'proves' their #3-type statement...which remains merely their opinion. Disagreement with that opinion leads them repost (and often re-re-re-re-post) the same or equivalent proof of that already-accepted fact that, as expected, fails to prove their unprovable opinion.

 

[privatebydesign]

The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.

for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

There are posts that just stick to the facts, then there are posts where you implicitly or explicitly insult, or you make assumptions about what a person will do then tell the community that's what they are going to do in the future, such as when you said I'm just a complainer and Canon hater, and once Canon finally came out with a high DR camera, I'd move onto Nikon forums and find something else to complain about. I take issue with that. I have a specific complaint. I'm skeptical Canon is going to address it any time soon, and Canon's lack of action frustrates me, but that doesn't make me some kind of rabid Canon hater who is just going to hate on Canon because I want to hate on Canon...that's a misrepresentation of me, and yeah, I take that personally.

That kind of personal crap has been flying around these forums for weeks, and a lot of it is based on nothing but pure assumption. There is also the way "DRone" has become highly derogative, and that term is used with a number of members on these forums. There is the insulting and regular implication that "DRones" don't know how to use a camera or process their images. (These things aren't just directed at me, but at everyone you guys have decided to call a DRone.) You can't tell me that there isn't an intentionally personal and insulting aspect to most of the posts you guys write in response to anyone bringing up DR these days. IT IS PERSONAL. You guys have made it personal...maybe you don't realize you have...but you have. I've never seen so many insults flung on a forum outside of 4chan and reddit.

PBD, you haven't taken it as far as some, although you have made many of your posts personal recently. Neuro and Keith (and a couple others) seem to use the term DRone as a nasty derogative most frequently, alongside other thinly veiled insults. Kieth doesn't seem to be able to stop inferring that DRones are just bumbling idiots who don't know how to use a camera, don't know the first thing about post-processing, and regularly derides the photography of DRones when I'm quite sure he hasn't even seen the photography of most or any of them. There are a number of other members who have gotten quite personal and been deriding people's photography or artistic choices here as well...and that's just flat out rude. NONE of this has EVER been been done in a constructive manner...the reaction to "DRones" has always been a negative one, but lately it's down right rabid. Like a pack of wolves, you guys just pounce and never let up. If it was just about correcting someones incorrect facts, it could be done far, far more constructively...the way you guys go about it, it's (seemingly intentionally) destructive. (And again, I'm not just speaking for myself...there were pages upon pages of you guys and many others circling and attacking Dilbert on the D750 thread, over and over and over. I don't think much of Dilbert's opinions myself, I don't think he understands a lot of what he talks about...but wow, guys...)

It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though. There is a difference between pointing that and incorrect statement, and attacking and insulting those who make a mistake. You guys have added a personal undercurrent to this whole thing. Just the use of the term DRone, the way it's used, is quite insulting...let alone the defamation of character or defamation of people's work or anything like that.

But, as always, you take that out of context, my comment was in reply to a specific assertion, and assumption, of yours where you said I lump you in with "normal complainers", I was replying to a personal question from you, see how keeping the context of a comment changes the way people might perceive it?

Besides, you never stick to the facts, your posts play out exactly as Neuro so eloquently laid out, I have tried to engage you in non confrontational discussions on the "facts". Even in your completely "unbiased DR thread" you decided that the Exmor file was usable, I said for my purposes it isn't, you then get super defensive, I post a crop of your "holding detail outside the window" that illustrates there isn't any detail outside the window, you then wax lyrical about it was just an off the hip test and if you had been presented with that kind of need for shadow lift the Exmor would have been "better", Duh, we have all agreed that from day one, but you were not in that situation, your images didn't prove anything and your opinions are just that, your opinions.

As for your making mistakes, well we all do, but you are not " willing to admit when I'm wrong" your normal initial response is to attack, you then, when people can be bothered to correct you, get overwhelmed by straight forward evidence that you are wrong, then you get defensive and then paranoid and now, as in your latest 11mm pincushion nonsense, delete your replies. That is not admitting you are wrong, that is being pig headed in the face of being shown to be wrong and then getting in a bad mood about it.

If you can't see that the way you are, and the way you say it, is what elicits the responses it does, not your message, then you are beyond help.

 

[Loswr]

It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though.

Well, no one can dispute your willingness to admit when you're wrong – like an opinion, that's a personal belief. But I will point out that less than 24 hours ago, you refused to admit that you were wrong about a simple, rather trivial fact:

...the kind of wicked pincushion you'll get at 11mm.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Good grief. I know what it means.

Maybe it's not pincusion distortion... Whatever the hell you want to call it... whatever

"I know it...well, maybe not...whatever," not what I'd call admitting your mistake. Especially since in your subsequent post, you were back to insisting you knew what pincushion distortion meant. You soon deleted that post...I'm sure you remember it though, it's the one where you got insulting and personal by calling the people pointing out your mistake a group of violent criminals.

 

[Marsu42]

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

 

[V8Beast]

Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.

So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure.

What I don't understand is that when people happy with their Canon gear voice their displease, the pro-DR guys all of a sudden start complaining that they're being bullied, and complain that they're being personally insulted? I'm not saying that personal insults are OK, but seriously, what do you expect? Should I go stand in front of a church, proclaim the virtues of Islam, and expect a welcoming response?

The notion that the pro-DR guys are innocent angels in all this, and only the brainwashed happy Canon guys are throwing the insults, is absolutely ridiculous. You must have missed the posts where the DR advocates state their intentions of saving the anti-DR guys from their ignorance, showing them the error of their ways, and showing them how much happier they'd be if that had equally high standards of IQ and DR. That must constitute objective commentary in your book.

 

[David Hull]

Anyway, at the end of the day if all Canon sees and hears is that it's not that big of a deal, nobody but a few will care, we will be stuck with this old 500nm fab for another decade or two, literally. So I don't see that it does anyone any good to minimize it. Even if you don't need it, it won't hurt you and a new fab might bring stuff that you do care about more too. Plus at least once in a blue moon you must mess up the exposure on a one of shot and at least you'll be able to rescue that better. And for those who do care more, we'll it would be great. Less money to get all your gear from one brand than a mix. Less to carry and drag around which can be a pain, literally. Canon does make awesome lenses, has a very nice UI and so on so it is nicer if Canon improves their sensors to go to a different system.

So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure.

What I don't understand is that when people happy with their Canon gear voice their displease, the pro-DR guys all of a sudden start complaining that they're being bullied, and complain that they're being personally insulted? I'm not saying that personal insults are OK, but seriously, what do you expect? Should I go stand in front of a church, proclaim the virtues of Islam, and expect a welcoming response?

The notion that the pro-DR guys are innocent angels in all this, and only the brainwashed happy Canon guys are throwing the insults, is absolutely ridiculous. You must have missed the posts where the DR advocates state their intentions of saving the anti-DR guys from their ignorance, showing them the error of their ways, and showing them how much happier they'd be if that had equally high standards of IQ and DR. That must constitute objective commentary in your book.

So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR?

I think that if history proves anything with regard to this particular issue -- it proves that this strategy has been ineffective. We've been slapping this around for about 8 years that I can remember. Apparently this DR thing isn't producing enough market churn to raise Canon's interest in making a change. One guy hit the nail on the head, I think, by saying something like "Just because sensor B is only 90% as good as sensor A, doesn't mean sensor B sucks (or is even close to unusable).

 

[Don Haines]

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2

 

[unfocused]

So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR? That objective, by nature, requires repeating the same sentiment (Canon's DR sucks) over and over again on a forum. That action, by nature, is one that many people on this forum find very irritating. Naturally, those people will eventually voice their displeasure.

What I don't understand is that when people happy with their Canon gear voice their displeaser, the pro-DR guys all of a sudden start complaining that they're being bullied, and complain that they're being personally insulted? I'm not saying that personal insults are OK, but seriously, what do you expect? Should I go stand in front of a church, proclaim the virtues of Islam, and expect a welcoming response?

The notion that the pro-DR guys are innocent angels in all this, and only the brainwashed happy Canon guys are throwing the insults, is absolutely ridiculous. You must have missed the posts where the DR advocates state their intentions of saving the anti-DR guys from their ignorance, showing them the error of their ways, and showing them how much happier they'd be if that had equally high standards of IQ and DR. That must constitute objective commentary in your book.

So if I understand correctly, the purpose of incessantly complaining about the lack of DR in Canon sensors is to get Canon to notice, light a fire under Canon's ass, and inspire them improve DR?

I think that if history proves anything with regard to this particular issue -- it proves that this strategy has been ineffective. Apparently this DR thing isn't producing enough market churn to raise Canon's interest in making a change. One guy hit the nail on the head, I think, by saying something like "Just because sensor B is only 90% as good as sensor A, doesn't mean sensor B sucks (or is even close to unusable).

That's really the crux of the debate isn't it.

A handful of people (and it really is just a handful) are extremely dissatisfied with one metric.

Unfortunately for them, it is a metric that doesn't seem to be a major concern for most other photographers. The majority say, yes, they'd be happy with a little more dynamic range. But, it's not the major factor we consider when selecting a camera.

Repeating the same points over and over again, berating others for their failure to consider this a top priority, playing the martyr when others disagree and voice that disagreement, predicting the imminent doom of a multi-national company unless they address this one metric and basically discounting every other innovation the company produces as being insignificant in comparison to this one, small, metric – all of these strategies have proven ineffective. Yet, they persist because now, it's no longer about that metric, it's become a religious crusade.

But, something that gets ignored in these diatribes is that there are a whole host of other features that many of us would like to see adopted and we may feel just as intensely about those metrics as the "Dynamic Rangers" feel about theirs.

Interestingly, the Dynamic Rangers seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of any of these others metrics.

One small example: when the specifications for the 7DII came out, I expressed disappointment that it failed to incorporate touch screen technology. I was informed by the most verbose of the Dynamic Rangers that that was not a professional feature, was useless and essentially implied I was an idiot for thinking it should be included.

There are similar dismissive comments from the Dynamic Rangers regarding wifi implementation in the 7DII.

This isn't a post about the relative merits of either feature, but rather an illustration of how the Dynamic Rangers seem unwilling to accept that any other metric might be worthwhile and that several of them are more than willing to toss about disparaging comments when someone brings up other features.

Have I tried to turn every thread into a discussion of touch-screen technology? Have I tried to raise wi-fi with every post I write?

No, because I understand something that the Dynamic Rangers seem incapable of grasping: Camera manufacturers spend millions on research in order to target their products to specific markets. If a feature I want doesn't make it, it is because the demand isn't yet great enough.

Whining on forums isn't going to change that. Rational, reasonable explanations that can persuade others can be effective over time, but when it comes to dynamic range, the rational, reasonable explanations have all been written and if it hasn't changed anyone's mind by this point, one more post of biblical proportions is unlikely to make a difference.

At some point, it's time to just give it a rest. Maybe in six months, a year or two years, the issue will bubble to the surface and a majority will demand change. Or more likely, Canon will make incremental improvements, the perceived gap will shrink and it will even less of a concern to the majority.

 

[Lee Jay]

here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....

Not true.

That's the histogram for the default conversion, which does not come close to extracting all available DR in the raw data (It's a CR2 file).

You could have large spikes on the left edge and right edge of the default conversion and a lot of clipping showing on both sides and still have plenty of DR left.

 

[Marsu42]

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2

You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop. And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys

 

[Don Haines]

here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....

Not true.

That's the histogram for the default conversion, which does not come close to extracting all available DR in the raw data (It's a CR2 file).

You could have large spikes on the left edge and right edge of the default conversion and a lot of clipping showing on both sides and still have plenty of DR left.

Interesting.... I did not know that!

So what conversion works better?

 

[Don Haines]

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2

You didn't pull down the highlights in LR, this is the one, most important thing to do when dr-limited esp. on crop. And btw you're trowing away dynamic range by not using full iso stops (your shot was @iso320) :-> ... but why try to max out your old gear when you can buy new toys

This was the straight out of the camera RAW image with no processing applied. In processing I slightly bumped up the shadows and slightly pulled down the highlights...

And I thought the native ISO's on the 60D were 160, 320, 640, etc etc it seems to have the best noise performance on those ISOs..... Should I really be using 100, 200, 400, 800 etc etc ?

 

[Lee Jay]

here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows.....

Not true.

That's the histogram for the default conversion, which does not come close to extracting all available DR in the raw data (It's a CR2 file).

You could have large spikes on the left edge and right edge of the default conversion and a lot of clipping showing on both sides and still have plenty of DR left.

Interesting.... I did not know that!

So what conversion works better?

You would have to expose so that only the pixels you want blown in the final are actually blown in the raw data. That isn't easy.

That will result in you having a lot more blown pixels in the default conversion than you want. You'll need -exposure or -highlights to get them back.

If there are dark areas you want brighter, you'll need +shadows for them.

The only real way to know if you're bumping up against the DR limits of your shot are to set -5 exposure and see if you still have some solid areas that are bright (those are almost certainly blown in the raw data) and then set enough +exposure and/or +shadows to make the darkest areas at the levels you want them in the final, and then see if they are too noisy for your taste or for you to see the detail you want in those areas.

 

[privatebydesign]

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2

Don, can you post another image of that with the clipping warnings activated?

The reason is whilst the histogram is a representation of the RAW file it is pushed into the Melissa RGB colour space that is basically Prophoto but with a different gamma curve applied to it that means you can very easily have useful information well outside the indicated range.

I have posted this comparison many times. As can be seen, the histogram is a relatively poor indicator of what information is still there!

 

[Don Haines]

EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.

agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2

Don, can you post another image of that with the clipping warnings activated?

The reason is whilst the histogram is a representation of the RAW file it has a gamma curve applied to it that means you can very easily have useful information well outside the indicated range.

I have posted this comparison many times. As can be seen, the histogram is a relatively poor indicator of what information is still there!

The clipping warning covered a very small area of the shot. You really had to watch the shadows one as you toggled it off and on to see it.... the highlights warning was just spots on the clouds.

I was using the picture as an example where the software detects clipping, yet the image is perfectly fine. My bet is that if my camera had a half stop more DR, that I would not have gotten clipping.... but that said, the resulting image would most likely have been indistinguishable from what I have now.

 

[Marsu42]

.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey). I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->