Dynamic Range vs. Exposure Range, and why the difference matters

[3kramd5]

I know, but it's still overrated. I did this on a supposed "outdated" sensor tech from a camera everyone loves to bash for DR. Heck, with alittle more time I could do this same shot on a d30.

... provided the scene doesn't exceed the capabilities of the D30.

No, provided that I understand how to get as many stops of DR I need.

If you're stacking exposures, sure. But in the case where that's impractical (e.g. motion), you're stuck with the capabilities of your equipment, which is limited on one end by the camera.

If sufficiently equipped, you can compress the dynamic range of the scene using filters (ND over bright areas, for example). But one can't always carry an entire supply room around, and at some point it comes down to the equipment you have with you.

If it indeed doesn't matter, would you willingly exchange your camera for one with, say, 3 stops of capability, all else being equal?

For me, quasi-modern cameras (e.g. my 5D2) generally have enough. But if for whatever reason I wanted to expose someone's face indoors with the lights out facing away from an open window, and simultaneously expose someone's face standing outside that window under direct sunlight, I couldn't do it without significantly altering the lighting conditions (flexibility I may have in a studio, but not in the field).

More common may be "overpower the sun" portraiture. If you don't have a powerful flash, the DR of a camera is vastly insufficient. Expand that to a wider set of subjects than a single portrait.

Having more headroom in the camera is a good thing.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Educational! Thanks for posting.

+1

 

[RLPhoto]

I know, but it's still overrated. I did this on a supposed "outdated" sensor tech from a camera everyone loves to bash for DR. Heck, with alittle more time I could do this same shot on a d30.

... provided the scene doesn't exceed the capabilities of the D30.

No, provided that I understand how to get as many stops of DR I need.

If you're stacking exposures, sure. But in the case where that's impractical (e.g. motion), you're stuck with the capabilities of your equipment, which is limited on one end by the camera.

If sufficiently equipped, you can compress the dynamic range of the scene using filters (ND over bright areas, for example). But one can't always carry an entire supply room around, and at some point it comes down to the equipment you have with you.

If it indeed doesn't matter, would you willingly exchange your camera for one with, say, 3 stops of capability, all else being equal?

For me, quasi-modern cameras (e.g. my 5D2) generally have enough. But if for whatever reason I wanted to expose someone's face indoors with the lights out facing away from an open window, and simultaneously expose someone's face standing outside that window under direct sunlight, I couldn't do it without significantly altering the lighting conditions (flexibility I may have in a studio, but not in the field).

More common may be "overpower the sun" portraiture. If you don't have a powerful flash, the DR of a camera is vastly insufficient. Expand that to a wider set of subjects than a single portrait.

Having more headroom in the camera is a good thing.

I don't believe your understanding what I'm stating. It's not about DR, its about being at the right place at the right time.

 

[3kramd5]

I don't believe your understanding what I'm stating. It's not about DR, its about being at the right place at the right time.

Being at the right place at the right time is all well and good for pro landscape photographers (or even hobbyists with ample time). But that's not most people. It's not so good for people who photograph things which don't coincide with the solar cycle, or for people who can't get out of the house before dawn or return after dusk.

Suppose someone gets home from his once-in-a-lifetime trip to... Banff for example. He downloads his pictures and is instantly disappointed at the block of white at the upper 1/3 of all his landscape frames, or at the big shadow between the trees where he knows a bear was playing with her cubs.

Technological advancements are welcome. They aren't the end-all-be-all, certainly, but they're welcome nonetheless (and not just for the lay user).

 

[RLPhoto]

I don't believe your understanding what I'm stating. It's not about DR, its about being at the right place at the right time.

Being at the right place at the right time is all well and good for pro landscape photographers (or even hobbyists with ample time). But that's not most people. It's not so good for people who photograph things which don't coincide with the solar cycle, or for people who can't get out of the house before dawn or return after dusk.

Suppose someone gets home from his once-in-a-lifetime trip to... Banff for example. He downloads his pictures and is instantly disappointed at the block of white at the upper 1/3 of all his landscape frames, or at the big shadow between the trees where he knows a bear was playing with her cubs.

Technological advancements are welcome. They aren't the end-all-be-all, certainly, but they're welcome nonetheless (and not just for the lay user).

I never said tech advancements aren't welcome. I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will. Understanding this you can determine how much DR is needed.

 

[agierke]

I never said tech advancements aren't welcome. I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will. Understanding this you can determine how much DR is needed.

ugh...thank you for stating this. this entirely sums up my feelings towards the dynamic range discussion. i get the feeling that many (not all...dont jump on me) people argue for greater dynamic range so that they dont have to worry about problem solving "photographic" problems anymore. as if greater dynamic range would free them up to shoot in any kind of light (including the absolute worst nightmare impossible situation you can think of) and the camera would be able to turn it into something resembling a good photo in good light. forget finding better light, forget planning a shot out for optimal conditions, forget lighting....ie forget technique altogether.

i'm not against tech advancements either...but it seems as though some want to forgo 150+ years worth of technique so they can get the greatest shot ever in a single frame...anytime...anywhere...any conditions.


i'm with you RLPhoto.....

 

[3kramd5]

I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

 

[V8Beast]

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

Concede defeat and try again when......

You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you're shooting with natural light, and you don't have the means/skill/will power to manipulate that light with modifiers, filters, diffusers, flash, etc., then you just have to accept that there are certain situations where you simply can't get the shot you want to get. That's just he way it goes, homie

More DR is always welcome, but unless you shoot landscapes and have little control over where and when you shoot those landscapes, I can't think of many situations where a photographer has no means of stacking the odds in their camera's favor.

 

[RLPhoto]

I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

Those are a few methods. I knew you'd get it sooner or later.

 

[3kramd5]

I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

Those are a few methods. I knew you'd get it sooner or later.

You stated technique will improve DR; those are a few methods which reduce it.

I understand working within capabilities. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you and all that. But is not this forum fundamentally about future technology, not working around the limitations of current technology?

Should I expect [CR2] about canon's next great camera which will audibly instruct you to take 60 a second exposure whilst waving your hand in front of the lens like you're burning in the darkroom?

 

[Jeff]

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

You can overexpose the negative to expose for the shadows and then either shorten the amount of time the negative is in the developer N-1 N-2 or you could transfer the negatives to a water bath during the development stage to allow the highlighted areas longer time to develop.

sorry couldn't resist

 

[psolberg]

thanks for the read. interesting. however having shot canon extensively for years and having switched to the D800 for about a year now, we can debate all the stops and number etc and DXO scores; but the fact remains that in my own personal experience NOTHING touches the D800 with a canon brand in terms of overall image quality, dynamic range as perceived by my prior experience with canon. Let's not even get about the low noise in shadow areas at base ISO which the sony/Nikon sensor delivers in a way that makes even the 1DX and 5DmKIII feel like cameras that are a generation behind where they should in this area. this has been documented extensively by now. Canon simply can't perform at low ISO in the shadows if you're really going to push that DR. And I do push it, to my dismay when shooting with a canon sensor, all I get is levels of noise and banding that are ridiculous.

I will re-evaluate my gear when the 5Dmk4 and D900 get released. until then, I an only trust my eyes and I just can't see myself shooting with anything but the D800 for nothing gives me the confidence that I will recover all the detail with the least artifacts like that camera does.

 

[sanj]

thanks for the read. interesting. however having shot canon extensively for years and having switched to the D800 for about a year now, we can debate all the stops and number etc and DXO scores; but the fact remains that in my own personal experience NOTHING touches the D800 with a canon brand in terms of overall image quality, dynamic range as perceived by my prior experience with canon. Let's not even get about the low noise in shadow areas at base ISO which the sony/Nikon sensor delivers in a way that makes even the 1DX and 5DmKIII feel like cameras that are a generation behind where they should in this area. this has been documented extensively by now. Canon simply can't perform at low ISO in the shadows if you're really going to push that DR. And I do push it, to my dismay when shooting with a canon sensor, all I get is levels of noise and banding that are ridiculous.

I will re-evaluate my gear when the 5Dmk4 and D900 get released. until then, I an only trust my eyes and I just can't see myself shooting with anything but the D800 for nothing gives me the confidence that I will recover all the detail with the least artifacts like that camera does.

I have met many people in real life and on internet who feel exactly like you....

 

[RLPhoto]

I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will.

What techniques are you referring to to improve DR? Genuinely curious, not being pointlessly argumentative.

Are you talking about post processing like your Before/After? Making brights darker and darks lighter compresses DR and improves the image, yes. There are other ways to limit the DR requirement. You can choose to shoot when the scene doesn't greatly exceed camera capabilities. You can choose to limit the scene DR as viewed through the lens with filters, or by artificially lighting the shadows.

If you don't have those options, and if the scene you photographed clips white and black, what do you do?

Those are a few methods. I knew you'd get it sooner or later.

You stated technique will improve DR; those are a few methods which reduce it.

I understand working within capabilities. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you and all that. But is not this forum fundamentally about future technology, not working around the limitations of current technology?

Should I expect [CR2] about canon's next great camera which will audibly instruct you to take 60 a second exposure whilst waving your hand in front of the lens like you're burning in the darkroom?

However you want to put it. If you plan to wait around for future tech improvements to go out and shoot, you'll be waiting quite a while.

 

[3kramd5]

If you plan to wait around for future tech improvements to go out and shoot, you'll be waiting quite a while.

lol, okay.

 

[bdunbar79]

thanks for the read. interesting. however having shot canon extensively for years and having switched to the D800 for about a year now, we can debate all the stops and number etc and DXO scores; but the fact remains that in my own personal experience NOTHING touches the D800 with a canon brand in terms of overall image quality, dynamic range as perceived by my prior experience with canon. Let's not even get about the low noise in shadow areas at base ISO which the sony/Nikon sensor delivers in a way that makes even the 1DX and 5DmKIII feel like cameras that are a generation behind where they should in this area. this has been documented extensively by now. Canon simply can't perform at low ISO in the shadows if you're really going to push that DR. And I do push it, to my dismay when shooting with a canon sensor, all I get is levels of noise and banding that are ridiculous.

I will re-evaluate my gear when the 5Dmk4 and D900 get released. until then, I an only trust my eyes and I just can't see myself shooting with anything but the D800 for nothing gives me the confidence that I will recover all the detail with the least artifacts like that camera does.

Canon WINS at the high ISO realm/sports realm. Hands down. Nikon wins at low ISO. Apparently there is better DR in Nikon sensors at low ISO. This is not reflected in sales, however. So really, nobody cares.

 

[V8Beast]

I will re-evaluate my gear when the 5Dmk4 and D900 get released. until then, I an only trust my eyes and I just can't see myself shooting with anything but the D800 for nothing gives me the confidence that I will recover all the detail with the least artifacts like that camera does.

So I take it that you're still hanging around a Canon forum waiting for rumors on the 5D4? Talk about being proactive ;D

 

[jrista]

thanks for the read. interesting. however having shot canon extensively for years and having switched to the D800 for about a year now, we can debate all the stops and number etc and DXO scores; but the fact remains that in my own personal experience NOTHING touches the D800 with a canon brand in terms of overall image quality, dynamic range as perceived by my prior experience with canon. Let's not even get about the low noise in shadow areas at base ISO which the sony/Nikon sensor delivers in a way that makes even the 1DX and 5DmKIII feel like cameras that are a generation behind where they should in this area. this has been documented extensively by now. Canon simply can't perform at low ISO in the shadows if you're really going to push that DR. And I do push it, to my dismay when shooting with a canon sensor, all I get is levels of noise and banding that are ridiculous.

I will re-evaluate my gear when the 5Dmk4 and D900 get released. until then, I an only trust my eyes and I just can't see myself shooting with anything but the D800 for nothing gives me the confidence that I will recover all the detail with the least artifacts like that camera does.

Agreed, D800 and D600 DR is amazing. The DR from current Canon cameras is nothing to shake a stick at, either, though. Keep in mind, go back five or six years, and most cameras couldn't break the 8-9 stop barrier for dynamic range. The fact that pretty much every Canon camera from the last 4-5 years is in the 11-12 stop range means they offer great dynamic range. The computer screens of most people are 8 bit, so you can only really see eight stops of DR on them anyway. Some people are lucky enough to have a 10 bit screen, and an even fewer lucky ducks have a 14-16 bit screen with a hardware LUT and hardware dithering that can almost display the 11-14 stop photos modern cameras are capable of on screen in all their full glory.

Another thing to consider is that print is still limited to maybe 7 stops at most on the best of the best paper with the highest L* and deepest dMax. More often, especially with fine art papers, you get 5 stops.

The benefit of more DR is shadow pushing or highlight recovery (usually shadow pushing) in post. In that respect, at low ISO, the D800 is certainly king, and offers two extra stops over anything from Canon. Just don't let that make you think the 5D III or any other Canon camera "sucks" though...12 stops of DR is still amazing, and will take you very far, and is more than sufficient in the vast majority of cases. There are limited sitiations where extreme DR is necessary...landscapes is one. If you have the option of night sky photography at low ISO, that could be another (i.e. extremely long exposures on a guided tracking mount could look phenomenal at ISO 200). "Mistakes" are of course another area where having super-clean shadows is a great time to have tons of extra DR. In most other situations, I'd say the desire to have good contrast overpowers the benefits of dynamic range. Increased contrast is kind of at odds with increased dynamic range...you either attenuate the contrast curve (and lose DR in the final image), or flatten the contrast curve (and gain DR, up to what your camera offers, in the final image).

 

[J.R.]

Interesting discussion. One does wonder though what would happen if Canon came close to Nikon's DR in low ISO at the cost of losing a stop or two in High ISO.

Now who would want that camera?

 

[jrista]

Interesting discussion. One does wonder though what would happen if Canon came close to Nikon's DR in low ISO at the cost of losing a stop or two in High ISO.

Now who would want that camera?

Why at the cost of losing a stop or two High ISO? The two are achieved via different means. I don't think the mechanisms by which Canon could improve Low ISO performance would by necessity eliminate the gains they have made at High ISO. The best of both worlds could be had if Canon can figure out how to reduce their read noise.