Most dynamic range test I have read seems to set the standard of a 6 stop push in relation to good dynamic range. I have really never needed more than a couple of stops, however now that I have the 1DX2 I thought I would give it a try just to see if I could do it. I took this shot of a sunrise and exposed for the sky which made the trees and the remaining landscape black. When I opened the image in ACR I only had to push the exposure .2 stops. I did boost the shadows to 100% and I am sure that is equivalent to a couple of extra stops Which would mean that I had an overall push of what, 2.5 stops? I just can't see myself ever really needing more than this. Does anyone have an example of an image where they needed a full 6 stop push?
example of 6 stop push in post
- Thread starter jaayres20
- Start date
Is this result only with the post process you mention? No noise reduction? Vibrance? saturation? sharpness? Because I see a great result.
I think that in 99% of the cases, if you are a photographer with some knowledge, you won't need a 6 stops push. Even in the most challenging condition of contrast, if you want a "real looking" result you are not going to push so many stops.
I think that in 99% of the cases, if you are a photographer with some knowledge, you won't need a 6 stops push. Even in the most challenging condition of contrast, if you want a "real looking" result you are not going to push so many stops.
Upvote
0
The advice when using NDs for sunsets is to use a filter that gives 2 stop difference between sky and land which pretty much matches what you have shown.
But I guess if the camera can be pushed 6 stops it will have fewer artefacts in a 2-stop push than a camera capable of a only 4-stop push. And these artefacts may be noise or may be colour shifts.
But I guess if the camera can be pushed 6 stops it will have fewer artefacts in a 2-stop push than a camera capable of a only 4-stop push. And these artefacts may be noise or may be colour shifts.
Upvote
0
sebasan said:
His screenshot suggests he adjusted a bit more than just exposure and shadows.
Upvote
0
dcm said:
Doesn't alter the lift. In fact raising contrast and clarity (mid tone contrast) would actually hurt it.
However jaayres20 Old Pal, you haven't played fair. You exposed to just hold those highlights in the sky. What's the good of that ? You could have under exposed them by five stops just to be sure that nothing was within five stops of being blown. Just because you have a nice new 1DxII with a meter in it doesn't mean you have to sail so close to the wind ! Now if you'd under exposed by the correct amount you'd then be looking at a seven stop lift, and the 1DxII can't do it ! Seems like you need one of the guys from DPR to come and show you how to under expose properly.
Anyway, even though you've cheated it's a very pleasing shot ! And yes, I'd say 100% shadow lift in ACR is about 2 stops depending on where the dark tones have started from, so I'd say you were under 2.5 stops lift.
Upvote
0
The Shadow and Highlight sliders are not linear, they are smart and depend on the image tonal values.
Having said that if you put a step wedge in LR and lift shadows +100 then Zone 1 goes to Zone IV, a three stop lift. Same with the Highlights slider which you applied a three stop pull to.
You also lifted exposure by 1/5 stop, so you have a combined 3.2 stop lift and a 2.8 stop pull. That is a six stop change in tonality.
Having said that if you put a step wedge in LR and lift shadows +100 then Zone 1 goes to Zone IV, a three stop lift. Same with the Highlights slider which you applied a three stop pull to.
You also lifted exposure by 1/5 stop, so you have a combined 3.2 stop lift and a 2.8 stop pull. That is a six stop change in tonality.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
jaayres20 said:
Not sure about six stops, but I can see cases where others might need more than your example shows.
I recall an example from a couple of years ago provided by JRista, in which he was trying to duplicate a scene of backlit sunflowers near sunset and realized that his Canon (I believe he was using a 5DIII) was simply not up to the task. The difference between his example and yours was the need to maintain maximum detail and decent brightness in the flowers (your scene does not require as much exposure in the grass) and, I believe, the sun was a bit higher in the sky and brighter.
At the time, many were critical of his criticism of Canon sensors (myself included). I now realize that was unfair and I was wrong. (belated apology JRista)
You've asked about conditions where a six stop push might be needed. I don't know about six stops, but I'll use my own real life example. I shoot a lot of sports for one client. I can assure you that capturing the facial details of an African-American baseball player who is wearing a ball cap that shades his face and also a newly laundered bright white uniform at mid-day on a sunny day will leave you wanting every bit of dynamic range possible.
Six stops? Maybe not. And yes, I can still successfully process such images and get good results, but that doesn't mean I don't desire more range and flexibility.
I'm pleased that the 1DX II has greater dynamic range.
It's about time to put this whole discussion to bed and move on.
Upvote
0
If you want images that look like this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14773.msg431465#msg431465 then maybe you have a point, I don't!
But I do take the point, and always have, that more DR can't hurt and I'll welcome it when it arrives. Having said that I do not have that many times when one or two stops more DR would make that much difference, I often need five six or seven stops more, but one or two I can normally fairly easily mitigate with good technique.
I also know the wedding/event shooters where they have a flash misfire or very fast changing light where the perfect timed image isn't the perfectly exposed image can have a requirement for noise free shadow lifting.
But the DR thing has been done to death and there seems to be little difference in the various manufacturers cameras at this time, so we'll have to find something else to get all religious about.
But I do take the point, and always have, that more DR can't hurt and I'll welcome it when it arrives. Having said that I do not have that many times when one or two stops more DR would make that much difference, I often need five six or seven stops more, but one or two I can normally fairly easily mitigate with good technique.
I also know the wedding/event shooters where they have a flash misfire or very fast changing light where the perfect timed image isn't the perfectly exposed image can have a requirement for noise free shadow lifting.
But the DR thing has been done to death and there seems to be little difference in the various manufacturers cameras at this time, so we'll have to find something else to get all religious about.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
privatebydesign said:
Absolutely agree. And, no, those aren't my cup of tea either. Thanks for finding those. My point was simply that someone had a reason why they wanted more dynamic range and I was far too critical of that desire at the time. I'm not very good at it, but when I realize I'm wrong, I try to admit it, rather than double down – which seems to be a common trait on the internet. (now about Canon's failure to produce a radio receiver for 580EX strobes...JUST KIDDING!!!! I put that baby to bed long ago.
I think I'll save that to the clipboard and make it a standard response. Frankly I'd like to take all the "lens cap photographers" and all the "only an idiot needs more dynamic range" folks and lock them all in a room with 100 hungry tigers. Except that would be unfair to the tigers.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Jaayres' reflexive use of the pronoun "myself" here indicates that they are, in fact, referring only to themselves - no other parties are referenced.
unfocused said:
Who is making assumptions here?
unfocused said:
The OP neither extrapolates nor makes the claims you've invented here. It is you, in fact, extrapolating what is written in their post.
unfocused said:
Go on then...put it to bed and move on!
Upvote
0
jaayres20 said:
Hi Jaayres, I shoot with a 1Dx and generally encounter very few situations where I might want to recover more than a couple of stops of details from the shadows. One scenario where I've wanted more than the camera could deliver has involved shooting the northern lights in Iceland, where I've been trying to limit my shutter speed so the shape and pattern of the aurora isn't lost in a blurred smudge (the aurora can move quite quickly sometimes) and stars are preserved as point sources. But this means bumping up the ISO higher than I'd like, making subsequent shadow recovery very noisy, and some of the darkest parts of the image just end up unrecoverable.
Ideally I might instead capture two exposures to be blended later, one for the lights/sky, and another for the landscape/foreground, but there are occasions where the aurora is very active and I've had to decide between following up my 10/15/20 second exposure with a longer one for the landscape/foreground, or reframing my scene because the aurora is more now more active in different part of the sky.
This is an extreme example for me, and as I said I generally find the 1Dx to be fine, but I do on occasion wish I could get more from the files.
Cheers,
d.
Upvote
0
Hi Jaayres20, I'd be curious to see what the same file would look like with nothing applied except a 6 stop push. I know most of the image would be blown out, but I'm curious as to how bright the darkest parts would look.
Upvote
0
Hi unfocused.
Mistakes are easily made, what is much harder is putting your hand up and admitting and apologising for that mistake, the world would be a much nicer place if more people were big enough to admit and apologise for their mistakes. Kudos to you for doing just that.
I'm quite surprised that this discussion has remained civilised given the topic, well done to all contributors for that, it is what keeps me coming back to this forum, thanks.
Cheers, Graham.
Mistakes are easily made, what is much harder is putting your hand up and admitting and apologising for that mistake, the world would be a much nicer place if more people were big enough to admit and apologise for their mistakes. Kudos to you for doing just that.
I'm quite surprised that this discussion has remained civilised given the topic, well done to all contributors for that, it is what keeps me coming back to this forum, thanks.
Cheers, Graham.
unfocused said:
Upvote
0
Valvebounce said:
Very true. I hope I can follow unfocused's example, makes the site a much nicer place to come.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:It is a bit odd, however, to call Unfocused out for speaking for the OP and, in response to his mea culpa, speaking for the OP yourself
The OP made some statements pertaining to his own experiences and needs. Unfocused responded negatively as if the OP was speaking on behalf of many, which clearly wasn't the case. I didn't speak for the OP or respondent, simply pointed out the misinterpretation and unfairness of the reply. Quite simple - nothing odd.
Upvote
0
d said:3kramd5 said:It is a bit odd, however, to call Unfocused out for speaking for the OP and, in response to his mea culpa, speaking for the OP yourself
The OP made some statements pertaining to his own experiences and needs. Unfocused responded negatively as if the OP was speaking on behalf of many, which clearly wasn't the case. I didn't speak for the OP or respondent, simply pointed out the misinterpretation and unfairness of the reply. Quite simple - nothing odd.
Yes, he responded as if he was sure the OP was speaking globally rather than individually. Similarly, you're sure the OP appreciates the edit even though there is no indication he even cared one way or another about the original.
FWIW you were spot on in your response; the OP explicitly was speaking of his own experince. And you're right, it's not odd, rather "I'm sure the OP appreciates [it]" is merely amusing in this context.
Upvote
0
