- Mar 2, 2012
Yes, hence “the more light...”Kit. said:Actually, that part of the shot noise belongs to the lighter pixels,
Likely because people quite discuss the noise which can be addressed by design (that introduced by the system). Shot noise is a property of light.Kit. said:while people are more interested in darker pixels when they are talking about sensor's DR.
You have me rightly confused now. Firstly, a photo I take is not irrelevant because someone else is capable and equipped to take it better. Were that the basis, literally every photograph I’ve ever taken would be irrelevant because I’m not “the best” photographer nor do I have “the best” gear.Kit. said:3. The scene is repeatable and someone with higher DR gear may capture it better, making your shot irrelevant.
Only the 3rd case is really about "the more the better" in relation to the subject's question
Secondly, the it is the 1st case relates to the subject question as I interpret it. I’ll paraphrase as “how much dynamic range capability is enough that in practicality you won’t encounter scenes which exceed the limit of the photography?” That’s a moving target, but I am not convinced that “more is better” is a flawed position. For me, most scenes I shoot are within gear limits, either because I light them myself or shoot under less extreme conditions. However I often shoot the moon, and have to stack due to the massive tonal range between the illuminated parts and the shadowed parts which I can not affect.
It was not worth overwriting the autocorrect.Kit. said:(and by the way, the binary logarithm of exposure is EV. eV is "electron-volts", a measure of energy)
You do if that’s the photograph you’re trying to create.Kit. said:In the real world, the details in the dark foreground and the details in the light background are parts of different scenes, and you don't need to be able to match them together. In the picture, they are parts of the same composition.