Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data

[J.R.]

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image

Maybe you should learn to convert and process your files properly.

I always thought wedding photographers make use of reflectors to avoid such classic lighting problems? That was what my wedding photographer did to get a beautifully exposed shot with the sunburst and blue sky behind us. Oh, he was using the Canon 5D classic.

Oh, here is another example: http://www.mattgranger.com/light. Matt has mostly Nikon gear.

You are absolutely right, except that generally those here suggesting the Exmor tech can do a better job don't want to be bothered with fill, they want to be able to use every ounce of the extensive latitude in the Nikon file.

They will of course will be lifting data that has recorded virtually no light, so the photographer using 'old' tech such as a 5D or D200 and sound technique will produce a much higher quality image.

So what happens if you use sound technique with both Canon and Nikon ? You get pretty much the same image. A well lit and correctly exposed image will always triumph over the same one which has been poorly lit and under exposed.

Sensible post alert! You talk too much sense Sporgon and it's not likely to go down well with the ABC crowd.

Photography is all about light and handling thereof. Light is "lightly" tossed aside by the people giving examples of the benefits of an exxmor sensor.

I can understand someone complaining about DR for landscapes (not taking into account that DR in most landscapes will exceed even the what the exxmor provides). But why someone shooting in a controlled environment should complain about DR is beyond comprehension.

 

[V8Beast]

Being a pro generally means earning your living by practising your craft.
Many amateurs are more skilled than most pros.

That's a rather bold statement, don't you think? IMHO, some amateurs are more skilled some pros. If most pros were less skilled than many amateurs, then they would have gone out of business a long time ago. In fact, many of they already have, which means that all you'd have left are pros that produce exceptional work.

I've noticed this in my tiny corner of the photography world, and I'm sure it's happening in other segments as well. There was a time when many so-called pros were merely hacks with the right equipment and the right contacts. After the digital revolution, clients quickly realized that they could hire amateurs that produced equally good or better images at a fraction of the cost, or even for free.

With this new wave of cheap/free labor, the old-school "pros" that fell under the "hack" category are out of business, so the ratio of hacks to studs in the "pro" category continues to plummet as time elapses.

 

[3kramd5]

A 1DX with a 400mm f2.8 IS MkII and a trip to Manhattan beach doesn't make you a surf photographer.

Agreed. Surf photographers know to aim about 50 miles further down the 405.

 

[msm]

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image

Maybe you should learn to convert and process your files properly.

He does raise a valid concern. While Canons DR usually may be sufficient in 95+% of the time assuming you expose optimally, when you correct for the heavy vignetting of big aperture primes the extra latitude you got goes straight down the drain in the corners.

 

[zlatko]

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:

It sounds like you are blaming the camera for bad technique or possibly a combination of bad techniques. A 24/1.4 has 3EV vignetting in the corners only, and only when shot at f/1.4. Where you shooting at f/1.4 and were your subjects in the very corner of the frame? If so, why? If not, then why correct for 3EV of vignetting? At f/2.8, the vignetting is just over 1EV and that's only in the corners. I would not correct that at all. At f/4, vignetting is under 1EV in the corners.

Also, vignetting is part of the look of shooting an f/1.4 prime at f/1.4. It's not something you correct, or at least not fully correct. If you don't want heavy vignetting, you *don't* shoot at f/1.4. Instead, you stop down. If there is more than one person in the frame, you stop down at least a little anyway just to be sure they are all in focus. This is not even getting into the question of why one would even choose a wide angle 24mm lens if one wants shallow depth of field.

Saving the sky and clouds usually doesn't require underexposing by 1.5 stops. Are you using Highlight Tone Priority? That saves some of the sky/cloud highlights. Are you using any fill? Use just a little bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and you are reducing the need to brighten a photo in post. One stop of brightening is usually perfectly OK, while 4.5 stops of brightening is not OK. Requiring a photo to withstand 4.5 stops of brightening in post looks to be the result of a combination of mistakes.

Finally, I wonder about the processing technique here. Was any noise reduction applied?

 

[sarangiman]

It sounds like you are blaming the camera for bad technique or possibly a combination of bad techniques. A 24/1.4 has 3EV vignetting in the corners only, and only when shot at f/1.4. Where you shooting at f/1.4 and were your subjects in the very corner of the frame? If so, why? If not, then why correct for 3EV of vignetting? At f/2.8, the vignetting is just over 1EV and that's only in the corners. I would not correct that at all. At f/4, vignetting is under 1EV in the corners.

Also, vignetting is part of the look of shooting an f/1.4 prime at f/1.4. It's not something you correct, or at least not fully correct. If you don't want heavy vignetting, you *don't* shoot at f/1.4. Instead, you stop down. If there is more than one person in the frame, you stop down at least a little anyway just to be sure they are all in focus. This is not even getting into the question of why one would even choose a wide angle 24mm lens if one wants shallow depth of field.

Saving the sky and clouds usually doesn't require underexposing by 1.5 stops. Are you using Highlight Tone Priority? That saves some of the sky/cloud highlights. Are you using any fill? Use just a little bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and you are reducing the need to brighten a photo in post. One stop of brightening is usually perfectly OK, while 4.5 stops of brightening is not OK. Requiring a photo to withstand 4.5 stops of brightening in post looks to be the result of a combination of mistakes.

Finally, I wonder about the processing technique here. Was any noise reduction applied?

All of your points don't counter my concern that I find Canon's DR limiting. The point of technology is to 'get out of the way', not limit your creativity by placing constraints on your work. Sure, sometimes those constraints lead to valid solutions, but you just can't argue that having those constraints is better than not having them.

Reading your post, I'm not sure you fully appreciate the uses of fast primes. Are you suggesting I shoot f/1.4 primes at f/2.8, thereby throwing away what I consider the entire advantage of shallow DOF primes that isolate subjects to create that '3D' look? Why would I do that? If I didn't care about the f/1.4 look, I'd just shoot with the stellar 24-70 f/2.8...

Why choose a wide angle for shallow DOF? You're kidding... 24mm at f/1.4 can create a look, despite not having as shallow DOF as, say, 85/1.4, that you just can't get with slower lenses. To me, that's the entire point of f/1.4 primes. You use f/1.4 paired with your favorite focal lengths to get as much subject isolation as possible.

I will literally align people in the same plane and align myself normal to their plane so I can shoot 24mm or 35mm at f/1.4 without stopping down. I will keep shooting and re-aligning and re-shooting, checking focus across all subjects, just so I can get that 'look'. You'll note that my subject is in focus, even though that's the right extreme of the frame. Center subjects are also in focus. You can do that at f/1.4 if you know what you're doing, and still get the subject isolation of f/1.4. Because that's what I want, and so everything I said above is what I choose to do rather than stopping down.

That's what I prioritize. I'm not going to stop down b/c of vignetting and give up that look.

Furthermore, that example above is not even fully corrected vignetting - it's only set to '50' on the vignetting slider (100 is full correction). At full correction (100), it's even more hideous; but I brightened here 'to taste'.

And generally - I like vignetting. I even like shadows and blacks. It's just that there are occasions where I don't want them. And there's freedom in not having to worry about read noise.

HTP? I shoot manual, and Raw. You may wish to refresh yourself on how HTP actually works - it would've done absolutely nothing for me here. HTP applies a different tone curve; it's not like it's some sort of non-linear hardware amplification. I define my own tone curve in processing the Raw - HTP is irrelevant.

No NR applied - but that's also my point. I wouldn't need any NR at all with my D810. And you do realize that NR comes at a detail cost, right?

I use reflectors, and off-camera flash and umbrellas and soft boxes and all - when I definitely want those looks. But there are times even outside of landscapes that I run into Canon's read noise, and I'm just saying that there are real alternatives that have existed for years that circumvent this entire issue.

Most of you have valid points; it's just that my point is also valid - that it's limiting. Arguing against that is just, well, perplexing.

 

[sarangiman]

Saving the sky and clouds usually doesn't require underexposing by 1.5 stops. Are you using Highlight Tone Priority? That saves some of the sky/cloud highlights. Are you using any fill? Use just a little bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and you are reducing the need to brighten a photo in post. One stop of brightening is usually perfectly OK, while 4.5 stops of brightening is not OK. Requiring a photo to withstand 4.5 stops of brightening in post looks to be the result of a combination of mistakes.

Finally, I wonder about the processing technique here. Was any noise reduction applied?

Really? I typically run into skies where I have to underexpose by 3 stops or more.

And 4.5 stops is not OK? But it is on many cameras today; that's my point. Let me put it this way: do you ever shoot at ISO 2200? B/c that's ISO 100 underexposed by 4.5 stops. So if shooting around ISO 2000 is acceptable to you, then underexposing ISO 100 by 4.5 stops shouldn't be 'not OK'. You may as well as criticize everyone who shoots above ISO 1600.

Also, I underexposed by about 1.5 stops compared to what the meter would've chosen here, IIRC. The extra 3 stops came from vignetting - so I didn't even choose to underexpose by 4.5 stops here...

 

[takesome1]

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:

I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).

So if the D810 was the right tool as a professional why were you not using it.
You were shooting the 24/1.4 lens wide open to get -3EV vignetting?
Stop it down a bit, you obviously had enough light you didn't need to shoot wide open.
Your problem solved.

 

[sarangiman]

So if the D810 was the right tool as a professional why were you not using it.
You were shooting the 24/1.4 lens wide open to get -3EV vignetting?
Stop it down a bit, you obviously had enough light you didn't need to shoot wide open.
Your problem solved.

Yes, let's take a prime lens and then completely kill what I consider to be its prime advantage (pun intended)... read what I wrote above re: how I shoot primes.

As for your D810 remark: (1) it didn't exist when I took this particular shot; (2) that's my entire point - this is *one* of many reasons I finally made the switch. 3D focus tracking being the other main reason, and things like:

• Programmable Auto ISO (with exposure compensation)
• Face detection AF
• Spot-metering linked to AF point
• Face-biased metering
• ISO 64 for base ISO shadows that are even cleaner than the D800
• Almost twice as many pixels

... all being icing on the cake.

 

[Etienne]

Saving the sky and clouds usually doesn't require underexposing by 1.5 stops. Are you using Highlight Tone Priority? That saves some of the sky/cloud highlights. Are you using any fill? Use just a little bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and you are reducing the need to brighten a photo in post. One stop of brightening is usually perfectly OK, while 4.5 stops of brightening is not OK. Requiring a photo to withstand 4.5 stops of brightening in post looks to be the result of a combination of mistakes.

Finally, I wonder about the processing technique here. Was any noise reduction applied?

Really? I typically run into skies where I have to underexpose by 3 stops or more.

And 4.5 stops is not OK? But it is on many cameras today; that's my point. Let me put it this way: do you ever shoot at ISO 2200? B/c that's ISO 100 underexposed by 4.5 stops. So if shooting around ISO 2000 is acceptable to you, then underexposing ISO 100 by 4.5 stops shouldn't be 'not OK'. You may as well as criticize everyone who shoots above ISO 1600.

Also, I underexposed by about 1.5 stops compared to what the meter would've chosen here, IIRC. The extra 3 stops came from vignetting - so I didn't even choose to underexpose by 4.5 stops here...

Following this discussion, there are good points on both sides.
I'll take every bit of improvement a camera can offer, including 18 stops of DR if they can do it, so that's great that the D810 sensor gives a bit more leeway. But that doesn't define the entire system, both have their advantages. The Canon 5DIII is an amazing all-round performer that does better video, without moire or aliasing, better low light performance, excellent color rendition, excellent AF, a better selection of high end lenses (IMHO), better ergonomics (again IMHO), and that's before we talk about magic lantern or the fact that the 1Dx is deadly or that the 5DIV will be here long before the next Nikon.
Either system can deliver great results, and in most cases indistinguishable. This sometimes sounds like a left-twix vs right-twix war.

 

[sarangiman]

Following this discussion, there are good points on both sides.
I'll take every bit of improvement a camera can offer, including 18 stops of DR if they can do it, so that's great that the D810 sensor gives a bit more leeway. But that doesn't define the entire system, both have their advantages. The Canon 5DIII is an amazing all-round performer that does better video, without moire or aliasing, better low light performance, excellent color rendition, excellent AF, a better selection of high end lenses (IMHO), better ergonomics (again IMHO), and that's before we talk about magic lantern or the fact that the 1Dx is deadly or that the 5DIV will be here long before the next Nikon.
Either system can deliver great results, and in most cases indistinguishable. This sometimes sounds like a left-twix vs right-twix war.

Yes, finally, some reasonable talk. Thank you.

Although, I will caution you on two things: the D810 has just as good ISO performance as the 5D3, so the latter is not better in low light. And, for me, the D810 has much better AF (b/c of subject tracking using the metering sensor), though I understand that may not be of importance to everyone.

Preliminary videos of the D810 vs. 5D3 suggest the former is sharper, though you'd expect that from newer generation tech. The 5D3 did have a leg up on the D800 in low light video.

I don't know about 'a bit more leeway'. ISO 64 on the D810 gives you something on the order of the DR/latitude you'd expect from a Pentax 645z (Sony's new MF sensor) at ISO 100. It's rather incredible. I find it very difficult to ever see the noise floor in any of my shots on the D810.

 

[takesome1]

So if the D810 was the right tool as a professional why were you not using it.
You were shooting the 24/1.4 lens wide open to get -3EV vignetting?
Stop it down a bit, you obviously had enough light you didn't need to shoot wide open.
Your problem solved.

Yes, let's take a prime lens and then completely kill what I consider to be its prime advantage (pun intended)... read what I wrote above re: how I shoot primes.

As for your D810 remark: (1) it didn't exist when I took this particular shot; (2) that's my entire point - this is *one* of many reasons I finally made the switch. 3D focus tracking being the other main reason, and things like:

• Programmable Auto ISO (with exposure compensation)
• Face detection AF
• Spot-metering linked to AF point
• Face-biased metering
• ISO 64 for base ISO shadows that are even cleaner than the D800
• Almost twice as many pixels

... all being icing on the cake.

Went back and read your prime explanation. Stoping down the 24mm II in this situation you are not throwing away the prime advantage. One of its advantages over the 24-70 II would be the reduced vignetting. A few years ago the 24-70 II did not exist. A few years back the 24 1.4 II would have given you the best available IQ regardless of what F/stop short of going to a TSE. That is a prime advantage.

That said if you knew your equipment and this lens you would know that the 24mm f/1.4 II looses IQ quickly below 2.0. I would never shoot that lens at f/1.4 and expect great results. Even at 1.4 the bokeh you would get was almost none and you said you wanted sky.

Still you had the wrong tool if you wanted great bokeh at a wide angle. The 35mm F/1.4 would be the better choice.

While there may be a DR difference between the two bodies I find your sample picture and complaint lacking. It was skill, lack of understanding and knowledge of your equipment that created your problem.

 

[zlatko]

Saving the sky and clouds usually doesn't require underexposing by 1.5 stops. Are you using Highlight Tone Priority? That saves some of the sky/cloud highlights. Are you using any fill? Use just a little bit of fill flash (or a reflector) and you are reducing the need to brighten a photo in post. One stop of brightening is usually perfectly OK, while 4.5 stops of brightening is not OK. Requiring a photo to withstand 4.5 stops of brightening in post looks to be the result of a combination of mistakes.

Finally, I wonder about the processing technique here. Was any noise reduction applied?

Really? I typically run into skies where I have to underexpose by 3 stops or more.

And 4.5 stops is not OK? But it is on many cameras today; that's my point. Let me put it this way: do you ever shoot at ISO 2200? B/c that's ISO 100 underexposed by 4.5 stops. So if shooting around ISO 2000 is acceptable to you, then underexposing ISO 100 by 4.5 stops shouldn't be 'not OK'. You may as well as criticize everyone who shoots above ISO 1600.

Also, I underexposed by about 1.5 stops compared to what the meter would've chosen here, IIRC. The extra 3 stops came from vignetting - so I didn't even choose to underexpose by 4.5 stops here...

You underexpose your subject by 3 stops or more to save detail in the sky? OK, I never do that.

Using a combination of the Highlight Tone Priority setting, a bit of fill flash or reflector, and Lightroom's highlight slider, the sky is pretty much taken care of. In any event, I am always prioritizing exposure for the subject, never for the sky. Even on the sunniest days, the subject is what's important.

To be clear, was that crop you posted from the edge of the frame, shot at f/1.4 and pushed a total of 4.5 stops? If so, that's probably a combination of errors and unrealistic expectations:
- you shot a wide angle at f/1.4 and yet wanted *zero* vignetting in the final photo;
- you chose a wide angle lens and yet wanted the most subject isolation possible (f/1.4);
- you placed portrait subjects in the most vignetted (& most distorted) part of the 24mm frame;
- you shot without any fill, so your subjects were needlessly dark in relation to the sky;
- you shot at ISO 100 (?); if so, the Highlight Tone Priority feature was unavailable;
- even (presumably) knowing noise & vignetting characteristics of your camera & lens combination, you risked having to discard the entire portrait in order to "save" the out-of-focus clouds and sky.

Never in the history of photo technology was pushing a portrait exposure by 4.5 stops in post production considered good technique. Dynamic range was *always* a limitation in photography, and it was always the photographer's job to deal with it. Corner vignetting of fast lenses was considered part of their charm and a good compromise for low light; if one didn't want vignetting there was always the option to stop down and add more light or use a different lens. It's awesome that a few cameras let you make such heroic fixes now, but that's relying on technology to fix an accumulation of photographer errors. That doesn't actually illustrate a bad sensor design.

Shooting around ISO 2000 is more than acceptable to me with cameras like the 5D3 and 6D with basic processing in Lightroom. ISO 2000 looks sweet and definitely does't show the artifacts you're showing in that crop. But then I'm not underexposing by 1.5 stops and then fixing 3 stops of vignetting.

 

[privatebydesign]

I just want to see the full image, with faces blanked out if need be. I have some interesting images I'd share sometime, but this one is intriguing me.

 

[sarangiman]

zlatko:

It's not 'unreal expectations' when I can do it on my D810. Which is my entire point. I *can* shoot 24/1.4 and get zero vignetting in post-processing.

Also I do shoot 35/1.4 (and 85/1.4) if you must know, but I, surprisingly, actually like to use different FOV for different shots. Imagine that!

You don't understand how HTP works - it does nothing to the Raw file when you shoot manual.

And you still don't get it - 5 stop pushes are fine and not 'bad technique' if you're doing it to save highlights. And totally possible with good sensors.

And ultimately, for sensors with little to no read noise, it's almost the same thing as shooting ISO 3200. So if you don't consider it unacceptable to shoot ISO 3200, then you can't say it's unreasonable to shoot ISO 100 & underexpose by 5 stops -- as long as you're doing it for a reason (say to protect highlights).

Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to be able to wrap your head around what I'm saying until you understand how these sensors/cameras work.

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

 

[sarangiman]

Went back and read your prime explanation. Stoping down the 24mm II in this situation you are not throwing away the prime advantage.

You and I differ entirely on what we consider to be the prime advantage of a prime.

A clean sensor means I don't have to worry about about noise when fixing vignetting in those cases where I don't want it. Which means I can continue to reap the other benefits of shooting at f/1.4. That's called 'technology getting out of the way'.

And this doesn't even begin to get at the landscape benefits. But that's kind of my point of presenting this case - lower noise sensors open up opportunities for many types of shooting.

 

[Etienne]

zlatko:

It's not 'unreal expectations' when I can do it on my D810. Which is my entire point. I *can* shoot 24/1.4 and get zero vignetting in post-processing.

Also I do shoot 35/1.4 (and 85/1.4) if you must know, but I, surprisingly, actually like to use different FOV for different shots. Imagine that!

You don't understand how HTP works - it does nothing to the Raw file when you shoot manual.

And you still don't get it - 5 stop pushes are fine and not 'bad technique' if you're doing it to save highlights. And totally possible with good sensors.

And ultimately, for sensors with little to no read noise, it's almost the same thing as shooting ISO 3200. So if you don't consider it unacceptable to shoot ISO 3200, then you can't say it's unreasonable to shoot ISO 100 & underexpose by 5 stops -- as long as you're doing it for a reason (say to protect highlights).

Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to be able to wrap your head around what I'm saying until you understand how these sensors/cameras work.

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

I get it that the D810 sensor is nifty.
But, why didn't you use a fill flash on that? It would have solved all of your problems, and you should probably have a flash on your camera at all times for outdoor portraits, especially weddings.
Were you just trying to rescue a bad error?
This is a legitimate question. Fill flash for outdoor portraits, pretty standard.

 

[zlatko]

zlatko:

It's not 'unreal expectations' when I can do it on my D810. Which is my entire point. I *can* shoot 24/1.4 and get zero vignetting in post-processing.

Also I do shoot 35/1.4 (and 85/1.4) if you must know, but I, surprisingly, actually like to use different FOV for different shots. Imagine that!

You don't understand how HTP works - it does nothing to the Raw file when you shoot manual.

And you still don't get it - 5 stop pushes are fine and not 'bad technique' if you're doing it to save highlights. And totally possible with good sensors.

And ultimately, for sensors with little to no read noise, it's almost the same thing as shooting ISO 3200. So if you don't consider it unacceptable to shoot ISO 3200, then you can't say it's unreasonable to shoot ISO 100 & underexpose by 5 stops -- as long as you're doing it for a reason (say to protect highlights).

Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to be able to wrap your head around what I'm saying until you understand how these sensors/cameras work.

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

The same sunlight and the same contrast range has existed since the beginnings of photography. Fortunately, photographers developed various good techniques for handling the very same problems that you encountered. For 150+ years, underexposing by 5 stops was never one of them.

Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4. So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors. Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work. Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure. For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.

I understand how these sensors/cameras work well enough *not* to make fundamentally bad decisions that lead to the problem you're showing in that crop. I certainly wouldn't switch systems over a self-created and easily avoidable problem.

 

[sarangiman]

I get it that the D810 sensor is nifty.
But, why didn't you use a fill flash on that? It would have solved all of your problems, and you should probably have a flash on your camera at all times for outdoor portraits, especially weddings.
Were you just trying to rescue a bad error?
This is a legitimate question. Fill flash for outdoor portraits, pretty standard.

Huh? Who set that standard (re: fill flash being 'standard')?

I had two 600EX-RT flashes on me and an emitter. I chose not to use it here (but used it later) b/c I didn't want unnatural lighting for this particular shot.

You do realize that fill & flashes create the sense of a separate light source that doesn't make that much sense when you have the sun behind your subjects, right?

That said, it can still create some cool & dramatic lighting, which I've used for environmental portraits.

I just didn't want it in this shot.

Why you're asking something so OT to my original point, is a better question.

 

[sarangiman]

The same sunlight and the same contrast range has existed since the beginnings of photography. Fortunately, photographers developed various good techniques for handling the very same problems that you encountered. For 150+ years, underexposing by 5 stops was never one of them.

Right, exactly, and that's the wonder of technological progress. It opens up freedom and opportunities.

Or are you one of those that still thinks slide film had enough (input) DR?

Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4. So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors. Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work. Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure. For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.

No, they haven't 'aligned' anything. They just have chosen not to update their sensor fab/design.

When something introduces noise into your signal, it's not 'aligning' with those people who don't need cleaner signals. It's just not evolving.

You wouldn't say a noisier analog tape back in the day was 'aligning' with any particular crowd, now, would you?

I understand how these sensors/cameras work well enough *not* to make fundamentally bad decisions that lead to the problem you're showing in that crop. I certainly wouldn't switch systems over a self-created and easily avoidable problem.

You still just don't fundamentally understand the idea of better technology opening up creative potential. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those that looks at light field technology and is like 'who needs to refocus?' - ignoring all the revolutionary possibilities that tech brings.

Using reflectors/flash and changing your the nature of the light is one way to deal with this problem, sure. Overexposing and just letting the sky blow is another one (which is what I did, in this situation, in a separate shot). Switching systems for this and many other benefits is another.

All are valid solutions. You really can't argue that the last option above doesn't open up doors, though.

And all of you with your solutions and suggestions - have you never, ever had an underexposed image by mistake b/c of, say, strong backlight? And you were shooting so fast to capture the moment that you didn't have a chance to correct the exposure on the spot?

If you've never encountered this situation, you're either unreasonably good, or a liar.

Also - you do realize a flash/reflector would've done nothing for the noise and banding in the background, right?