A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 16th 08, 12:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
40D.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
other than cropping.
Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
detail, but are not quite down to true black.

I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.


Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...wn%20world.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?
  #2  
Old September 16th 08, 02:01 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
+FUCK YOU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL

"Noons" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
40D.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
other than cropping.
Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
detail, but are not quite down to true black.

I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.


Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...wn%20world.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


  #3  
Old September 16th 08, 02:36 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

+**** YOU wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 11:01 PM:
HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL


It's not upside down, dip****. But you're
too stupid to realize that, aren't you?
Go back to school, moron.
  #4  
Old September 17th 08, 01:44 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:31 AM:
On Sep 16, 7:31 am, Noons wrote:

I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


Lotsa blown highlights there. Thanks for illustrating my point.


There is not a single highlight blown in there.
Thanks for demonstrating you don't have a clue what a
blown highlight is.
  #5  
Old September 17th 08, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:

In the first one
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
the reduced size image.


Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise.
And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
a good anti-film rant, shall we?

The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
them.


Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you
expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...

If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
much DR at all.


Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me
with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple
raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
digital mush.

The other two photos don't show any more DR.


Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?


I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.


Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old
non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
is NOT an example of high dr.


Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
scene, hard to know.


Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
I won't post it because it might shock Rita...

  #6  
Old September 17th 08, 02:13 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:



Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.


Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
Thanks, I certainly shall!



Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


It does:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/
  #7  
Old September 17th 08, 07:33 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!


"Scott W" wrote:

I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance gets out
of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose beyond what they
are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible thing to do, the film mfrs
would say so. But they don't.


Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.


Hehe. Sounds about right.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #8  
Old September 19th 08, 12:40 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:56 PM:

Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.

It does:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/


Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.


yeah, sure...


At full resolution it is a bit soft.


ANY digitised image at full resolution
is a "bit soft"! Any other pearls of
idiocy you'd like to share?


An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
all.



yeah su downsize and upsize a "lossless" file like jpg?
Are you for real or you think everyone is an idiot?


I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.


Sure. Try this:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
****: there goes the 5d2 rez, eh?


Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.


BWAHAHAHA!
Any other bull**** you'd like to propose?


This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.


Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
is gonna change that.

Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.


wouldn't that be why I provided a cropped image as well?
Or did you miss that little detail in your haste?
  #9  
Old September 19th 08, 12:49 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:

There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
Good luck printing those.


No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range.
Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
200,200,200 and 100,100,100?

You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.


In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.


I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
of the time, I'll let you know!
Try this for REAL detail:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
LOL!

  #10  
Old September 19th 08, 01:11 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:


This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
highlight and very deep shadows.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original


Yeah, I know:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...mp-02-91534639
is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia
or Astia!


If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
shadows with a bit of dodging.



Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights
like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all
of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has
been doing for eons.
"compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have
difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though
8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.



The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.


Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?
I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,
there is simply no difference. With film, saturation
is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise
problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium
format is different, though. I still haven't worked
that one out, still trying to get it under control.

I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new
crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour
DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,
the resulting compression range will be amazing.


I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,
but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.
Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than
just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6
EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*
for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.
Although of course dynamic range compression is less the
if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery
to get slides to cover it.


Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.


Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just
different DR compression levels and ratios.
Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical
limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.
The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.
Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means
to an end.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D! Noons Digital Photography 24 September 26th 08 05:58 AM
high dynamic range in P&S ?? minnesotti Digital Photography 4 October 27th 06 03:03 AM
Measurung dynamic range... Volker Hetzer Digital Photography 16 August 14th 06 05:23 AM
dynamic range Paul Furman Digital SLR Cameras 36 February 22nd 06 04:05 AM
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? ThomasH Digital Photography 43 January 1st 05 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.