voidshatter
Member
To make your life easier I included all links. :thumbup:
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Should I or not?
- Thread starter Pradeep
- Start date
thrice
Active member
You missed the point of his comment, that THESE are HDR images, and as such are not a fair representation of the native DR.
voidshatter
Member
You also missed my point. I ask you to imagine what could be done with a sensor that has even more native DR. I claim the more the better.
M
mjr
Guest
Void, it's great that you have found a sensor that works for your specific needs, now go and enjoy shooting with it! I have to agree that you seem to be constantly going on about how 1 system is better than another but that only relates to your specific needs, there is so much more to photography than dynamic range. Maybe you could stop the campaign against all other brands, I think everyone fully understands your position now, you are repeating it at every opportunity.
Myself, I love my ccd technology, does that matter to you or anyone else? Nope, it's how I work and that's all that matters to me, there are options for everyone depending on what they want from a shot. I have never really understood the need to go on about the choices you make, nobody needs to justify what they have or how they work, just enjoy doing it. The idea that more DR or more pixels will lead to better pictures is also a strange one to me, it shows in some of the examples you have posted, pushed shadows don't automatically make a picture better.
Anyway, as there are as many solutions as there are photographers and a huge array of products available, just be happy you have found what suits you and get on with it!
Mat
Myself, I love my ccd technology, does that matter to you or anyone else? Nope, it's how I work and that's all that matters to me, there are options for everyone depending on what they want from a shot. I have never really understood the need to go on about the choices you make, nobody needs to justify what they have or how they work, just enjoy doing it. The idea that more DR or more pixels will lead to better pictures is also a strange one to me, it shows in some of the examples you have posted, pushed shadows don't automatically make a picture better.
Anyway, as there are as many solutions as there are photographers and a huge array of products available, just be happy you have found what suits you and get on with it!
Mat
I think Void has made some good points and while a bitter pill to swallow to current owners it does help educate potential new users to the reality of MFD over the marketing strategy of said companies and postings of joyus users. If people want to shoot MFD then thats great as they are wonderful to use and capable of jaw dropping results but we must know the waters before jumping feet first. I came to this forum because of my interest in MFD and its been an education both for the good and bad and thats what I love about it so the more differing of opponion and more investigation the better IMO.
Except perhaps for the first tree shot ... these images are making the point of why many do NOT like the HDR look and feel.I don't mean to force everyone to shoot HDR, but what could be too wrong to have the flexibility to handle high contrast scenes, despite the fact that the most valuable landscape shots are indeed sunrise and sunset?
Imagine what you can do when you have a camera with excellent dynamic range. Some random pics from others grab'ed from the internet (all shot with IMX094 sensors, same/similary IQ250 tech, better dynamic range than any other current sensors including IQ280 or A7S):
Forest Symphony by Yan L (D800E): https://500px.com/photo/67358143/
Brick red Albi, Phoenix in the Sky by Xi Chen (D800): https://500px.com/photo/54476936/
GalacticDance by Jay Daley (D810): https://500px.com/photo/82387683/
NationalDay fireworks by Senthil Kumar Damodaran (A7R): https://500px.com/photo/79475455/
Lightof the Earth by Banan Tarr (D800): https://500px.com/photo/80581445/
TheShadows and the Sun by Max Rive(D800E): https://500px.com/photo/86401691/
TheDictator by Max Rive (D800E): https://500px.com/photo/83999949/
IMO, they look exactly like CGI work found in gaming, fantasy and SyFi movies ... and, in general, things not found in nature ... which is ironic as they are supposed to represent things found in nature.
Tastes vary, and the tool that helps you best expresses your personal tastes is probably the best choice.
- Marc
voidshatter
Member
The highest pulse of each image at 500px.com is a good indicator of whether each image is popular or not. Each of these images climbed up to the front page of 500px. I guess most of them have obtained more likes and favs than what you could have got with a silhouette.
Yes you could have a better taste or at a higher level to judge images, but I would rather see what's popular among the average-level people. If you upload an image of your taste to 500px, would you achieve the similar f/v numbers as these images did?
But if these are indeed a single capture, taste has nothing to do with the fact that those results are technically speaking very impressive.
I don't get the continued obsession with DR. What is the point of electronically recording a scene beyond the human eye's DR ability, then compressing that spectrum, by lifting shadows and muting highlights so that every shot looks like you just walked out of a Lord of the Rings movie?
In my case, there is a time/place for this. If I have a deep shadow, that is near black, I'd prefer to see some texture detail in there. But by no means am I interested in a "fill flash" effect in the shadow.
In my case, there is a time/place for this. If I have a deep shadow, that is near black, I'd prefer to see some texture detail in there. But by no means am I interested in a "fill flash" effect in the shadow.
But from what Void said these are just trending on 500pix at the moment and a look many seem to like. I think the point is the information is there in the image and while you don't have to pull every highlight and lift every shadow to emulate this look its nice to havd the information than to not. After sll, isn't that why we all purchased MFD in the first place?
The points have been made, then repeated, and repeated, and repeated, ad nausea ... while consistently discounting different choices that work for other people just fine.
In that regard, it is not a bitter pill to swallow.
The notion that one should know what they are in for is good advice, and the advice always given on this forum. However, it has always been done in the spirit of information, not to discount other's considered choices as if they were not intelligent enough to balance the info and make a choice that works for them.
- Marc
voidshatter
Member
Apparently the IQ180 is still not capable to record what the human eye can see in a single exposure yet. The Sony sensors are more close.
Michael Kenna is also shooting long exposure beyond what can be seen by the human eye. I guess there's nothing really wrong with it when it all comes down to art.
voidshatter
Member
For your information, Antony Spencer has moved from IQ280 to D800. He also admits that the D800 has more dynamic range and gives close results in print (though DR may not be the decisive factor for him). I'm not sure whether Joe Cornish will eventually migrate to Sony CMOS as well but we'll see.
And on the illustration/art sites Thomas Kinkade "Painter of Light", and those like him, have always dominated or trended strongest ... the majority doesn't dictate tastes, especially good taste.
This visual obsession reminds me of a quip by the French Minister of Art when asked about Disneyland Paris ... " It is a cultural Chernobyl".
Personally, I like MFD for it's native look and feel ... the Dalsa sensors couldn't do long exposures but rendered skin in a very organic and realistic manner ... my Leaf 33 meg back did that, and so did my H4D/60. And so on.
- Marc
I don't contribute here as much as I once did and only dip into the forum every now and again so have not experience this. I've found this topic and others about the upcoming 35mm cameras interesting reading.
voidshatter
Member
I would be curious to see some RAW files for a comparison between a Dalsa CCD and a Sony CMOS, for the same model, same time, same location, same light. What would happen when you calibrate them? It would be good to know the core post-processing procedures affecting the skin tone (i.e. excluding DB or texture, tone & color separation etc) for the claimed superior camera so that we can see whether it is possible for both cameras to achieve the same skin tone that makes 99% people hard to distinguish. Below are images shot with 7 different cameras.
Now that is something I don't really subscribe too. Colour is subjective and with custom profiles easily managed. And if organic means lack of AA filter boosting micro contrast and adding aliasing and other issues then thats a subject choice. I just think MFD should be a choice rather than preached as a religion to IQ.