Testing Real World Dynamic Range

[Shashin]

I have no interest in your definition of "photography". I have interest in seeing some gear being capable of taking certain images that other gear cannot.

I did not define photography.

 

[voidshatter]

I did not define photography.

But you are rejecting the above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) as photography.

What matters to me is that your gear cannot shoot that kind of image with decent printing quality due to limited DR, regardless of your claimed skills.

 

[Shashin]

But you are rejecting the above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) as photography.

I never said any such thing.

What matters to me is that your gear cannot shoot that kind of image with decent printing quality due to limited DR, regardless of your claimed skills.

I have no idea why my gear matters to you...

Anyway, that is your opinion. The problem is there is about 200 years of photographic history to say you are wrong about DR and decent print quality.

 

[voidshatter]

I never said any such thing.



I have no idea why my gear matters to you...

Anyway, that is your opinion. The problem is there is about 200 years of photographic history to say you are wrong about DR and decent print quality.

For 200 years people could not shoot the milky way landscape. Why should I care about the obsolete gear?

Print quality at any size has nothing to do with DR. High quality prints have to do with your skill as a printer (and whether you can expose correctly). DR has nothing to do with that.

I can tell you one thing, I can get more than eight stop out of my 645D and p25+ and a whole host of digital cameras I have used--there is no comparison to slide film that was probably eight stops.

I am objecting your obviously flawed statement. The above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) is a nice example.

 

[Shashin]

For 200 years people could not shoot the milky way landscape. Why should I care about the obsolete gear?



I am objecting your obviously flawed statement. The above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) is a nice example.

You can object. I don't mind. I think you have summed up your position adequately.

 

[Dogs857]

All I am really saying is that I am not sure what Jeff really has. If he was taking only one patch and changing exposure, that would make sense, but he is taking two, which does not. If he is looking for the exposure latitude, which is different from DR, then I can see that two patches would show him how many stops in this particular situation would give him, but a different scene contrast would change that result.

I just think it is simpler and more useful to measure scene contrast and then photograph it and compare the two. But to be honest, the best way is through experience where a photographer learns to work intuitively. It would be a really pain in the neck to measure scene contrast and then try to figure out exposure each time (This is why Adams made a subjective scale (which it not accurate) to get photographers to visualize a scene for the Zone System. And the fact that scene contrast exceeds DR does not prevent a great image to be taken. Photographers have always had that problem and solved it by controlling exposure and reproduction.

Exposure latitude, that would probably be far more accurate description of what I am after. Wish I had of thought of that.

You are correct, I need to meter the scene for highlights and shadows to know where I sit. Remember I am using a tech camera, and metering is far more effective for me than guessing. Sure I can get it close most times, but this makes it almost foolproof. I don't find it a pain to have to meter a scene, takes less than 15sec really. I also have exposure calculations done pretty quickly as well, especially as I am generally only worried about the highlight value. If the scene exceeds my EV range (I will stop saying DR as it appears to be a sore point) then I know how much filtering to use to bring everything back.

I find this test useful for that reason.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi "Dogs",

Thanks for a very nice test. I have posted a real world image before, here comes another one, in three versions,

P45+ (single shot), Sony Alpha 99SLT (single shot) and P45+ using several shots fused with Lumariver HDR.

Lumariver HDR can handle a RAW-to-RAW workflow, this is what I have done here doing all tone mapping in Lightroom.

P45+:

Sony Alpha 99:

P45+ (Lumariver):

1:1 crops showing a bit of the piano:

P45+:

Sony Alpha SLT-99 (single shot)

P45+ (Lumariver)

Raw images are here:

P45+

Sony Alpha 99 SLT

P45+ (Lumariver)

This image seems to have about 11 EV of brightness range.

The Sony image has a bit more exposure, as exposure was based on in camera histograms.

Best regards
Erik