Digital Camera Dyamic Range Question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by EHHackney, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. EHHackney

    EHHackney Guest

    Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.

    You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    and oranges, but the same idea should apply.

    Hack
    --//--
     
    EHHackney, Oct 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. EHHackney

    GT40 Guest

    On 17 Oct 2004 00:50:49 GMT, (EHHackney) wrote:

    >Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    >someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    >
    >You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    >negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    >cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    >stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    >the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    >corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    >and oranges, but the same idea should apply.


    11 stops if shot in RAW mode (hard to belive)
     
    GT40, Oct 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. EHHackney wrote:
    > Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    > someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    >
    > You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    > negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    > cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    > stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    > the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    > corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    > and oranges, but the same idea should apply.
    >
    > Hack
    > --//--

    I measured the canon 10D at about 11 stops:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange

    The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    the 12 bit A-D).

    I use graduated neutral density filters with film, but reduced
    their use some years ago when I started scanning the film.
    I found with a careful scan, and now particularly with
    a 16-bit scan, I can recover detail in bright clouds
    that used to be essentially impossible to print with traditional
    enlargers. Example: this 4x5 image, on Fujichrome Velvia
    without a split density filter, was scanned at 16 bits:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...orado.fall.c09.30.2003.L4.9446-a b.c-700.html

    If I traditionally printed it (analog enlarger),
    the clouds would be white, and with dodging I could
    not get much detail out. But scanning it at 16-bits,
    I can get much more dynamic range out of
    Fujichrome Velvia. Note this does take a lot of
    photoshop work, but many good photos need work as they
    come out of the camera; read Ansel Adams' "The Print."

    Note, however, how much you can push the scan might be
    limited by signal-to-noise (grain). This page shows the
    signal to noise of film versus digital:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise

    Note at low ISO the 1DII appears to be photon statistics
    limited, so it will be hard to do better than this
    signal-to-noise (need larger pixels to get any better).

    For film scans, you can always smooth the sky a little
    and reduce the noise (grain) in the sky and clouds and coax
    a little more range and contrast out of the image.
    I probably spent 4 hours working on the scan of the above
    image before it was ready to print.

    With digital, I expose for the highlights and bring the
    desired detail up our of the lows as digital has the
    signal-to-noise. For extreme lighting, I do two or
    more exposures and combine the images into one.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 17, 2004
    #3
  4. EHHackney

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > >Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    > >someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    > >
    > >You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    > >negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    > >cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    > >stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    > >the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    > >corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    > >and oranges, but the same idea should apply.

    >
    > 11 stops if shot in RAW mode (hard to belive)


    More than film then. Didn't people always say that digital more or less
    equals slides for what concerns dynamic range ?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 17, 2004
    #4
  5. EHHackney

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that (EHHackney) stated that:

    >Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    >someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    >
    >You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    >negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    >cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    >stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    >the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    >corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    >and oranges, but the same idea should apply.


    It depneds on the camera & whether you shoot RAW or JPEG format. In
    general, JPEG gives you roughly the same dynamic range as slide film, &
    RAW gives you another stop or two.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #5
  6. EHHackney

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that Alfred Molon <> stated
    that:

    >In article <>,
    >says...
    >> >Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    >> >someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    >> >
    >> >You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    >> >negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    >> >cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    >> >stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    >> >the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    >> >corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    >> >and oranges, but the same idea should apply.

    >>
    >> 11 stops if shot in RAW mode (hard to belive)

    >
    >More than film then. Didn't people always say that digital more or less
    >equals slides for what concerns dynamic range ?


    In JPEG mode, yes. RAW gives you a much wider range.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #6
  7. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...

    > The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    > the 12 bit A-D


    Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.
     
    George Preddy, Oct 17, 2004
    #7
  8. EHHackney

    Ryadia Guest

    George Preddy wrote:

    >
    > Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    > both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    > was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    > is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    > blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    > -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    > unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.


    Sometimes your posts are quite lucid... Right up to the point you make
    an idiot out of yourself. When will you learn that it is permissible to
    have both Fords and Chevies in the same place, using the same fuel and
    carrying the same load? Just because you are a rabid Sigma Camera
    supporter, doesn't mean you have to post lies and falsehoods to back up
    the piss poor quality of your outrageous statements.

    Ryadia
     
    Ryadia, Oct 17, 2004
    #8
  9. GT40 wrote:
    []
    > 11 stops if shot in RAW mode (hard to believe)


    Yes, but digital is not film!

    I.e. at the bottom end, your 11th stop down, the camera is just recording
    pixels as "on" or "off", i.e. just two tones, whereas film has a tail in
    its transfer characteristic that doesn't suddenly cut off and may preserve
    more brightness levels, albeit in a grainy fashion.

    Equally at the bright end of the range, with digital once you exceed the
    maximum brightness, that's it, White, there's no more. With film, while
    the response is no longer "linear", there is a gradual increase in
    negative density with increasing exposure above the "white" level of the
    scene. [Fuji have a sensor that supposedly has an extended dynamic range
    at the "white" end.]

    Digital needs to be treated the same way as slide film - it does have the
    great advantage that you can check exposure while you are taking. I would
    advise Hack that if you needed a grad filter with film, you probably
    should use it with digital, although you /may/ get away without.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 17, 2004
    #9
  10. "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>

    wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > > The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    > > the 12 bit A-D

    >
    > Our experience


    Voices in your head?

    [Rest of nonsense snipped]

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 17, 2004
    #10
  11. George Preddy wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >
    >>The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    >>the 12 bit A-D

    >
    >
    > Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    > both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    > was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    > is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    > blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    > -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    > unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.


    My experience with the 1DMII is quite the opposite:
    that it is MUCH better at metering and not blowing
    highlights than the 10D. For example. look at this
    image of an Alaskan Brown Bear by some waterfalls:
    http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html
    The technical (exif) data says no metering compensation.
    If you move forward and backward and look at other
    photos in the gallery, you will see very few images
    used any metering compensation (all are 1D Mark II images).
    Then go to my bird gallery where images were done
    with a 10D and D60 and you will find many, perhaps a
    majority with exposure compensation. None of the images
    on my web site have blown highlights. The 1DII is a
    wonderful camera. My main complaint so far is needing
    to push multiple buttons to get mirror lock up enabled,
    and having to hold 2 buttons simultaneously to do
    some functions, like zoom in on an image on the LCD.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    > George Preddy wrote:
    >
    >> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    >> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>
    >>
    >>> The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    >>> the 12 bit A-D

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    >> both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    >> was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    >> is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    >> blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    >> -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    >> unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.

    >
    >
    > My experience with the 1DMII is quite the opposite:
    > that it is MUCH better at metering and not blowing
    > highlights than the 10D. For example. look at this
    > image of an Alaskan Brown Bear by some waterfalls:
    > http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html
    >
    > The technical (exif) data says no metering compensation.
    > If you move forward and backward and look at other
    > photos in the gallery, you will see very few images
    > used any metering compensation (all are 1D Mark II images).
    > Then go to my bird gallery where images were done
    > with a 10D and D60 and you will find many, perhaps a
    > majority with exposure compensation. None of the images
    > on my web site have blown highlights. The 1DII is a
    > wonderful camera. My main complaint so far is needing
    > to push multiple buttons to get mirror lock up enabled,
    > and having to hold 2 buttons simultaneously to do
    > some functions, like zoom in on an image on the LCD.
    >
    > Roger
    >


    I must make a correction: the last 3 images in the
    above gallery are of a grizzley bear in Yellowstone
    made with a Canon 10D and in the background of one of these
    images there are some blown highlights (though minor in the
    overall picture). My experience with the 1D Mark II
    is that it would not have blown the highlights.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 17, 2004
    #12
  13. EHHackney

    jpc Guest

    On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:38:09 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

    >GT40 wrote:
    >[]
    >> 11 stops if shot in RAW mode (hard to believe)


    With my camera, an Olympus 3020, a photographicly realistic dynamic
    range is 9 stops although I have seen 12 stops of "pictorial
    information" even using jpg files.

    When I shot a a series of images of an evenly illuminated background
    thru a calibrated Kodak step filter {21 transmission step with greater
    than a 1000/1 variation in transmittance} I could clearly see the
    edges of the steps down to an optical density of 2.79. While noise
    blurred the edge of the last two steps, I could still detected a
    difference in the RGB values. The only software adjustment I did was
    a levels adjustment to compensate for the 7-8 stop limitation of my
    monitor and the 5-6 stop limitation of my eyes.

    As for the the 12 stops of "pictorial information" I took a series of
    images of a high contrast scene while varing the exposure by 12 stops.
    Even in the darkest image, with level adjustments I could see a
    difference between the brightest parts of the scene and the noise of
    the camera


    >
    >Yes, but digital is not film!
    >
    >I.e. at the bottom end, your 11th stop down, the camera is just recording
    >pixels as "on" or "off", i.e. just two tones, whereas film has a tail in
    >its transfer characteristic that doesn't suddenly cut off and may preserve
    >more brightness levels, albeit in a grainy fashion.
    >
    >Equally at the bright end of the range, with digital once you exceed the
    >maximum brightness, that's it, White, there's no more. With film, while
    >the response is no longer "linear", there is a gradual increase in
    >negative density with increasing exposure above the "white" level of the
    >scene. [Fuji have a sensor that supposedly has an extended dynamic range
    >at the "white" end.]


    While the sensor and A/D are linear, the 'transfer fuction' that
    converts the 12 bits of the A/D into the 8 bits of color information
    we see on a monitor is often not. If I create the equivalent of a film
    charactoristic curve using the firmware of my camera or the RAW
    converter of Photoshop CS the curves have both a toe and shoulder.

    In any case aren't blown highlights what Ansel Adams called Zone X.
    Paper white is paper white with both film and digital and I've seen
    sections in the lighting manuals on how to be sure the portions of
    photograph you want to be paper white end up that way.


    >
    >Digital needs to be treated the same way as slide film - it does have the
    >great advantage that you can check exposure while you are taking. I would
    >advise Hack that if you needed a grad filter with film, you probably
    >should use it with digital, although you /may/ get away without.


    Or for landscapes and other static subjects, you can combine two
    images that are identical except for the exposure. That would give
    more flexibility than a grad filter.

    jpc
     
    jpc, Oct 17, 2004
    #13
  14. EHHackney

    EHHackney Guest

    Thanks, everybody. Interesting thread with lots of good information.

    Hack
    --//--
     
    EHHackney, Oct 17, 2004
    #14
  15. Ryadia <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > George Preddy wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    > > both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    > > was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    > > is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    > > blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    > > -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    > > unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.

    >
    > Sometimes your posts are quite lucid... Right up to the point you make
    > an idiot out of yourself. When will you learn that it is permissible to
    > have both Fords and Chevies in the same place, using the same fuel and
    > carrying the same load?


    Must all Fords and Chevies have the same dynamic range?

    > Just because you are a rabid Sigma Camera
    > supporter, doesn't mean you have to post lies and falsehoods to back up
    > the piss poor quality of your outrageous statements.
    >
    > Ryadia
     
    George Preddy, Oct 17, 2004
    #15
  16. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >
    > >
    > >>The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    > >>the 12 bit A-D

    > >
    > >
    > > Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    > > both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    > > was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    > > is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    > > blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    > > -2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    > > unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.

    >
    > My experience with the 1DMII is quite the opposite:
    > that it is MUCH better at metering and not blowing
    > highlights than the 10D. For example. look at this
    > image of an Alaskan Brown Bear by some waterfalls:
    > http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html


    That is a dreary picture, sorry. The highlights are so pulled back it
    looks terrible--no life at all, dull grey where there should be
    brilliant white. And it looks like an overcast day.

    > The technical (exif) data says no metering compensation.
    > If you move forward and backward and look at other
    > photos in the gallery, you will see very few images
    > used any metering compensation (all are 1D Mark II images).
    > Then go to my bird gallery where images were done
    > with a 10D and D60 and you will find many, perhaps a
    > majority with exposure compensation. None of the images
    > on my web site have blown highlights. The 1DII is a
    > wonderful camera. My main complaint so far is needing
    > to push multiple buttons to get mirror lock up enabled,
    > and having to hold 2 buttons simultaneously to do
    > some functions, like zoom in on an image on the LCD.


    You don't mind needing several qualifier buttons in addition to the
    two knob etch-a-sketch operation just to review an image? The 1D Mk
    II has the worst egronomics since the totally pathetic Canon 1Ds
    adapted an unrelated handful of buttons to do simple requisite tasks,
    like finally allowing image examination through a recent dirty
    firmware hack (as long as you remeber to enable it before shooting
    every time). Canon DLSRs are ergonomically abysmal. Worse, their
    user base seems so incestuously enthralled with poor perfromance, that
    they have no idea what is actually the 21st century norm.

    In fairness, the Canon 20D is a first attempt at any sort of
    improvement, but it is still the worst operating DSLR, excluding other
    Canons, by an enormous margin. Until Canon users start branching out
    and enlightening themselves, I'm afraid Canon prices will continue to
    skyrocket and ergonmics will continue to plummet in blind isloation.
    There is no need to get better with a user base that rejects all else
    in principle.

    But at least the 1D Mk II now has a itty bitty super tiny almost
    invisably microscopic 3 channel histogram, too bad it isn't overlayed,
    full size, and window-area-driven in real time during
    panning/magnification like Foveon builds into their lowest end 10.2MP
    DSLR (new for around $500). Maybe because that would clearly require
    12 more fingers. And what more could you expect for only $5,000 from
    Canon? A battery door that closes properly?
     
    George Preddy, Oct 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Bart van der Wolf, Oct 17, 2004
    #17
  18. EHHackney

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Re: Preddy's self-portrait (Was Re: Digital Camera Dyamic Range Question)

    In article <4172cfa2$0$14941$4all.nl>, Bart van der Wolf
    says...
    > And look at that skin color:
    > http://www.pbase.com/stevewarner/image/34687255


    But look at this one
    http://www.pbase.com/stevewarner/image/34687251

    and this one
    http://www.pbase.com/stevewarner/image/34687253

    and those badly burnt out areas, despite the 20D and the flash. Looks
    like the 20D wasn't able to cope well with the dynamic range of the
    images. Perhaps the camera made a metering error.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 17, 2004
    #18
  19. George Preddy wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>George Preddy wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>The 1D Mark II is a little better (limited by
    >>>>the 12 bit A-D
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Our experience is that the 1D Mk II isn't a lot better than the 10D,
    >>>both are highlight blowers due to poor dynamic range. The 1D Mk II
    >>>was letdown given its price class, it shows that Canon CMOS technology
    >>>is limited in this way, in an absolutely sense. Phil Askey's terribly
    >>>blown 1Ds Mk II sunlit samples show there is no fix in sight. -1EV to
    >>>-2EV is the general rule for these DSLRs in sunlight, which
    >>>unfortunately introduces a lot of noise in the lowlights.

    >>
    >>My experience with the 1DMII is quite the opposite:
    >>that it is MUCH better at metering and not blowing
    >>highlights than the 10D. For example. look at this
    >>image of an Alaskan Brown Bear by some waterfalls:
    >>http://clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3F0862.b-700.html

    >
    >
    > That is a dreary picture, sorry. The highlights are so pulled back it
    > looks terrible--no life at all, dull grey where there should be
    > brilliant white. And it looks like an overcast day.


    Maybe you need to calibrate your monitor, your eyes, or both.
    5 pixels in the above image are RGB 255,255,255, 2% are
    above 245, and 8% above 240. This is very accurate rendition
    of the scene with good balance of dynamic range,
    whether or not you consider it dreary. Otherwise
    I feel no need to defend this picture. The 10D on the other
    hand had trouble metering in these conditions. Do you own
    a 1D Mark II, 10D and 20D to give first hand experiences
    with them? I don't know why I respond, most people
    have kilfiled you.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 18, 2004
    #19
  20. EHHackney

    andre Guest

    EHHackney wrote:
    > Recently someone mentioned the use of a grad filter with a digital camera and
    > someone else said they didn't need it 'cos they could fix it in Photoshop.
    >
    > You could do the same thing in a darkroom or in Photoshop after scanning a
    > negative or slide. The question is, "How does the dynamic range of the digital
    > cameras compare to that of film?" I think the rule of thumb with film was 5-6
    > stops was the range of the film. Grad filters were used so that we could keep
    > the dynamic range in both the bright and dark areas of the photo. Is there a
    > corresponding rule of thumb for digital cameras? I know it's sort of apples
    > and oranges, but the same idea should apply.
    >
    > Hack
    > --//--

    Don't believe it. The more you can do during capturing the more you
    should do. Even though people here try to tell you soemthing about 11
    stops you will see that you can't brighten enough (noise) or darken enough.
    The response of a CCD is linear vs. the response of a Film that is semi
    logarithmic. That means that clipping will occur in situations that call
    for a gradient filter and that you can not always bring everything back
    in PS.
    Try it out and see for yourself. I found a gradient filter to be very
    useful in some situations.

    Andre

    --
    ----------------------------------
    http://www.aguntherphotography.com
     
    andre, Oct 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Simon

    Choosing a mid range digital camera

    Simon, Mar 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    647
    Patco
    Mar 5, 2004
  2. Barry Bean

    Digital camera for serious amateur in the $200-400 range

    Barry Bean, Apr 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    939
    Barry Bean
    Apr 19, 2004
  3. Hellenic Mensa
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    468
    John McWilliams
    Aug 30, 2004
  4. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    705
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    303
Loading...

Share This Page