DLSR Dynamic Range

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Jul 3, 2004.

  1. George Preddy, Jul 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. beautiful. just think how much nicer it would have looked if shot with a
    canon. ;)
     
    Christopher Muto, Jul 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Besides the one on the top of your head...your point is?????

    I can do that with my 10D too. So what?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 3, 2004
    #3
  4. George Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    What the hell is a DLSR you bloody idiot?
     
    Alan D-W, Jul 3, 2004
    #4
  5. George Preddy

    bagal Guest

    You know? America is almost as nice as Scotland

    das B
     
    bagal, Jul 3, 2004
    #5
  6. George Preddy

    Frank ess Guest

    Well, I guess in Scotland you can keep adding clothing to survive; this
    time of year in the place depicted a similar activity on the same
    continuum quickly reaches its end-point.

    If you mean "nice to look at", there is an at least equal quality, and
    certainly a greater quantity, of opportunity.

    http://www.fototime.com/4504086FCAFE4D9/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/5C5B93BA30E0FF1/orig.jpg
    http://www.fototime.com/710C4774C2633DE/orig.jpg


    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Jul 3, 2004
    #6
  7. George Preddy

    bagal Guest

    Nice to live too - what a lovely landmass

    Solar desrt to ice desert with Canada in between

    excellene

    Das B
     
    bagal, Jul 3, 2004
    #7
  8. So the 10D can't take a picture in normal sunlight without blowing the
    highlights huge. It's 1990's vintage Canon CMOS has lower dynamic
    range than any decent CCD based P&S, which is truly abysmal for a
    DSLR. This is about the best you'll ever see from the super low
    dynamic range Canon 10D in sunlight...

    http://photocenter.smugmug.com/photos/5427225-L.jpg
     
    George Preddy, Jul 4, 2004
    #8
  9. George Preddy, Jul 4, 2004
    #9
  10. George Preddy, Jul 4, 2004
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Bunny Guest

    It is GREAT. From my heart. I like Foveron CCD also, but if they could
    provide a CCD with more pixels, it will buy it.
    Since more pixels can let me crop the photos, but only 3M is ready not
    enough, but it is not related to quality.
     
    Bunny, Jul 4, 2004
    #11
  12. SNIP
    Yes, it is the best you can get from a 4th rank amateur (calls him self a
    pro ;-)) as he overexposed his shot so much that there is virtually no
    detail in the 18 darkest histogram bins. At least he got the skin color
    right, oh wait, it's the camera that got it right.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jul 4, 2004
    #12
  13. you're funnier than me. but seriously, as lovely as that sigma shot is i
    couldn't help but notice how pixilated the edge of rock in the fore ground
    looks and the purple fringing of it against the distant background and that
    it has some hot spots that gives the entire image that phony/flat/digital
    look. referring to the 'original size' image where detail is not hidden.
     
    Christopher Muto, Jul 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Bart van der Wolf, Jul 4, 2004
    #14
  15. I like how he softened the image and mucked up the contrast to make his
    point.
     
    Darrell Larose, Jul 4, 2004
    #15
  16. George Preddy

    MadHatter Guest

    That single image gallery looks like a suspicious to me. And where's
    the exif data showing that this was shot with a 10D? Maybe it's
    missing because you just degraded the original image and posted it in
    a sockpuppet gallery.
     
    MadHatter, Jul 4, 2004
    #16
  17. George Preddy

    Searching_ut Guest

    I like Mikes work, he brings back lots of great memories for me as at one
    time or other, I think I've been to most of places he does such a great job
    of capturing digitally. I really like what he does composition wise. He gets
    great results.

    That said, I think Steves comments regarding this particular photo and
    dynamic range shows more about SG's lack of understanding and experience
    with dynamic range than it does anything else. I quickly scanned back over
    hundreds of my old shots from the same general area, and find that even my
    old Toshiba M-70 for the most part had a slightly wider dynamic range in
    similar situations, even though it doesn't have RAW capabiltiy You need to
    capture the same scene at the same time to be really sure. In this
    particular photo, while there is detail in the shadow areas, there is also a
    very noticable color shift, which to me says the camera wasn't really able
    to capture the shadow detail fully. Not knowing exactly how the photo was
    post processed makes it hard to say what was possible with this shot, but to
    me it shows somewhat a lack of range if anything, and looks like the shadow
    area was already boosted about as much as is possible either by a curve or
    "fill" flash type function in the post processing.

    As for the SD9, I would be interested in seeing any independent tests that
    show the Sigma has a wider dynamic range than any Canon or Nikon DSLR used
    in the RAW mode. When the SD9 first came out, I was quite excited by the new
    technology. I actually took the time to get my hands on one and do some side
    by side with a D-Rebel and the sigma. With both cameras in RAW, captureing
    the same scene, I found the canon had slightly wider dynamic range every
    time. I find it interesting to read all the opinions regarding camera
    dynamic range, as they seem to be all over the place. Seems kind of strange
    being as how it's one of those things that can be measured and compared. As
    for the blown highlights steve keeps refering too, that's a function of
    camera metering/the user. Whether or not the camera captures the scene
    optimally to where you can process for the widest possible dynamic range is
    another story, but obviously if your exposure is off a stop or two, you're
    going to loose out on the other end by the same amount.

    For what it's worth

    Jeff
     
    Searching_ut, Jul 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Jesus Christ...what do you want? Film can't capture that much of a
    dynamic range. That's a 128:1 lighting ratio.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 4, 2004
    #18
  19. George Preddy

    Alan D-W Guest

    Alan D-W, Jul 4, 2004
    #19
  20. George Preddy

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    It looks more like a painting than a photograph.

    I can see the gridding of edges on the high-contrast edges.
    --
     
    JPS, Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.