DR of M240

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We keep asking for more and more DR and it is certainly a good thing but I don't normally come across a scene where I can really take advantage of high DR.

 

The following is such a scene which appeared suddenly from a break in thunderstorm and I was totally unprepared. It was shot handheld and heavily processed in LR. The foreground is lifted more than 4-5 stops, highlight recovered and I still have few washouts.

 

Now few thoughts:

- For a scene like that even 13 stop DR is not enough. You may need like 15-16 or maybe 20 for clean shadows. Even RED sensor is far from it.

- Even with M240 sensor's DR, it is possible to have a pleasing (if not totally clean) picture.

 

Therefore M240's DR is enough at the same time is not enough.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rsolomon]

Nice shot !

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[edwardkaraa]

For my usual street and people photography, the M240 has more than enough DR. I could even work with less.

[Exodies]

More DR is not only for a beautiful scene such as yours but even mundane atmospheric effects can benefit - I'm thinking of a shaded street with a patch of sky and a low sun reflected off a plastered wall. Impossible to get it all in 13 stops.

[jaapv]

Well, given that the DR of the human eye is about 20 stops...   Well, about 20 stops in deep shadows and 10 stops in bright sun.

The real problem we are running into is that sensors are linear devices and film and the eye are non-linear, so we will always be unhappy with the results from a digital capture in some situations until it really goes beyond 20 stops. Which is probably quite unattainable in theory.

 

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

 

And even then we'd have to be very careful in postprocessing, as the Photoshop embedded in the human brain will flatten the perception of the eye to a "normal" image, reason that HDR images look so unnatural.

 

Actually Jayant's beautiful image is an excellent example, as nobody will think that the scene was actually seen that way by an observer.

[edwardkaraa]

I think our brains have been trained to see film rendering for over a century, and that's what we expect to see when we look at a photo not human eye perception. I believe around 7 stops is the maximum that is usable in any one shot before it becomes too flat.

[djmay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, given that the DR of the human eye is about 20 stops...   Well, about 20 stops in deep shadows and 10 stops in bright sun.

The real problem we are running into is that sensors are linear devices and film and the eye are non-linear, so we will always be unhappy with the results from a digital capture in some situations until it really goes beyond 20 stops. Which is probably quite unattainable in theory.

 

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

 

And even then we'd have to be very careful in postprocessing, as the Photoshop embedded in the human brain will flatten the perception of the eye to a "normal" image, reason that HDR images look so unnatural.

 

Actually Jayant's beautiful image is an excellent example, as nobody will think that the scene was actually seen that way by an observer.

HDR does not have to look unnatural any more than compression development of film does not look unnatural. It is how the individual uses HDR that some results look unnatural.

 

I have found the latitude of the M-P 240 to be very very good, which means that the need for HDR is considerably diminished. That could keep people from ruining their image by over-processing of HDR.

 

Jesse

[djmay]

We keep asking for more and more DR and it is certainly a good thing but I don't normally come across a scene where I can really take advantage of high DR.

 

The following is such a scene which appeared suddenly from a break in thunderstorm and I was totally unprepared. It was shot handheld and heavily processed in LR. The foreground is lifted more than 4-5 stops, highlight recovered and I still have few washouts.

 

Now few thoughts:

- For a scene like that even 13 stop DR is not enough. You may need like 15-16 or maybe 20 for clean shadows. Even RED sensor is far from it.

- Even with M240 sensor's DR, it is possible to have a pleasing (if not totally clean) picture.

 

Therefore M240's DR is enough at the same time is not enough.

 

exp_sm_20151016Yosemite_hike_n_camp-1005775_small.jpg

When you have something good, you always want more.

Jesse

[luigi bertolotti]

I have always thought that when you take a scene which, intrinsically, has a high/extreme DR, you must abandon the goal to reproduce it "as you see it" (which on the contrary is a frequent and imho correct goal for some kind of takings); as Jaap said, the non-linearity of the eye/brain combo makes such a goal not simply unreachable, but also with little significance... so in those situation one is free to use the content of its digital negative to extract an image that is appealing by itself , with scarce relation to how the brain perceived it : and here lies the problem of HDR... too much freedom to elaborate on DR side opens the risk to go beyond the limits of what our brain (at the end, the recipient of the picture) perceives as "natural" to say as something that HAS a relation/similarity to what your brain and memory is accustomed to (probably, the concept of "taste"). I'm sure that some serious psychological study on this matter has been done by some scholars... and would be curios to read something about...

[Exodies]

A nonlinear response sensor would be a decent compromise. I suppose someone is working on it. Unless the governments have crushed university research in favour of training cogs for business.

[jmahto]

Well, given that the DR of the human eye is about 20 stops...   Well, about 20 stops in deep shadows and 10 stops in bright sun.

The real problem we are running into is that sensors are linear devices and film and the eye are non-linear, so we will always be unhappy with the results from a digital capture in some situations until it really goes beyond 20 stops. Which is probably quite unattainable in theory.

 

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye/

 

And even then we'd have to be very careful in postprocessing, as the Photoshop embedded in the human brain will flatten the perception of the eye to a "normal" image, reason that HDR images look so unnatural.

 

Actually Jayant's beautiful image is an excellent example, as nobody will think that the scene was actually seen that way by an observer.

Agreed and thanks for the link.However, in these kind of scenes it is very difficult to say what was actually seen (I mean registered in the brain) by an observer. We do see the entire scene and eyes keep moving around one part of the scene to another. In this case, to the sun behind the clouds, to the road/cars in the valley, the tree in the foreground, the rain in the distance. We look at these individually and put it all together in our brain. Each part having it's own DR.

 

 

I have always thought that when you take a scene which, intrinsically, has a high/extreme DR, you must abandon the goal to reproduce it "as you see it" (which on the contrary is a frequent and imho correct goal for some kind of takings); as Jaap said, the non-linearity of the eye/brain combo makes such a goal not simply unreachable, but also with little significance... so in those situation one is free to use the content of its digital negative to extract an image that is appealing by itself , with scarce relation to how the brain perceived it : and here lies the problem of HDR... too much freedom to elaborate on DR side opens the risk to go beyond the limits of what our brain (at the end, the recipient of the picture) perceives as "natural" to say as something that HAS a relation/similarity to what your brain and memory is accustomed to (probably, the concept of "taste"). I'm sure that some serious psychological study on this matter has been done by some scholars... and would be curios to read something about...

 

This is why I liked Luigi's statement above about abandoning the goal to reproduce it "as you see it". By abandoning the entire scene (which is hard due to huge DR) we can focus on a narrow part of the scene which are more manageable from DR perspective and look more "natural". Two examples below from the same scene using approx 90mm FOV. (I say approx because some cropping is done for aesthetics).

 

And  if we shoot like this (a part of the scene) then we don't need more DR!

 

The scene below is metered for highlights. Aprrox little less than 90mm FOV:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The scene below is metered for shadows (around 3.5 stops more exposed than the above, blowing out the sky). Aprrox 90mm FOV:

Edited January 14, 2017 by jmahto

[Tailwagger]

A lot depends on what and when you shoot. I routinely find myself pushing those limits as most of my photography is done in the blue and golden hours. To echo whats  been said, we've seen the disappointment that increased DR can create in some when moving from CCD to CMOS.  The constant refrain around how files of the former are vibrant and alive while the latter look too flat.  

 

More range, more decision making on the back end.  Less range, more care regarding the exposure on the front.   I think those who tend to view photography largely as the process of interacting with a camera are typically more satisfied with the latter.  But if you see image making as an end to end act, where the development process holds equal or, in more challenging situations, even great sway, added DR is a blessing.  Though one which, as the following shot (645z) clearly demonstrates, challenges my meager processing skills. 

 

[djmay]

A lot depends on what and when you shoot. I routinely find myself pushing those limits as most of my photography is done in the blue and golden hours. To echo whats  been said, we've seen the disappointment that increased DR can create in some when moving from CCD to CMOS.  The constant refrain around how files of the former are vibrant and alive while the latter look too flat.  

 

More range, more decision making on the back end.  Less range, more care regarding the exposure on the front.   I think those who tend to view photography largely as the process of interacting with a camera are typically more satisfied with the latter.  But if you see image making as an end to end act, where the development process holds equal or, in more challenging situations, even great sway, added DR is a blessing.  Though one which, as the following shot (645z) clearly demonstrates, challenges my meager processing skills. 

 

This image is a good example. Rather than look at it from the standpoint of meager processing skills, look at the different ways to interpret the shot. This could mean the same framing with different exposures.

 

One could be to emphasize the interior, in which the shadow detail would be brought up and you let the exterior fall away in detail. This may mean the exterior goes to no detail or somewhere in between.

 

A second could be to emphasize the exterior, in which case you let some of the interior detail go to black. Having a deep black provides a baseline from which levels of brightness can be emphasized.

 

The possibilities are endless. You are the artist and it is your choice on how to interpret.

 

Jesse

[georg]

Increasing dynamic range not only faces issues in sensor/conversion technology but also optical issues regarding straylight within the optical path.

A DR of 10 stops results in a contrast ratio of ~1:1000, 14 stops are already over 1:16000!

 

The highest actual dynamic range in digital cameras given strict testing methodology ruling out stray light (not done by photography review sites or DXO) is a little bit more than 14 stops - an excellent achievement and good goal for future photographic cameras - hopefullx the M10 pushes these boundaries but don't hope for anything beyond 16 stops in a single shot...