Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2019, 10:33 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,491
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
You can get more dynamic range when you develop film yourself and employ highlight compression techniques from the zone system. And you can get more DR from many sensors by converting to monochrome I feel. When you pull up some the buried engineering DR too far you get color shifts and noise. But those color shifts look fine in BW.
This is the point of the underexposure/overexposure ranges in the article. He's illustrating how far you can pull or push the highlights and shadows, which will translate into compressing more dynamic range into a post processed photograph.

---------- Post added 05-04-19 at 10:36 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
We can just compare these pictures,

Monthly Photo Contests - PentaxForums.com

to these,

Lets see those ''film'' shots - Page 1260 - PentaxForums.com

(tuco's and LesDmess' too, hadn't seen that far when I posted this..)
I'm not sure this is the best comparison; the film shots in your example seem not to be postprocessed much, whereas the digital ones are. (In some cases, the digital ones look over processed, to me.) If you want to argue that people may not have access to good postprocessing (aka printing) capabilities with film, then I agree, but that's a different discussion.


Last edited by leekil; 05-05-2019 at 07:48 PM.
05-04-2019, 11:19 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 723
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Everything is a gray scale except the sky. It is purple in that first one. It's kind of strange. Is that intentional?
I expect similar results would be obtained with something like Fujicolor or Kodak Gold. C41 process film has had very wide exposure latitude for many years. The point is not which medium, film or digital has the widest dynamic range, but how much DR do you really need? These shots are in very high contrast light yet display adequate details in both shadows and highlights.
In full sun on a sunny day the difference in the light between that of full shade is around five stops, you can measure it yourself with a meter. Even if we assume that the difference is higher by double during sunrise/sunset, why are companies so proud of boasting about 14 stops of DR?
More pertinently, too much detail in shadows and highlights, make things look pretty sickly and unnatural, to my taste at least. In addition two more points - Why is it that many Canon users love their cameras output - despite them being known for not having "great" DR and why do many people love the pictures of Caravaggio, Rembrandt and Vermeer and many others?
Like many things, DR has become a marketing tool of the camera manufacturers, exaggerated compared to its real function in taking pictures.
05-05-2019, 01:19 AM - 1 Like   #33
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
The primary reason film and digital look different, and the primary reason film looks better in general is that negative film compresses each stop of DR in the midtones into .7 stop (typical) density on film, and compresses the shadows and highlights even more. This results in an s shaped tone curve with lower contrast in the midtones than reality. Digital cannot lower contrast, it starts at 1 stop = 1 stop, flat from 0 to 256, and then you can only increase contrast in the midtones to lower it in the highlights/shadows to make an s curve.

The contrast will always be higher, which makes it an inferior medium imo. And the holes. Holes in the sky. I like the colors of film too.

Last edited by Ranchu; 05-05-2019 at 01:40 AM.
05-05-2019, 02:53 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,363
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
My digital camera advertises 14.8 stops of engineering DR. Subtract 2 or 3 stops to get photographers DR. Of all the posts here I suspect none know how many stops of light they captured. Built in light meters do not tell you that. But my one degree spot meter does. And it says I'm getting 14 stops typically. And I pretty sure I get more when I go extreme on the compression.
I think Photons to Photos gives a better judge of real (usable) dynamic range on digital cameras. For instance, for the K-1 it gives a max dynamic range at iso 100 of 11.43 while DXO Mark gives one of 14.6.

05-05-2019, 04:12 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
QuoteOriginally posted by richard0170 Quote
In full sun on a sunny day the difference in the light between that of full shade is around five stops, you can measure it yourself with a meter. Even if we assume that the difference is higher by double during sunrise/sunset, why are companies so proud of boasting about 14 stops of DR?
You're only measuring the difference between the average of all the tones of full sun and full shade. The difference between the brightest desired detail in the highlight and the darkest desired detail in the shadow is much greater. The only thing that has 5 stops of range is paper, or a subject lit with completely diffused lighting. Or you could maybe have that in a studio.
05-05-2019, 04:20 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 723
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
You're only measuring the difference between the average of all the tones of full sun and full shade. The difference between the brightest desired detail in the highlight and the darkest desired detail in the shadow is much greater. The only thing that has 5 stops of range is paper, or a subject lit with completely diffused lighting. Or you could maybe have that in a studio.
Not sure what you mean. I have measured using incident light readings. Full sun 5 stops brighter than full shade.
05-05-2019, 04:38 AM   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 151
The incident meter will give you one exposure, one which puts a midtone grey in the scene on the midtone grey on the film. The range of tones in the scene will vary above and below a midtone, and so the recorded tones will also vary above and below the 'midtone' on the film. You're measuring the the light falling on the sunlit part, and then measuring the light falling on the shade part, which will give you two midtone readings, one for each.

Last edited by Ranchu; 05-05-2019 at 04:50 AM.
05-05-2019, 05:25 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
With film, the higher the ISO, the greater the exposure latitude..
I admit Iím sceptical that something like Delta 3200 or Tmax3200 is going to have greater exposure latitude than Acros100 or FP4...

05-05-2019, 07:51 AM - 1 Like   #39
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Ranchu Quote
The primary reason film and digital look different, and the primary reason film looks better in general is that negative film compresses each stop of DR in the midtones into .7 stop (typical) density on film, and compresses the shadows and highlights even more. This results in an s shaped tone curve with lower contrast in the midtones than reality. Digital cannot lower contrast, it starts at 1 stop = 1 stop, flat from 0 to 256, and then you can only increase contrast in the midtones to lower it in the highlights/shadows to make an s curve.

The contrast will always be higher, which makes it an inferior medium imo. And the holes. Holes in the sky. I like the colors of film too.
Exactly!

And the effect is built into the physics of the two mediums.

To a crude first approximation, a silicon sensor is a linear photon counter up to the well depth. Each added photon has the same chance to create another added electron regardless of how many or how few photons have hit the pixel before as long as the total is under the saturation point. Thus, a digital pixel is linear up to the saturation or clipping point.

To a crude first approximation, a patch of film is a random assembly of nonlinear photon detectors (the grains). Each silver halide grain remains unexposed (clear after development) unless that grain absorbs a bit of light (I've read that it typically takes about 4 photons within some timeframe which is why film shows reciprocity failure) which then makes the silver halide grain develop as black metallic silver. But once a given grain has been exposed, any additional photons absorbed by that grain do nothing to make that grain any darker. The net result is that even at highly over-exposed light levels, there's always a chance that some grains in some patch of the film will have been missed by all those photons and that more light could make that patch of film just a little darker.


NOTE: film is lot more complicated than this if you start mucking about with diluted developers. Yet the fundamental point remains that film has a smoother response to heavy over-exposure because there's always a chance of unexposed grains because all the previous photons have, by chance, hit already exposed grains. Getting every single grain in a emulsion to turn black takes a very large amount of light.
05-05-2019, 10:30 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,594
I am pretty sure I have done this test using TMAX100 but will have to look for it. TMAX is a relatively contrasty film when used with that developer so that may be why his overexposure range is being limited. OTOH Kodak Portra 400 seems to have an unending overexposure range by comparison especially when compared to digis.

05-05-2019, 10:45 AM   #41
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,886
QuoteOriginally posted by nickthetasmaniac Quote
I admit Iím sceptical that something like Delta 3200 or Tmax3200 is going to have greater exposure latitude than Acros100 or FP4...
Understood, but it does. But again, we are talking exposure latitude not dynamic range.

Exposure latitude: What was done in the OP linked video. How many EVs bracketed over and under exposure before there is no detail in the image?

Dynamic range: In a high contrast setting with a normal exposure, what is the range of the film or sensor's ability to capture the brightest highlights thru the darkest shadows?

Lower ISO will have a greater dynamic range, but higher ISO will give a greater exposure latitude.

Here's a link that goes into more detail about the difference between EL and DR: What is the Difference between Exposure Latitude and Dynamic Range? – Wolfcrow
05-05-2019, 10:47 AM - 1 Like   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,594
QuoteOriginally posted by AntonioS Quote
Great, great image !
Thank you.

Of course you can apply this wide overexposure tolerance in your photography. For instance Fuji 100 color negative also has similar tolerance - as do most color negatives.



I can look at a scene that my meter recommends a shutter speed of 1/75 and know that I can capture it at 1/2 (to smooth the waterflow in this case) with confidence that I can make a very usable picture with normal development and minimal post work.



Really the trick is to make sure the camera and subject remain steady for so long . . .
05-05-2019, 01:47 PM   #43
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by abruzzi Quote
While it's not as extreme, and it's not a analog vs. digital test, this guy, Kyle McDougall, did an interesting exposure test with three of the big color negative films: Portra 400, Fuji 400H, and Ektar 100:

Testing The Exposure Limits Of Kodak's Portra 400 Film - YouTube
Testing The Exposure Limits Of Fuji Pro 400H - YouTube
Testing The Exposure Limits Of Kodak Ektar 100 - YouTube

Its not fully scientific and he doesn't cover a 21 stop range (10 stops on a Pentax 67) but to me its still quite interesting and useful.
I did a test with Ektar 100 a few years back and found it to have fairly poor exposure latitude at least as far as color rendition.

Ektar Exposure Tests (+2 to -2 stops) - PentaxForums.com

Ektar was fairly new at the time and some examples shot at EI 50 or 80 had incredibly bizarre intensely blocked reds, hence the focused study for both shade and sun lighting (different color temps). Of course, the results were normalized by the scanner, but that was the intent.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 05-05-2019 at 02:01 PM.
05-05-2019, 03:53 PM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
Understood, but it does. But again, we are talking exposure latitude not dynamic range.

Exposure latitude: What was done in the OP linked video. How many EVs bracketed over and under exposure before there is no detail in the image?

Dynamic range: In a high contrast setting with a normal exposure, what is the range of the film or sensor's ability to capture the brightest highlights thru the darkest shadows?

Lower ISO will have a greater dynamic range, but higher ISO will give a greater exposure latitude.

Here's a link that goes into more detail about the difference between EL and DR: What is the Difference between Exposure Latitude and Dynamic Range? Ė Wolfcrow
I know youíre talking about EL, not DR, and thatís what Iím skeptical of. I donít believe you can over or underexpose Delta3200 to the same degree as FP4 (for example) and still retain a usuable image. Do you have a reference that demonstrates high ISO films have better EL?
05-05-2019, 04:09 PM   #45
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 35,931
I have to say, I don't care enough to even try and watch what must be a really boring movie.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
benefit, color, comparison, contrast, course, curve, details, development, dr, film, hair, holes, images, light, meter, midtones, opinion, pictures, post, range, shadows, shifts, shots, subject, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ISO vs. Dynamic Range FozzFoster Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 12-13-2018 04:14 PM
Dynamic Range to ISO comparisson K-1 Vs K-1 Mark II SirTomster Pentax K-1 6 10-18-2018 11:58 PM
Dynamic Range: K-5iis vs K-70 / KP caliscouser Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 11-27-2017 01:49 PM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Lumolabs: Nikon D700 vs. D5000 vs. Pentax K-x, Dynamic range and noise falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 12 12-18-2009 05:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top