The capture/input DR is recorded before gamma adjustment and other tonemapping. This means that shadow noise at the capture stage is amplified by postprocessing, and better S/N ratios in the shadows will translate to a higher overall perceived DR, also in the output.............
There is no use in discussing the output quality in this thread unless one understands what to improve on the input side, and how that affects the output.
Cheers,
Bart
Well said, Bart. There's a lot of processing that takes place between a RAW capture and the final print. I remember a few years ago attempting linear conversions to retrieve maximum highlight detail from certain images, before ACR hit the market. I soon gave up on it. It was too difficult to get a satisfactory tonal result across the whole image when starting with a linear conversion.
Issues also raised in this thread about the DR limitations of the the monitor, the limitations of web-based jpegs, and particularly the DR limitations of the print, are complete red herrings.
When attempting to compare a particular aspect of camera performance, such as DR, it's standard practice that one should at least attempt to keep the processing similar, such as noise reduction, sharpening, saturation and vibrancy, hue and WB, and of course proof settings with regard to paper/printer profile, when making a print.
There are differences in the way certain RAW converters handle image files from different models of cameras. I know, for example, that Bibble can produce slightly sharper results from my Canon RAW images than ACR. But I know also that this slight edge in resolution is at the expense of noise. ACR images are a little softer, or blotchier, but have clearly less noise. If I apply some noise reduction to the Bibble conversion, it looks pretty close to the ACR conversion.
Nevertheless, there are subtle differences, and anyone may prefer one particular RAW converter to another based on personal taste, and even image type, such as portrait or landscape.
However, the issue in this thread is not about subtle differences in DR due to differences in the default noise reduction of certain RAW converters, but is about huge differences in DR as reported by certain reviewers.
What's the explanation?
There are a number of explanations that I think may all be true to some degree. I'll list a few, but please don't think I'm pointing the finger at anyone. We're all human, but some of us are more scientifically rigorous than others. And even the scientifically rigorous are not neccessarily scientifically rigorous all the time, in all circumstances. Even Einstein made some flaws of judgement, perhaps due to his religious proclivities. (I'm thinking of, "God does not play dice", in relation to the theory of Quantum Mechanics).
1. MFDB manufacturers are struggling to be viable. Their products are ridiculously expensive in relation to the increased performance over a good 35mm DSLR, and they need all the good publicity they can get. A bit of hyperbole from a few reputable photographers is much appreciated.
2. Image is important in more ways than one. The professional photographer needs to impress his clients. An expensive MFDB system may do the trick.
3. Less discerning photographers tend to follow the 'big boys'. If their successful mentors or idols are using particular equipment, they will tend to follow and buy the same equipment. It's all too human. There's a lot of irrational behaviour in human society. When their purchasing decision has been made, mortgaging their house to buy a complete MFDB system, any criticism of their excessive expenditure will be met with strong, subjective statements supporting the superior performance of their equipment.
There can be no objective testing in such circumstances, because such testing would reveal such a marginal increase in performance, disproportionate with the price paid, it would cause distress. We all like to kid ourselves on occasions, including me.
4. There's a tendency to group the performance of all 35mm DSLR together, and compare an unspecified experience of 35mm performance with MFDB, which may exclude the best 35mm performer, the Nikon D3X, but include the best MFDB performer, whatever that may be.
Should I continue? I don't want the thread to be closed.
I'll add that I've never found much difficulty in determing the DR capability of a camera. Everyone who can afford a good camera probably lives in a house or a flat, doesn't he/she? I mean, he/she who owns a P65+ or D3X is not likely to be a street dweller.
In which case, just photograph your living room on a sunny day and expose for the brightest clouds out of your window. It's terribly simple. If you want to be really thorough, you could place a few very detailed objects and artifacts in the living room, even a newspaper.
Having exposed correctly to get all the cloud detail, using your MFDB and D3X in ETTR mode, then examine the detail in your living room. The camera that provides the greater detail in your living room has the better DR.
The fact that a true ETTR may be difficult to achieve, is another red herring. Just do it. If the clouds are blown, take another shot, and another shot, till it's right.
