Hi,
Typical area would be high contrast scenes like a picture taken in a dark church where we need to capture a mosaic window and still keep good detail in the shadows. Architecture photographers may need it for interiors and so.
In landscape photography we may need high DR in situations like this:
My experience this far has been that all DSLRs I have been using had ample DR for my needs. There is always an option to use HDR (combining several exposures into one) but I have seldom needed it.
So, in my view DR is an important quality in a camera, but it may be somewhat overrated. Here is a short discussion on extracting info from a single image: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/63-lot-of-info-in-a-digital-image
Erik,
One always has to work within the limitations of one's tools. DR, tonal range, SNR, resolution etc are to me all desirable qualities in any image, but not all images (or prints) require those qualities to the same degree.
The classic example is Michael's comparison of A3+ size prints of a woodland scene from a Canon G10 P&S and a Phase P45. No-one was able to identify which camera was the origin of which print.
From memory, the nature of the subject was not ideal for comparing DR because the patches of sky visible through the foliage were blown in the both shots, but presumably to different degrees. The rough texture of a forest was not an ideal subject for comparison of SNR at 18% grey, so that particular feature in which the P45 excels would have passed unnoticed. The 10mp of the Canon G10 is ample resolution for an A3+ size print, so the obvious advantages of the higher resolution of the P45 would also have passed unnoticed.
Eventually, someone noticed a shallower DoF in one of the prints, so that was the clue. I can't help wondering what the result might have been if Michael had been more rigorous in the comparison and reshot the scene at F22 with the P45, instead of the F11 that was used. Would the resolution of the P45 at F22 have been noticeably less at A3+ print size? Would the slower shutter speed have resulted in a noticeable blurring due to leaf movement, in the P45 shot?
You, Erik, claim that you don't really need more DR than current cameras provide, then present an image to support your view, of a high DR scene (or scene with high SBR, as BJL prefers) which has terribly noisy shadows.
I know black can be beautiful, but I've often wondered if the custom of blackening shadows on prints has arisen mainly, or at least partly, because of the dynamic range limitations of film or sensor. Sometimes a blackened silhouette can be very striking, but sometimes there might be interesting detail in them thar shadows which the eye actually does perceive in the actual scene before the shutter was pressed.
I've been searching my recent images for one that demonstrates my point; that is, an image with a high SBR which also has detail in deep shadows which one may wish to preserve.
I think the following shot of a beach scene in Thailand, about a couple of hours before sunset, fits the bill. As I was walking back to the hotel, part of the route went alongside the beach and I noticed a dramatic change in the weather. I find clouds interesting. I was carrying my D7000 with 14-24/2.8 attached. The following shot was taken at 24mm, or 36mm FF equivalent.
The shot is close to being an ETTR, although I think I might have got away with using an 80th instead of the 100th. However, I prefer to err on the side of underexposure, especially when using a camera such as the D7000 with a high DR.
Now this is an image which clearly has to be processed. If I'd been in jpeg mode, then forget it. But what sort of processing is right, or best, or preferred? It was mainly the dark clouds in contrast with the bright sunlight squeezing in below, which caught my attention. I waited for someone to walk along the beach to add foreground interest. I don't think it would be natural for those figures to be blackened silouhettes. This scene was well before sunset, and the detail in the figures was clearly visible to my eye when I took the shot.
Likewise, the few leaves that partially frame the shot, were visible in detail when I took the shot. I like leaves, and these leaves are interesting and unusual. They are unusually large, which is no doubt partly why many Thais cover their roofs with them.
So this is the problem. At one end of the scale I've got almost direct sunlight, and at the other end of the scale I've got perfectly clear and visible detail which is rendered unnaturally dark by the camera.
If the camera has a poor dynamic range, I'm obviously going to keep those shadows unnaturally dark. That's preferrable to noise and grunge.
However, with a D7000, and particularly with a D800, I may be able to make those shadows presentable, as I think they are in the images below which include 100% crops.
Cheers! Ray
