Dynamic Range

I still have a couple of Fuji S2 Pro. I now shoot underwater with a D200 (much better viewfinder and LCD) and have a D2X for safer shoots (it's much too big and expensive for me to risk getting wet!).

I recently did a series of photos with black BC material and blonde girls. (Lots of shadow detail and lots of highlight detail too. Plenty of skin tone.) I could not help noticing that the dynamic range of the old S2 Pro was far greater than with the more modern Nikons. Has anyone else noticed this?

If I remember rightly, the S2Pro (6mp) produces a RAW file of around 12mb while the 10mp D200 produces a RAW file of around 15mp. Could this mean that the Fuji electronics are much better and that the new S5 is a better alternative to the D200?

Naturally, underwater it's hard to make side-by-side comparisons.

A lot of D200 owners are thinking along similar lines, John. I think once the S5 is widely available alot of Nikon D200 users will sticking them in their housings.

There are a couple of short discussions here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16531

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15395

Alex

You shouldn't really see a difference between the S2 and the D200. The S3 was the first HDR version of the camera. I suspect it might have to do with either; 1) the tone curve setting on your D200 or 2) the raw conversion itself. It could be a combination of both. It's easy to ignore default shooting settings when shooting raw, then rush through the raw conversion, absentmindedly keeping crappy settings on the converted settings. That's why I keep the contrast setting low.

The S5 may be an interesting alternative. I plan on getting one. I needed an extra one for land use since I'm shooting a lot of product. Really boring little stuff in a shooting cube, not BC's on sexy bikini clad models in tropical locations like you pro's.

BTW, do you ever notice how much we talk about dynamic range shadow detail now, yet we used to use Velvia. I don't recall griping about the lack of DR in Velvia even though it had no DR. I think people expect to be able to see the details of the face of Jesus in the shadows nowadays. Changing tastes.

hey guys, I shot a few tests with an S5 yesterday, and the same shots on my d200. They are inconclusive so far as I have no software to open the new fuji raws - silky pics can do it or so i've heard, when I get it all happening I'll post the results.

At first glance, looking at the jpegs only, the S5 has great jpegs straight out of the camera. They just look like fuji trannie film! Great colour in comparison the d200's are flat and lifeless.

I'm looking forward to seeing some raws (i'm off to an adobe roadshow t'morrow, hoping the adobe folks there might have at least a dng converter that recognises them) or i'll get silky pics for now.

BUT, looking at the jpegs anyway, it doesn't match the resolution of the d200. So I think it will have a place, if res isn't your main criteria.

darren

Great info.

Alex

i also meant to mention that the low light performance looks promising...low-ish noise levels in the the shadows, and pretty smooth at fast ISOs...again jpeg's only.

And yes, it is physically a d200, everything is familiar, except a few variances in the menus.

I don't know...... You'll have to post some of those blonde girl photos for me to judge for myself. Make sure you incluse the ones with lots of skin tones.

I don't know...... You'll have to post some of those blonde girl photos for me to judge for myself. Make sure you incluse the ones with lots of skin tones.

I would but I don't want to upset anyone in America. I know how sensitive some of your are!

(I was asked to remove a picture of a girl from a website (was it this one?) 'cos she had breasts, even though all the women in my house have them. I don't know who buys those portraits by Lucian Freud.)

The S5 really looks like a nice camera especially for those who want great jpegs right out of the camera. Not sure I'd want to give up the resolution though. I am finally happy now with the resolution of large prints with a 10+ MP camera. It seems like the solution for dynamic range limitations will ultimately be multiple sensors devoted to particular parts of the range. So I guess I'll have to wait now for the 10x3 30MP DSLR.

BTW John, bared breasts are a no go on this site. I was recently asked to remove a pair as well. Not sure if it was Americans or not.

I would but I don't want to upset anyone in America. I know how sensitive some of your are!

(I was asked to remove a picture of a girl from a website (was it this one?) 'cos she had breasts, even though all the women in my house have them. I don't know who buys those portraits by Lucian Freud.)

Instead of inserting a questionable photo into your post as an image, please provide a link with a sufficient warning for those at work or similar environment. Those who do not want to view the image can choose not to click on the link.

Underwater nudes don't seem to generate the same response as topside shots, so it is a subjective decision. And please, no gratuitous pornography .

OK its not underwater but heres a shot of a great dive site - the Menai Strait a few miles from where I live.

Its actually a High Dynamic Range image created from several bracketed shots - so far I'm finding subject matter/contrast/conditions tricky to get a good shot to work with but one sensors can create 32bit files like this was underwater.......

I would but I don't want to upset anyone in America. I know how sensitive some of your are!

(I was asked to remove a picture of a girl from a website (was it this one?) 'cos she had breasts, even though all the women in my house have them. I don't know who buys those portraits by Lucian Freud.)

The issue of nudity is touchy. Photographers tend to be opened minded and the naked body certainly isn't something to be ashamed of. However, this is a public domain and thus such images may offend some. If one thinks the image may incur controversy, then a link and a short warning (as Matt suggests) is easy and will avoid problems. Wetpixel likes to leave people alone with their posts and encourages general respect for others in the community. Of course, if anyone starts spamming for porn sites and ED drugs, then they will incur the wrath of the moderators.

John, it's good the women in your house have them. But if the men in your house had bigger ones, it's be more interesting.

Good point; can we post moobs? Quite a few divers have them.

OK its not underwater but heres a shot of a great dive site - the Menai Strait a few miles from where I live.

 

I'm sorry Paul. The hills are far too suggestive. Can you retouch them a bit flatter please?

Back on topic, someone sent this to me today.

Expose_to_the_Right.doc

Loftus - interesting. If you've not tried it have a look at photomatix software http://www.hdrsoft.com/ which has tonal mapping available for 16-bit images - it can be very effective but works much better on some images than others - underwater, images with lots of fine detail seem work best and can really be made to look far better than by simply using the shadow/highlight filter in PS - I think a trial version is available, but the software does take some getting used to.

John, they're HILLS! If you think they need flattening then you should worry. A lot!

Thank you, I took a quick look. I will definitely download it and try it. But it only functions to combine multiple tripod images right? Does not do anything for a single image, correct?

Loftus - interesting. If you've not tried it have a look at photomatix software http://www.hdrsoft.com/ which has tonal mapping available for 16-bit images - it can be very effective but works much better on some images than others - underwater, images with lots of fine detail seem work best and can really be made to look far better than by simply using the shadow/highlight filter in PS - I think a trial version is available, but the software does take some getting used to.

 

John, they're HILLS! If you think they need flattening then you should worry. A lot!

"Does not do anything for a single image, correct?"

It does - or rather there is a plug-in for PS which does - it works with bit depths greater than 8 (so a RAW image opened in 16-bit depth can be adjusted. Although it is far more effective on merged 32-bit images I have found it effective on SOME underwater files - it takes getting used to and a lot of playing aroundf with to start to see what is going on - I find it best used with loads of fine detail, and it can produce enhanced images. But its effect may not be to your taste or may be achievable in other ways.

Either way we are going to have to get used to reinterpreting higher than 8-bit depth files as this is one of the advances we will undoubtedly see in camera design/spec. The new Canon EOS1DMkII is a 14-bit camera by the look of it!

"Does not do anything for a single image, correct?"

 

It does - or rather there is a plug-in for PS which does - it works with bit depths greater than 8 (so a RAW image opened in 16-bit depth can be adjusted. Although it is far more effective on merged 32-bit images I have found it effective on SOME underwater files - it takes getting used to and a lot of playing aroundf with to start to see what is going on - I find it best used with loads of fine detail, and it can produce enhanced images. But its effect may not be to your taste or may be achievable in other ways.

 

Either way we are going to have to get used to reinterpreting higher than 8-bit depth files as this is one of the advances we will undoubtedly see in camera design/spec. The new Canon EOS1DMkII is a 14-bit camera by the look of it!

I think this is a misleading. They dynamic range is set by the sensor, electronics, and capture settings. Applying HDR processing to a single image does not increase its dynamic range. The tonemapping functions in CS2 or Photomatix are a essentially a glorified curves adjustment combined with a local contrast. They can product striking images, although I find the halos from photomatix far too cartoonish for my taste.

The new Canon EOS1DMkII really does increase the dynamic range of the sensor, from 12 bits to 14 bits per color channel. Of course what the USABLE dynamic range is depends on the sensor noise, which remains to be seen.

This is a common specsmanship problem. If you go to an electronics catalog and look up a 24 bit analog to digital converter, you find that none of them give more than about 22 bits of usable dynamic range. In fact some of them aren't any better than 18 bits, which means that the extra 6 bits are garbage. For digital photography the noise is usually limited by the sensor well depth, collection efficiency, and amplifier electronics, not the ADCs. Even so the specsmanship problem remains.

so ACR version 3.7 (now downloadable from the adobe site) can open the new S5 RAW files, but officially the S5 is as-yet unsupported, figure that????

Anyway, at first glance the RAW files look like very nice 6MP files, but not convinced they are any vast improvement on what I'm getting from the d200. Mind you, maybe when acr "supports" the S5 raws (and doesn't just open them) maybe they will be better. or the fuji software might give better files if you can get it.

Funny, the large jpegs I shot togther with the raws come out of the camera as (interpolated i guess) 12MP, the RAWS are only 6MP in ACR. Maybe ACR is missing something, hence the format is unsupported.