First a bit of background. I'm a old, long time film user, whilst I've owned a digital SLR for about 12 years it's just been a camera for a few quick snaps. I do my "serious" work on a 67. I've just upgraded to a Pentax K-70, not top of the line but, according to reviews, a very decent digital SLR. I shot this photo and when I put it on the monitor I noticed that the auto exposure had completely blown the highlight on the right doorway. To be sure, this was a very contrasty scene with the white fence and the deep shadows under the verandah but I'm quite sure anyone with decent B&W film skills could have obtained a neg with adequate shadow detail without blowing the white painted area. Of course I could have reduced exposure but that would have done not nice things to the shadow areas. I suppose I could have done a HDR and got a decent result. So what gives? Aren't digital sensors able to capture scenes with a big Subject Brightness Range yet in a way B&W film can?
Digital sensors in contrasty conditions.
-
D
- Thread starter markbau
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Foto-100 bulk roll, 100'
- Started by MCB18
-
Free Hasselblad ELM battery adapters x2
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Free FREE for shipping cost: HUGE Lot of Vintage Photo Literature!
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
If you shot RAW, you could easily tell the RAW conversion program (Lightroom, Photoshop) to reduce exposure in the Highlights, raise exposure in the Shadows.
With JPG, those same adjustments are often also possible, with a narrowed range of effective control of both.
Digital has often been characterized to be 'like shooting transparencies'..."DON'T OVEREXPOSE and lose details that cannot be recovered!" Newer digital sensors also have a slightly wider dynamic range than the early sensors could reasonable capture.
With JPG, those same adjustments are often also possible, with a narrowed range of effective control of both.
Digital has often been characterized to be 'like shooting transparencies'..."DON'T OVEREXPOSE and lose details that cannot be recovered!" Newer digital sensors also have a slightly wider dynamic range than the early sensors could reasonable capture.
+1but the OP is correct; dynamic range is film's last bastion; especially with overexposure B&W film is hard to beat.
No it’s not.
The data sheets are not lying. Even with modest contrast film still out-resolves sensors.
The problem is the scanners.
Look at film in a microscope if you can’t do huge magnification crops in the darkroom.
Remember sensors are also made with an analog photographic process (albeit quite different from silver halide).
The challenge with sensors is the weighing between big enough sensor sites as capacitors of the photoelectric effect and resolution.
That process has more or less run into diminishing or no returns for many years with the current “paradigm” of process and materials.
What’s left to optimize is software and to a lesser extent sensitivity. But that is also a game of give and take.
Assuming you are taking jpegs, the jpeg conversion in your camera most likely clipped the highlights. Take raw pictures and using a good raw processor, you should be able to recover a whole lot more in the highlights. Digital sensors actually can handle the highlights better than the shadows. That's why some recommend the ETTR method, which is "exposing to the right" of the histogram - analogous to the expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.
I know of no film that could ever present MTF validated resolution that matches what the most modern digital camera can do...
photozone.de has reported results of 5200 line-pairs per picture width...216 line pairs per millimeter testing with 50Mpixel sensor camera, yet the very best lenses could only reach 120 lp/mm with film testing, and typically excellent rated lenses offered only about 84 lp/mm!
MattKing
Moderator
Just a reminder that we have a prohibition on Photrio against most digital vs. film arguments.
On the thread topic itself, it probably isn't the sensor that is causing the problem, but rather the combination of the sensor, the firmware, the file type, the file conversion, and the software you are using to display the results.
It might even relate to the default (or other) settings you are using on the camera.
On the thread topic itself, it probably isn't the sensor that is causing the problem, but rather the combination of the sensor, the firmware, the file type, the file conversion, and the software you are using to display the results.
It might even relate to the default (or other) settings you are using on the camera.
I edited the posted image (original on left, edited on right)...note even within limitations of JPG files, I was able to extract a lot of detail even in what was a black hole of detailess shadows!
That would be no mean feat since that would exceed the theoretical resolution of the sensor by almost three times.
Food for thought: https://onlandscape-pullzone-heyqa0...content/uploads/2011/12/microscope.jpg?iv=329
Edit:
Sorry Matt, just delete if you feel
It’s necessary.
Given the content and topic of the OP I thought it pertinent.
<shrug> it is what they have published!
Last edited:
Watch this thread degenerate to film vs digital debate.
So you captured it in RAW format - then what did you do, put it in CameraRaw? Helps if you can tell exactly what your process is before going into tangets trying to guess what the problem is. Not to mention starting another film vs digital debate.
So you captured it in RAW format - then what did you do, put it in CameraRaw? Helps if you can tell exactly what your process is before going into tangets trying to guess what the problem is. Not to mention starting another film vs digital debate.
So you have the potential TO DO BETTER what I demonstrated was possible by postprocessing the posted JPG!
Yes, captured in RAW, it opened in Camera Raw 14.2 where I accepted defaults and just clicked OPEN and then converted to jpeg for posting. Even though I'm a long time film user I'm a bit of a digital newbie. I've been a bit confused as to what Camera Raw is for, it always seemed a waste of time to me as it seemed to have the same controls as Photoshop. I've just watched a Camera Raw tutorial and it seems like some photographers do the bulk of their editing in Camera Raw. I've now opened it again in RAW and adjusted highlights and shadows. The highlight is better at -100.
I would like to hear what your workflow is for experienced digital photographers.
Camera RAW my have the same capabilities as PhotoShop, but they are presented in a different manner, such as highlight and shadow sliders, clarity, exposure compensation and white balance, all adjustable from the same panel rather than a number of individual adjustment layers. Also, you can aways change those adjustments if you want, even after opening the file in PS.
Having said that, I prefer to adjust RAW files in Capture One. I have not tried the DXO offering for RAW files yet, it may have more options and features, probably a bunch of presets, too.
Adjustments with RAW conversion software allows the postprocessing flexibility across a wider range of control, compared to postprocessing of JPG data.
Both can 'do the same thing', but with RAW conversion software you can do it across a broader range of control. Camera RAW takes RAW files and converts it into a 16-bit workspace, while JPG editing is limited to an 8-bit workspace.
I made a really bad exposure error in my haste. to simply get a shot..
This is the best I could recover the grossly underexposed JPG
Fortunately at the time I was storing both RAW and JPG, so I could recover the screw up much better.
Last edited:
I've only ever shot in RAW but I just shot a jpeg and when I opened it, it opened straight into PS. I discovered a great side benefit of RAW is if you have the wrong settings on your camera (Tungsten light setting in daylight) RAW doesn't care and it's easily corrected.
Are most people doing the majority of their editing of RAW files in Camera RAW?
Are most people doing the majority of their editing of RAW files in Camera RAW?
In another photo website, a poll conducted in 2021 showed that the most popular RAW conversion program was Lightroom. Adobe Capture One was #4 in the poll (DPP was #2, but the site was heavily Canon shooters by historical background of the site) and Capture One was #3
(Sorry I didn't mean to say out loud the quip about degenerating into film vs digital. Looks like it stayed in the reply panel even after I logged off. Must be a new thing. And I didn't check before sending the post. New lesson learned.)
So the way I do is what I have been doing ever since I started using Adobe Bridge/CameraRaw/Photoshop CS2 suite (I am not an LR user yet and probably won't be as long as Adobe keeps supporting the others.) Bridge manages the database. In CameraRaw I do the basic global adjustments whereas Photoshop allows me to fine tune with specific masks for localized adjustments. Over the years, LR and ACR both have added features that makes them self-sufficient if you never wanted to use Photoshop - as long as there is no need for layers and precise masking to achieve the desired end image (although I have not upgraded my copies of the suite in recent years so I am not most current in this regard.)
In Camera Raw, most adjustments are set to default acting as a starting point for a given camera such as rendering profile, sharpening (also called input or raw sharpening as opposed to creative and output sharpening to be followed up in PS.), noise reduction, clarity, color saturation, etc. - changed only if a certain image requires further tweaking. Each image gets its own White Balance look-over and histogram adjustments with all the sliders in Basic panel, of course. No curves adjustments - I prefer PS for that. Optics adjustments if they are required - mostly on auto, based on the lens used. That's it - then open to PS as a 16-bit file, ultimately saved as a layered file in the tiff format. Jpeg format is only used when the image is to be shared on the web.
:Niranjan.
With film, you can always find more detail in the highlights, whereas in the shadows, you reach a point where no silver was harmed, and there simply isn't any more detail to be had.
Digital's the opposite-- you can always boost the shadows, ugly though they might be, but once you hit the maximum brightness of the sensor, you're done. There will be no more detail, just a solid, perfect, white.
Or in simple terms, with digital, expose for the highlights. Or shoot HDR and expose for highlights and shadow.
FYI, modern digital cameras appear to be approaching 12 stops of DR, with some medium format sensors charging towards 13.
The K-70 is rated at 10.3 stops, according to photonstophotos.net.
Digital's the opposite-- you can always boost the shadows, ugly though they might be, but once you hit the maximum brightness of the sensor, you're done. There will be no more detail, just a solid, perfect, white.
Or in simple terms, with digital, expose for the highlights. Or shoot HDR and expose for highlights and shadow.
FYI, modern digital cameras appear to be approaching 12 stops of DR, with some medium format sensors charging towards 13.
The K-70 is rated at 10.3 stops, according to photonstophotos.net.
I guess the moral of the story is to err on the side of underexposure with digital, (which for an old film guy like me is hard too get my head around). I have been amazed that pics that looked bad as shot, in RAW, can come to life by a simple exposure and shadow adjustment in Camera Raw.
Thos DR figures are interesting, I think Barnbaum claims some films can go 18 stops, I've personally measured 14 stops with a densitometer. As you say, HDR can let you have your cake and eat it too!
MattKing
Moderator
When I am using digital, I try to lean more toward my "old slide film guy" side more than my "old negative film guy" side - it seems to work
!
As Matt says, I think slide film. In more normal contrast, I dial in -0.3 exposure compensation. In very contrast situations, at least -1.0.
BTW, the dynamic range ratng from photonstophotos is incredibly conservative because his cut-off for shadow noise quite low. If you accept the noise level comparable to a typical ISO 400 film, the dynamic range will be a couple of stops higher. DxO rated my sensor at 14.7 stops, while photonstophotos at 11.6
Yeah, he rates mine a bit conservatively as well. It's part of the reason I figured I should include the website.
Oddly, DxO never bothered reviewing the sensor in my camera-- even though it's the only 32.5 mp APS-C sensor, as far as I know.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |