1. alecras234

    alecras234

    Messages:
    4
    Name:
    ash
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi I'm Ash and im trying to learn about photography. I'm writing the meanings of certain terms like,megapixel. i'm stuck on a term and need help please. So far i have, -
    Pixel - Tiny square of colour, Megapixel - A million pixels - 12 megapixel is 12 million pixels, Dynamic range - How a camera sees from brights and darks, I don't really understand dynamic range.
     
  2. john.margetts

    john.margetts

    Messages:
    1,854
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Dynamic range is not the easiest concept. Without getting very technical, it is how many shades there are in the subject being photographed, or how many the camera can record between black and white.
     
  3. BADGER.BRAD

    BADGER.BRAD

    Messages:
    452
    Name:
    BRAD
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm fairly new to this myself but I'll try and explain it as I know it. Imagine full dynamic range from bright to dark is on a scale of 100 with extreme brightness/white being 100 and black being zero some digital cameras have poor dynamic range and may run using this scale from 30 up to 70 so that anything over 70 in the bright part of the photo will just show as white losing any detail that was there, I find bright skies bad for this and instead of showing any cloud it just shows at complete white, at the other end of the scale ( the shadows) There may be detail that your eye can see but will be lost by the camera showing only as black. I have never seen this listed as a specification to a camera so am unsure how this would be shown.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  4. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The dynamic range is the difference range the camera can capture between dark to bright.

    Imagine a scene,lets a say a room, where if you were to meter between the darkest corner and the bright light coming through the window had a difference of 10 stops. If you have a camera capable ot shooting a 10 stop or more dynamic range, then it will capture the scene perfectly, but if your camera can only capture 8 stops then its going to mean you have to choose between losing one end or another, either the blacks or the whites, or of course you can choose to go in the middle, and sacrifice a bit of both, dependant upon what settings you dial in.
    (I'll assume that since you are learning, you are not just using an auto mode)

    Dynamic range is extremely important and is a major difference between amateur and professional bodies, but something that is rarely dicussed.
     
  5. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    3,609
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you want to learn about photography grab a camera alongside the writing and get shooting.

    It will soon make sense to you.

    There are only a few "rules" but they can take a lifetime to fully understand.
     
    gazmorton2000 and john.margetts like this.
  6. AgentOrange76

    AgentOrange76

    Messages:
    203
    Name:
    James
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    hmm but had i known more about apertures, ISO, that a lens can be fixed aperture or variable and how that would affect use then I would not of bought the bridge camera I did and spent a very frustrating few months trying to make it do things it couldnt and give up trying to learn. Even having bought the current camera, there are things I now would benefit having on the camera that had I understood might of dictated what i bought.
    Composition and basics can be learnt on a compact if it has priority settings, and Youtube and the internet is so much more usefull than 8 or so years ago for self teaching
     
  7. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi Ash
    If you’re of a technical mindset:

    Think of each pixel as a bucket that collects light that enters the camera.
    All buckets will be able to collect a measurable amount of light, if you think of photons of light as being ping pong balls that fill up the bucket.

    But...
    a larger bucket will still gather some photons where they might all miss a smaller bucket (that’s a small amount of light from darker areas of the subject, so a better sensor will record detail where a lesser sensor captures none) and the smaller bucket fills quicker meaning that it reaches ‘full’ (white) sooner, again lacking detail in highlight areas.

    Over simplified. But shows that photography is all about gathering light to create an image, which is fundamental to understanding how people make pictures with cameras.
    You are never taking a picture of an object, you are capturing the light reflected from it.
     
  8. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Utter nonsense.
     
  9. GTG

    GTG Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    1,795
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  10. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Why? Care to elaborate?
     
  11. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yes; shooting out of focus or badly exposed images with a 1dx is less ‘professional’ than shooting well exposed in focus images on a 6d ;)

    Puffing your chest about ‘professionalism’ has the risk of turning some people into a laughing stock.

    A little self awareness might help us all, and reduce the need to keep repeating this.
     
    yzfmike, adrianday, wontolla and 4 others like this.
  12. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Phil. You are so desperate to prove some minor point in I assume some attempt to justify your own photography, that you keep taking things off topic.

    Which really is the key thing. People chat in forums to provide advice and help, not to just to moan about things that are not even there. I don't care about your personal comments and they are not helpful to people on here. I haven't looked at your portfolio, or anyone elses and don't care to. I'm not interested.

    And if you read my original post on this thread, you'll note -

    Which is correct and has nothing to do with puffing any chests out, which I never do anyway, and has nothing to do with professionalism.

    It's simply a technical difference between the high end camera bodies the vast majority of professionals use, and the consumer models most hobbyists use.

    Having a wider dynamic range means it's quicker to process and achieves better results in many situations with complex lighting, which is not utter nonsense.

    and once again keeping things on topic. You'll find the wider dynamic range of a 1dx over the 6d will allow you a lot more flexibility to take images that naturally have a wider dynamic range, without having to compromise or resort to bracketing and blending.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  13. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well ... it is being discussed now :) - and I really cannot agree with that statement, it borders on some form of elitism imo ...

    Using Nikon as an example, the DR of the professional D5 is some 2+ stops less than the consumer D610 ... and an even bigger difference between the D810/D850 as well as the D7200 which is a crop body camera ...

    Interestingly the Canon 1DXII does have a slightly better DR than the rest of the Canon brigade except for the 5DMk4, but given the Canon 200D and the 77D are extremely close - as in 0.2 stops - and they are definitely consumer bodies it hardly makes a spit of difference. Also the 1Dx (I'm guessing the Mk 1 but Canon have the weirdest naming conventions imo ...) actually has a lower DR than both the 6D mk1 & Mk2 ...

    There are many very good reasons to buy so called professional bodies but better DR is certainly not one of them.
     
    Phil V and john.margetts like this.
  14. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Can we get off the eliteisim thing? There is none. I've never met a single genuine pro photographer in my life who is eliteist, yet its a label so many throw towards us, and it's boring.
    If anyone throwing such labels wants and thinks they can be a full time professional photographer with whatever equipment or skill level. Go for it. No one is stopping you.
    If you feel I'm totally wrong and you can go out and make a good living with whatever cheap kit you have, or using whatever hobbyist techniques, or auto modes, do it.
    Despite what many people say the photography industry is screaming out for really good photographers.
    Dont winge on a forum.

    Once again getting back on topic...

    Thats interesting that you mention a wider dynamic range on other bodies. Do you have a link to a chart or comparison?
    and yes there are many reasons to buy a top end body, which is not an elitest statement.
     
  15. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,364
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It was aimed at you specifically, many of your posts come across the same way. Without exception all of the pro photographers I know personally are far from elitist, most are just damned nice people.

    As for charts, the best resource for this type of technical assessment is DXO - I don't agree with much of what they do (especially where lenses are concerned), but there is no doubt that their sensor measuring technique is useful, given that it is controlled and repeatable. Because of their method, sensors across formats and brands can be compared. Like I say though, their lens tests are very much flat chart at x metres type tests which, quite frankly are only good for the measurebators.
     
    Phil V likes this.
  16. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Oh my
    Check in the mirror.

    You are the only ‘pro’ photographer, I’ve ever criticised for attitude whether on a forum or in real life.

    And I’m not the only one who’s challenged you here, and we’re not people who wish to have a go at pros either, but are other working photographers.

    Go check out the work history of everyone who’s criticised you. And get off your high horse, stop talking b****x and offer help where you can.

    Where all you have to offer is clearly b****x, do yourself a favour and don’t bother.

    I know I’m not ‘the best’ wedding photographer here, but you’ll not find any OoF images on my website or anything remotely as bad as that appalling on camera flash ringshot that still haunts everyone who witnessed it.

    You’re very probably not a complete nob, so stop trying to be one :)
     
  17. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    In a thread started by a guy who owns a compact...

    But you’re in no way ‘elitist’ FFS!!!
     
  18. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    3,609
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Stop Riddellculing him Phil :D
     
    Phil V likes this.
  19. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It seems phil, that you just want to spend all you time putting me down rather than helping people.
    You bring up the same point about an oof image over and over again.

    I came on this thread to help the OP and gave info, which you and others may not agree with, and it should at that point spark a lively debate, or instead just correct me but instead you just choose to attack me. I've never attacked you, as mentioned i haven't even looked at your work and am not interested in doing so, nor do I care what you do or how you do it. Yet you seem to take a lot of interest in myself.

    I'm not elitest or a snob and have never made any claims to be the world's best photographer, or anything similar.
     
  20. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just read the original post, and maybe even look at the OP’s other posts (it’ll help) context is everything.

    Look at all the great advice they’ve had which actually answered their question, then re-read your response.

    Your response was:
    • Not helpful
    • Frankly factually and technically incorrect
    • Elitist (you mentioned professional standards to someone getting to grips with their first compact camera)
    You really want to come across as ‘helpful’ but consistently come across as ridiculous, only you can’t see how far out of context your answer is. It’s not an obsession with one OoF image, it’s the fact you consistently condescend and you have only a self proclaimed ‘high ground’.

    I’m not alone, you’ve been called out* by a number of other pro photographers for the attitude, all of whom are helpful, friendly and better photographers than you.

    So please help yourself, climb off the high horse and join in the friendly forum from where you can help others :) my posts at you are an attempt to stop you making a dick of yourself, because I always try to help people :cool:

    *and yet more who assumed your responses were sarcasm because they are so ridiculous.
     
  21. shapeshifter

    shapeshifter

    Messages:
    1,148
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That's learning physics and electronics not photography.

    You will learn a lot more about photography by going on flebay and buying the series of magazines produced in the late 70's early 80's called 'You and your camera' you can buy the intire series for £30 in binders. And not a pixel or megabyte in sight.
     
    Graham W likes this.
  22. chris malcolm

    chris malcolm

    Messages:
    1,313
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    (Which Phil pointed out wasn't true, "utter rubbish".)

    The fact of the matter is that for several years at least those using Nikon & Sony enthusiast level crop sensor cameras enjoyed (and still enjoy) superior dynamic range to the top end professional full frame Canons. For example, the Sony A77, released in April 2011, according to DXOmarks's well respected dynamic range tests had 13.2 stops of dynamic range. Until the release of the Canon EOS 5D mk 4 in 2016 Canon's top professional full frame camera, the mk 3, released in 2012, had a dynamic range of 11.7. The 5D mk iv, released in 2016, had a dynamic range of 13.6, the first professional Canon to squeeze past the dynamic range of the by then five year old crop sensor Sony A77. Alas however for dynamic range enthusiasts, that still didn't better the Sony A6300's 13.7, released six months before Canon's flagship, or the Nikon d7200's 14.6, released a year earlier, both crop sensor enthusiast level cameras. Note that I'm here comparing top end professional full frame Canon bodies with unprofessional crop sensor Sony and Nikon bodies. Their more professional full frame cameras do even better.

    Of course if by "the high end bodies the vast majority of professionals use" you mean Canon, and by "the consumer models most hobbyists use" you mean Canon, then your claim is true, but rather misleading, since if dynamic range was so very important, then the "vast majority of professionals" and "most hobbyists" wouldn't have been using Canon, especially since they could have saved a lot of money while gaining a lot more dynamic range by dropping down from professional to the crop sensor enthusiast level cameras of Sony and Nikon.

    I can't agree either with your claim that dynamic range while very important is rarely discussed. Canon's rather poor dynamic ranges compared to those of Nikon and Sony have been for many years an endless topic of discussion, quite possibly discussed more than any other difference between Canon image sensors and those of Nikon and Sony.

    I do agree with you, however, that dynamic range is very important. As an unprofessional amateur photographer of limited budget I'm still using my aged and long superseded Sony A77, and am still delighted by its extraordinary dynamic range, so much better than anything Canon made at any price for many years, and still not much inferior to their current best.
     
    Phil V likes this.
  23. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    3,609
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I had a Nikon D70 as a first foray into DSLR after years of film photography.

    No reciprocity failure formulae to work out but it had crap dynamic range.

    And it still produced great photos (if exposed correctly).

    Dynamic range is the buzzword of digital cameras nowadays. Sure it's nice to have a wide latitude but pro photographers (and amateurs) produced great shots with older (inferior) bodies than we have nowadays.

    Some shots were even in focus
     
    john.margetts and Phil V like this.
  24. Lensman Mark

    Lensman Mark

    Messages:
    49
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    :pint: I'm bored of the bickering.
     
  25. GreenNinja67

    GreenNinja67

    Messages:
    3,609
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yet you still found the need to post an inflammatory comment?
     
  26. BADGER.BRAD

    BADGER.BRAD

    Messages:
    452
    Name:
    BRAD
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I should think poor Ash wishes he never asked the question, he had a few attempts at help and then the rest were just someone else's argument, really useful !
     
  27. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yep. It's ridiculous. If you look at my initial post, I believe it's helpful, but then a vinditive person took an opjection to the last line I posted and keeps wanting to start an argument, despite me trying to get it back on topic.

    Well done to Chris Malcolm for supplying an informed response and getting it back on track.

    Ash you seem new here, just learn to ignore some people on here, it's the Internet.
     
  28. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    He was certainly very polite whilst proving that your post was completely wrong. :p

    Well done @chris

    And thanks Riddell for the great response to my points about your post. You managed to cover off the details. :confused:

    Well actually you just ignored what I posted and played the victim (dreary).
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  29. riddell

    riddell

    Messages:
    287
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    pointless vindictiveness gets ignored.
     
  30. Phil V

    Phil V

    Messages:
    21,704
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    :LOL::LOL::LOL:

    So youll never answer my post :p

    But you congratulated Chris for saying the same thing.

    I hope its been a learning experience for all of us :ROFLMAO:
     
  31. Matt

    Matt Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    37,541
    Name:
    matt
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    a bit late to the dick waving party here lads but is there any chance that some of you can step away from the keyboard for 10 mins before jumping in with comments? just a couple of minutes of thought would save a lot of aggravation and a lot of bad feeling. we're all here for the photography, not a lot of people want to know who has the bigger willy.
     
    welly and Marc like this.
  32. Graham W

    Graham W

    Messages:
    1,800
    Name:
    Graham
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    He's not called "Cobra" for nothing.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice