>>I am confused why the zone system used by Ansel Adams >1/2 >>century ago is being referenced here. >>Yes, in his system there are 10 stops of light between >black >>and white. > >I'm referencing it because it traditionally defines the number >of stops that we can perceive between the blackest black and >whitest white we can see. It's still used to calibrate DR in >light meters.
Makes sense, but the human eye does a little better, especially adaptively.
I guess I do understand why you were using the zone system or the 10 or 11 stops but disagree and think we should use more with our current technology.
>>The human eye can decipher 24 stops of light between black >and >>white. (Albeit with a change in aperture/ pupil size) > >I'm not sure how we can see 24 when there are only 11 in the >grey scale. A white object underexposed 10 stops will be black >without any detail apparent to the human eye.
I would argue that 11 stops is arbitrary to our recording and viewing methods. If you take that grey card and expose it on a bright sunny day and compare it to an exposure indoors, and look at pure blac or pure white, they will be exposed far differently. There is a wider range in the real world than 10 or 11 stops.
>>A modern A/D converter built in our camera has a dynamic >range >>of about 16 stops of light. >> >>A modern monitor may be able to display a dynamic range of >18 >>stops. >> >>The better dynamic range of your initial image should help >you >>with processing to obtain an image with the best dynamic >>range. This would be true at iso 100 and the benefits are >not >>simply relegated to the high iso's where your dynamic >range >>finally goes down to 10 stops. >>For instance a camera with poor dynamic range would only >>record black in a shadow where this camera will have >detail >>that could be brought out selectively and displayed. The >same >>is true to a lesser degree with highlights. >>Ansel Adams had 10 stops in his system. I would think >that a >>system with 16 or 18 stops would be more applicable to >the >>digital age. >>I have been impressed with my ability to push the images >in >>post processing from this camera. >> >>see this link for more info on dynamic range. >>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm >> >>The dynamic range vs iso chart demonstrates near equal >>performance between the D800 and D600. >>The bar chart was confusing for me and I think shows that >the >>D800 is significantly better. Does this make sense to >>anyone? > >If you are saying that a wider DR enables the camera to see >things that the human eye cannot and can be brought out in >post, then that does make sense. I wasn't thinking in terms of >taking pictures and expecting details in things I cannot see.
No the human eye can still do better than our camera's. When we view a landscape on a bright sunny day, we see more in the shadows and more in the highlights than our camera can record. The dynamic range of the scene is more than 11. When we view the shadows our pupil opens and when we view the highlights it colses down. This happens fast and our brain integrates it into a single image/ impression of the scene.
>I can now think in terms of a wider DR enabling greater >recovery from exposure error.
I wouldn't call it error, just a limitation of our technology.
"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga