Dynamic Range in Photography - A New Perspective: Why 8 Stops Are Enough

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

📛 Become a channel member: kzbin.infojoin ☕ Donate a coffee to support this channel: ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography ❓📩 Direct support: thomaseisl.photography/shop/p/support-ticket

[@Henry30065]

Thomas’ videos on dynamic range are, without doubt, the most informative and enjoyable I have seen. He manages to explain what could easily be a technically challenging subject in a digestible form. Having said that, I admit that I have had to watch each episode more than once to fully grasp the details! Excellent videos. Well done Thomas👌 Alun

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Wow, thanks! I very much appreciate your words, I'm honored, Alun! Thank you again!

[@ZOly62]

Great video Thomas, you are not just pro photographer, you are great educator too. 👌👌👌

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - a very kind, much appreciated comment!

[@jpdj2715]

"Contrast envelope" is (in English) what we called Dynamic Range (DR) in my language in the film days. Photographers from the applied/vocational photography BSc program had learned "densitometry" and using the same methods & techniques "sensitometry" [1]. We would measure a film's contrast envelope with "density as function of 10-log (i*t) [2]" and a well-processed [3] film of high quality standard would have a usable contrast envelope of some 4.5. Note that the 10-log. If we take the 10-log 4.5 starting from 0 then we have a contrast envelope of about 32,000 and that translates to 15 EV (a 2-log scale). "Usable" is what we looked at and for. In the 10-log based function we wanted to see a straight line as long as possible and this line would change into a curve at either end that went into a horizontal asymptote. The curved shoulders of that curve would still render density differences related to the underlying (i*t) but as this was no longer in the straight straight line piece there was varying compression of gradation differences. In the horizontal sections there is no detail any longer, being either completely black or completely white, no matter tonal differences in the subject. When we point to film and call it "analogue", we have to remind ourselves that the sensor in our digital camera is also analogue. Each photocell has an electronic circuit that builds a charge during exposure. After exposure the electric charge is measured and "Analogue-to-Digital" has its "real" number converted into a digital "integer" number. This is where the "14 bits" happen (or 12 or 16). Note that some "fab" or "foundry" [4] advertise "16 bit sensors" that really are 14 bits and use 2 additional bits to communicate the "spectral colour band". Meaning they're plain 14 bits. And we can deduce that AD happens in the sensor chip. And we cannot deduce how the camera manufacturer applies the AD maths that likely is in low-level firmware. All this leads to the most important point. 10-log (i*t) dynamic response of 4.5 is what availed in one shot. In the case of film. But the dynamic range of digital (...) cameras is just the "operating range in light levels". That does not mean that the DR is available to an individual shot. So I would add the contrast envelope into the equation. If you ever bought a Sekonic light meter with a calibration target then you will have wondered why the calibration has much less contrast envelope than the published-by-fluencers DR of the camera. Well, it's as simple as I put it above. Dynamic range is extremely simple if we separate operating range and single image from one another. And rather than talk about it, show the grey scales that illustrate this all. Women know the concept "words, words, words" (cf. kzbin.info/www/bejne/goqkp5urn7BnpKM). As opposed to substance. [1] Densitometry is about the measuring of density in a film (by means of how much light comes through) and sensitometry is about relating that to "correct exposure". Note that sensitivity never was defined and still today the ISO institute does not define correct exposure with its ISO number range. I still remember an Agfa executive complaining about some fluencer in an established photography magazine writing that a new film listed the wrong DIN/ASA numbers. Kodak set the worldwide de facto standard at the time and that was the expectation. That standard was engraved deeply into lightmeters from, say, Gossen or Sekonic. You cannot trust your digital camera brand to still stick to the old Kodak standard and "ISO" in a camera is an opinion. Comparing shots between two different brand cameras (likely with different lenses) both shot at the same exposure and ISO settings and then drawing conclusions about under- or over-exposing makes the fluencer a naive idiot. Because ISO, because a lens's T-value. [2] i*t = intensity of light * time of exposure - imagine film sensitivity as a bucket that is large at low ISO and vice versa. You can fill a given bucket volume with high intensity and short time or low intensity and long time. [3] processing of photographic film and papers in its resulting quality depends a lot n the chemical formula we use, the dilution when making the liquid at strength, the temperature during the development, as well as motion or no motion and if motion, how often and how strong. This would influence contrast envelope, sensitivity (correct exposure) and gradation. [4] "fab" or "foundry" is the generic name for a company that "prints" chips. Generally these companies do not design chips but their clients do. E.g. ARM design CPUs since the 1980s and have always made their own logical designs. These then are printed by a "fab" or "foundry". Printing machines can run up to 800 million a piece today and the next generation likely is more expensive. The logica design specifies all the electronic components and their connections. Such designs can be evaluated in simulation software that will tell the designer of the circuit is logically sound. In order to print, the "fab" or "foundry" must work with a physical design and this happens somewhere in the chain. The foundry may have a team of specialists that can give feedback to the logical designer if the physical design may impact performance in a bad way or not. (Physically, because of how components need to be arranged, connections can become an issue, when too long.) Apple and Samsung both could be client with foundry TSMC but at the foundry organisation they would run strict Chinese Walls between people working for the one or the other client. Sony Semiconductor is a foundry but not in the top 10 of foundries. Nikon and Canon in the past made printers for foundries, but in the early 2000s lost their market lead to startup ASML. Sensors are large chips and the photocells are huge relative to the current step size in foundry printers - a photosite in a high resolution sensor is in the 1000 * 1000 steps ballpark today. So photosites can be printed still on machines with the step size of 10 Moore's Law cycles ago (20 years).

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for a very interesting and comprehensive contribution. Best, Thomas

[@davejsullivan]

Excellent again. Your videos also encourage people to realize that, in the vast majority of cases, their camera is good enough to do the job, even my lowly Olympus gear. Haha

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha 😂 "lowly Olympus gear". I mean, how do we even manage to work with FourThirds sensors, is that even called photography when you do not have 14 stops of dynamic range 😉 Thanks for the kind feedback, David!

[@Drmikekuna]

Thomas, where have you been all my photography life? You have gotten me to watch photography videos again. Your explanations are so clear, and your examples are excellent. Although I understood dynamic range pretty well, I learned a thing or two from your video. More importantly, your video got me thinking about the topic again. You are a gifted teacher.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Mike, I'm blown away by your kind words. Wow! You really made my day, in fact, you made my week. Thanks for your kindness. Also, thank you for watching and confirming my findings. It is invaluable to get feedback from experienced photographers like you. Thank you very much and welcome to the channel. I hope you will like future videos as well!

[@JJ-zu8jm]

I recently digitized some color slides from the early 70s and cannot believe how amazing the colors and resolution are - and as you say - even by today's standards.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes!

[@MrGohunter]

Yes, I have done this recently too. Stunning colours. I still remember the first time I shot slide film and being blown away by the colour saturation. Oh how I long for Kodachrome once again.....

[@Biosynchro]

It is laughable when some people say that post-processing is a 'necessary' part of photography. Because when I was shooting slides back in the '90s, I was actually glad that I couldn't alter them once they were processed. You look through a stock photo catalogue from that era and then try and tell me that post processing is 'necessary'.

[@torgeirhansson1096]

Whenever I see a video from Thomas on a topic, I can stop looking. It is always rock solid and highly engaging. Thank you Thomas for this excellent video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@Michael-l6u1r]

Dear Mr. Eisl, I just watched your video entitled "Dynamic Range in Photography - A New Perspective: Why 8 Stops of are Enough." The presentation clarified a couple of issues that I have been wrestling with. First, I grew up shooting film which included 35mm, medium format, and 4x5. The “smoothness” of the intermediate values were/are more pleasing to my eye than what I typically see from digital images. I inaccurately described this issue as “gritty-ness” in another comment which was a misnomer. That description leads one to believe that I was referring to the “noise” seen in some digital images. Your video seems to making my point but in a more intelligent manner. I believe that the higher the bit depth - holding the variable of dynamic range constant - the more tonal values would be possible and therefore the transitions within and between colors would appear “smoother” to the eye. The illustration using a 12 stop dynamic range camera with only a bit depth of 1 examples this in the opposite extreme. My conclusion is - which is also shown in your video entitled "The OM-1 Mark II - OM System’s Masterpiece Reviewed" (Section: The High Resolution Mode) - that the higher the bit depth, the higher the number of brightness values and thus rendering a “smoother” transition of the intermediate values. Mr. Eisl, “…in the 14-bit version the gradation is even more nuanced and the colors are significantly more accurate.” Thank you for your detailed information and continued success!

[@b.s.4478]

Great video Thomas! Thanks! 👍 Cheers from Portugal.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome, thanks!

[@cmichaelanthonyimages2197]

Thomas explains range in great detail. I used both transparency and film back in the analog day. All my personal images and commercial work was shot on trans. Weddings, portraits, all on vps. The one thing you did not have to wory about was overexposure with vps. It had the range value on the highlight side but not for under. Trans has a much more narrow range for over and under, so exposure was critical. I always looked at the incident and reflected exposure values using a spot attachment on my meter and the range-f/stopsfrom shadow to highlights. Bottom line, we needed to do more thinking using film then todays digital and post production options. Pushing film, compressing with underdeveloping. Ansel Adams zone system. So, so many photographers today dont even own light meters. Do yourselfs a favor, learn to shoot as if you are using analog. You will be amazed at how you will rediscover photography, all in a different way. Dont let your camera control you. You are the master. Thanks Thomas, and I liken you to a man I studied much from. Dean Collins and how he walked you through exposure, setup and then execution. Great information.

[@larryhayes3040]

Absolutely, the best discussion on the practical useful limits of dynamic ranges based on recorded values and their usefulness to presentation media. Thank you! I have saved this article so I can watch it again.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@RichardBO9]

Thank you for a thoughtful and well-executed presentation.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for watching and your kind feedback, Richard!

[@ChristianoOliveiraLopes]

Simply the best video on dynamic range I've ever watched. Thank you very much indeed, Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@dalvinderbasi3495]

Thomas, excellent video. Being a photographer and a bit of a geek, it fulfilled both requirements. Very informative, thank you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for the great feedback!

[@aerialfilm1]

I finally pulled the trigger and got an OM-1. Your recent presentation on proper exposure with it persuaded me to sell off some older unused kit and get one on the way. With the OM-1 information and now this lesson, I’m looking forward to putting this knowledge into practice as soon as the camera arrives. Much of what you’ve taught has also helped with my older E-m1ii. I still keep a Z6 and D700 to satisfy the occasional full frame itch, but the Olympus kit is what delivers me the most satisfaction and any knowledge I can gain to achieve the best from it is appreciated.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

So great to hear! I'm sure you will love the OM-1! Also, keeping the other cameras is a good idea, I've also kept my other bodies (D800). I've got some very exciting stuff regarding the OM-1 planned for this year, I hope you will find it useful. Thanks for following along!

[@gregoryvarano8002]

Olympus OM micro 4/3rds system is indeed impressive. Camera bodies aside, its the high quality Zuiko lenses that make the difference. Extremely well made, fast and amazing sharpness, corner to corner. The Pro series lenses are on a league of their own, even when compared to 35mm format systems. I’ve been using Olympus micro 4/3rds system for 3 years now. My clients love the results and a print large with no issues. You are going to love your OM-1

[@karney44m]

Your closing remarks are some of the most powerful words about our art that I have heard spoken in a very long time! Thank you for making the content that you do, please remain faithful to our art and craft, marketing and influencing be gone!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

That is a very kind comment - thank you so much. This means a lot and I will do my best to live up to these high expectations. Many thanks again!

[@myronporter6319]

Excellent. What a relief to hear a clear presentation of a topic that is often muddled.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks!

[@sagardigitallab]

The best elaborated explanation regarding Dynamic range, till date. Learnt a lot, indeed.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, I'm honored by your kind words!

[@MitchFlint]

Great video! Thanks, Thomas.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! Thanks for watching and again, for your continued support!

[@SimonFitzclarence]

Thomas you are a snappy dresser and an even better presenter . Your knowledge is amazing and I have learnt so much as I am regaining my photographic passion after years of analog .. and a big break from photography to now and shooting on a new Om-1 and rediscovering the light once again - Thank you for your time, energy and love of the craft - Dr Eisl you come highly recommended

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you Simon for another very much appreciated and kind comment. It is absolutely awesome to hear that now with the OM-1 you are "back in the game". With a companion that you can bring along in every situation, photography can really become an integral activity. So thank you for passing on your energy and your exceptionally motivating words, Cheers to you Sir!

[@Richard.Cabeza]

I love your videos. the thorough investigative research that you do, video set up, sound and lighting quality and the excellent dialog delivery that goes into them. It's like watching inspector gadget teaching these facts that not very many people know. I've been binge watching many of your videos and learning a lot. I so much appreciate the effort you've put into them. I don't subscribe to many YT channels, but I have subscribed to you and will watch more and some of them over a few times. Great learning material. Thank you. This reply will likely be pasted into other videos.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for your exceptionally kind comment, Richard. Feedback like yours means a lot to me and I very much appreciate that you took the time to share that with me. I'm very thankful to welcome you as a subscriber - I hope future content will be of equal interest to you! Best wishes, Thomas

[@MrDunk66]

Wonderfully presented Thomas - love your work 🙏

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@DavidFlowerOfficial]

It’s great to hear a reasonable discussion about this. In my 15 or so years in photography I’ve shot everything from Canon rebels to the Nikon D800 and Sony FF cameras and now the Olympus EM1 mk ii and unless I get the exposure wildly wrong in camera (which happened a lot at the start😂), I’ve never had issues getting what I want from my images. Excellent video, Thomas🖖

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! Thank you very much for your kind comment, much appreciated!

[@Bin909able]

Very informative, you're a great teacher! The DR unmystified! My old Pentax K200d clips very easily, which is something I struggle with a lot. This really helps!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to read, thank you very much!

[@Henry30065]

Thomas, the clarity of your presentations, coupled with the preciseness of your explanations and your deep technical knowledge of photography are incredibly impressive. After 50 years of photography (as a keen hobbyist) I thought that I had a reasonable appreciation of the subject. Since I have been following you on your channel, I realise that I have an awful lot to learn! I can honestly say that since watching you, I have learnt more about the technicalities of photography than over previous the 50 years. Thank you! Alun

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Wow, thank you very much Alun! I very much appreciate that, coming from an experienced photographer like you. Thanks once more for taking the time to write such kind feedback, its a pleasure!

[@StanleyVaughn-xk3wv]

SUPERLATIVE video!! I LOVE watching you EXCELLENT EXPLANATIONS!! Keep up the GREAT WORK!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much! That is absolutely awesome to read, thanks for the feedback

[@KeithStewart-zn8mg]

Thanks! A clear and concise explanation. The best I have seen. I found your videos from a Peter Forsgard link about the current discussion on OM-1 S-AF. Good to see some facts being applied to the discussion. Subscribed

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words and your generous donation! It was an honor to be interviewed by Peter, he is such a great, positive guy! Thanks again and I'm happy to have you on the channel!

[@AndreiVaida]

Excellent explained the, it's one of the most complex (and correct) video about dynamic range. Nice animations.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much!

[@edc5338]

Thomas, your videos are incredibly interesting and well done. You are an excellent educator and I always learn something new from your videos. Even though I do have a high MP camera, you have increased my confidence in my wonderful 12mp Nikon D700.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! And yes, the D700 is all you need to get practically every shot.

[@Zefah]

Amazing video. Glad this showed up on my feed. You have a new subscriber, sir.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you so much! Welcome to the channel, Sir!

[@synkuk]

Superb explanation, thankyou

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@jakedooom]

Thank you. I have found your very interesting, informative and educational posts, and have now subscribed. I learned (and confirmed) much from two of your videos, and look forwards to more.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

That is great to read - thank you very much. Welcome to the channel, your subscription is greatly appreciated indeed!

[@amhtxc2960]

Fantastic explanation!!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!

[@hfkwong109]

Excellent video on Dynamic Range. Please continue to work on this topic. Number of Dynamic Range is one thing, I am more interested in the transition between each dynamic range such as the sunset light on rocks with part of the trees in shadow.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words! I agree - the transition and the smoothness of it are very important!

[@syuanrong]

the best tool is always the tool you have on hand. thanks for the lesson in dynamic range, your presentation is amazing!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - and I agree regarding the tool wholeheartedly. I would even add that the best tool is the one that fits your specific hand perfectly. Thanks for the thoughtful remark!

[@Readbetweenthelines1]

Thank you so much for taking the time to educate me on this topic. Very helpful , thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

You are so welcome! Thanks!

[@dorianvocalartist]

I appreciate the depth and clarity of your presentations, and your specific attention to the practical aspects of the subject matter while acknowledging technical details thank you I learn so much from your videos

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your exceptionally kind feedback! I very much appreciate that and thanks for watching!

[@SamTaylors]

This is brilliant. Such a thoughtful and well explained presentation. Thank you Thomas

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Sam!

[@zayacz123]

I’ve had this lens for a couple of weeks and I love it. It is definitely bigger and heavier than my 100-400, but I’m learning some tricks that help. I like using the battery grip with it as it gives my right hand better leverage when turning the zoom ring. For panning I like to use the push/pull method. It helps if I put the hood lock knob on the right hand side near the bottom of the lens barrel. I can then hook my left pinky finger on it for more leverage. Thank you for a great review! I was hoping you would do one.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing and the kind words. Congratulations on getting the lens, it is excellent value for money and produces professional results. Best, Thomas 📸

[@TrueIsrael3220]

Thomas, great presentation! I enjoy very much your well prepared, highly informative presentations! Thank you for preparing them 🙏

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for the kind feedback, you are most welcome & thanks for watching!

[@adamdagosto570]

I have a few observations I'd like to share with you. 1. You are a super smart and very good teacher. 2. I love how your videos open with a series of questions you intend to answer 3. Camera manufacturers probably hate you because you are "myth busting" their marketing campaigns!! Great work!! I come here to become educated.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Dear Adam! Thank you very much for your exceptionally kind feedback and your other extremely valuable contributions! Great to have you on the channel and thanks for all the comments, that is fantastic!

[@LarryFasnacht]

I love SLIDES! I’ve found every other media to be lacking but never knew why. I wish they weren’t so expensive now. The cost has really gotten prohibitive for me.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

A good friend of mine is a huge slide film fan. When I bring up the cost argument, he always replied: Yes, they are expensive but for the price, you get a finished product. With negative film, you have to buy prints, and then it is even more expensive than slides. It is a bit tongue in cheek, I guess haha. Slide film is really expensive, there is no way to deny that. Thanks you very much for watching, Larry!

[@sergiodonadeo2810]

Thank you Thomas for your clear explanation about Dynamic Range. It's a good lesson about how digital camera works and how the photographer can reach the best use of it. Before this lesson, I was obsessed to compare the photo result with my visual memory; but you explained us that it isn't true that the eye see out of the window and indoor at the same time. So, I can select what is the subject and obtain the right light for it. HDR is allowed in extreme circumstance. Thank you very much. Sergio, Milano Italy

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Dear Sergio! Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and providing feedback. I am very happy that the video inspired you to "break free". Thank you also very much for the tasty ☕! All the best from Vienna and hope to read from you soon on the channel!

[@SpinStar1956]

Man, I miss my Panatomic-X, #25-filter, and doing 16x20” enlargements; incredibly magic times. 😢 Also, nothing like pulling a 36-exposure strip of Extachrome-64 out of the developer-tank; the colors were dazzling! 😮 Built a precision temperature-controller, to use E-6 and hold the temperature within 1/4°F! 🤓 Saw that E-100 is available, but discontinued in 100’ rolls. 😢 Great video Thomas, and the homage to the past! 😀

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@devroombagchus7460]

Thank you for the excellent explanation. When it comes to conclusions, I fully disagree for my usual kind of photography. Landscape/nature does not include birds. That is wildlife, which has similarities with portraits. I can show you many pictures that I took with pol/graduated ND filters and without. Without always had washed-out skies or blacked-out shadows. Not enough dynamic range, so I had to find a way to bring the EV of the sky down.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey there! I think there was a slight misunderstanding - I intended to state that for wildlife, you don't need anything, but for landscape, as you've stated - you need either tools (grad ND as you've said) or bracketing (if feasible). We are completely on the same page here. Thanks for getting in touch and your remarks!

[@jeffreysmith8633]

Thanks, Thomas! As always, your videos are simultaneously a cut above while also being down-to-earth.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Wow, thanks - glad you think so!

[@ironmike2732]

I have recently found your channel and I am enjoying your videos. I enjoy your clear and concise explanations and examples. You put considerable work into your preparation of the subject and the presentation. I enjoy how well edited your videos are and the great audio mixing. Keep up the great work, as well as your stylish and snappy dress code!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words! It is comments and feedback like yours that encourages me to keep improving and delivering more content. Thank you very much and welcome aboard!

[@ThelMaverick135]

Super interesting video! One question that I’m left with is your view on the pros and cons of using exposure bracketing in digital cameras?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks! Do you mean bracketing for creating an HDR composite later?

[@michaelaiello5229]

Thank you for this wonderful explanation! I think I need to go back and watch this entire video again...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha, this does not bode well for my presentation style if you have to rewatch it ;-) Thanks for the kind comment, Michael!

[@davidjb9199]

Enjoyed your video very much. The combination of good content with very precise explanation of what can be very abstract subject matter is a definite winner. I hope to see more from you.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad you enjoyed it! I definitely try to keep it up - thanks for the encouragement 😊

[@derekjones2511]

Thank you Thomas. That was very informative and clearly explained.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad it was helpful! Thanks!

[@j.joe.b3384]

gut gemacht. I am glad I found your channel.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! And thanks for subscribing!

[@gregm6894]

Thomas, thanks for this informative discussion of Dynamic Range and all of the practical photographic influences. It really is not as 'cut and dried' as many photographers would have you believe. For me personally, it's just not a big deal -- when I encounter a high contrast scene, it is generally not that difficult to make exposure decisions about which tonal values are most important. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice unimportant highlight or shadow detail to get what you want/need. The subsequent viewers of your output rarely have actually viewed the original scene, so your final image looks perfectly natural to them.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely Greg! To be honest, for me it is also not a big deal in practice. That is why I also still shoot slide film and vintage digital cameras - a few stops more DR rarely matter, especially if you think like we both do. We are not recording a technically faithful image of a scene, but interpreting and guiding to viewer to evoke a certain emotion. Thanks for commenting

[@bluecollar8525]

I mean, what about landscapes? You're gonna have some noisy shadows when you bring them up. True, if you don't have a reference of the original scene, it will look fine, but anyone who has an eye for it will notice right away that you have crushed or noisy shadows.

[@gregm6894]

@@bluecollar8525 Technically, I understand what you are saying. But the key to this issue is the phrase you used: "...but anyone who has an eye for it...". 99.9% of the viewers of my images do not 'have an eye for it'. Why? Simply because in real life viewing situations, when we look carefully at a scene our mind focuses on what is important -- that which is recognizable. We don't normally see a specular highlight, like a bright reflection on a leaf and even consider that we cannot see detail. What's important is the part of the leaf where we can see detail. In photography it is exactly the same -- no one worries about 'crushed' or noisy shadows, or blown highlights except photographers who are obsessing about such things because they want to see any imperfections at a 100% viewing size on a monitor. A good case in point, is a close up portrait of a beautiful female model. Have you ever seen a high resolution portrait of a drop-dead gorgeous model and zoomed in to 100%? Yikes! You see flakes of skin, facial hair, make-up globs, skin imperfections, etc.. No one cares, because at normal viewing sizes and distances the model is beautiful -- and that portrayal is what is important in the success of the image. One other thing I would mention is that if the issues you brought up are a major problem in a landscape you are shooting, then you are probably shooting at the wrong time of the day.

[@mikafoxx2717]

​@@gregm6894I still get flak from photographers when I mention that if the clouds aren't a subject of the photo, I'll let them blow out to better capture the subject. It bothers them. Despite that, windows XP "Bliss" had clipped clouds from velvia 50 and the photo sold for 100k and it's among the most famous out there. Nobody cares if it clips. It just has to look good.

[@GLu-qc6vn]

@@gregm6894 Your description of the psychology and perception of humans' viewing experience is a simple, reliable and elegant basis to orient me and simplify the many decisions of making a beautiful or impactful photo. Thank you.

[@danieled.2583]

Great video! I'm beginning to understand. Thanks Thomas

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Daniele!

[@tizio54]

Excellent explanation, very insightful! It has definitely given me something to think about. Related to this is the concept of 'ISO invariance' (dialing up the ISO setting when taking the photo versus taking the photo at low ISO and increasing exposure in post). I am thinking about how that fits into this story.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind words! ISO Invariance is really a very interesting topic: We know that the actual sensitivity of the sensor does not change, but the way the imaging pipeline/ADC processes the image has significant impact on noise and IQ. Therefore, for practical purposes, most cameras are not ISO invariant up until a certain point. I have a video about the OM-1 and Image Noise where I touch on these issues. It is usually a very bad idea to bring up the exposure in post production. It will - with almost any camera - lead to a worse image as you are not making use of the cameras dedicated ADC Signal Processing but just brightening the image. The difference can be quite extreme!

[@yuriythebest]

thanks for the video! A neat trick I found for printing is to add an approx 15% brightness layer, THEN to use a very soft brush to erase the part of the image where everything is blown out, this way there is a good compression/dynamic range in the print

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great tip! And thanks for the kind feedback!

[@keithratcliffe5576]

Excellent video that has really helped me understand better something that I thought I knew, thanks.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! That is really great to read. Thanks for sharing.

[@Hektormydog]

Thank you for the excellent video. Could you please explain the relationship of bit depth to dynamic range.

[@Hektormydog]

And, adding too this question, something maybe I missed in the video is the bit depth and dynamic range of a digital panel.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Robert! Thank you very much for the question. I have tackled it in the video, but it is a bit complicated. It really is what I described with the 1-bit camera. DR is what you capture, bit depth allows you to make use of it. To be more practical: A camera usually has enough bit depth for the camera sensor, as long as you shoot raw you get all the DR. Digital panels are 8 to 10 bit, depending on quality/make/etc. Hope this helped!

[@michelassenheimer676]

Thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your kind support!

[@Martin_Siegel]

This was interesting. My head is still buzzing from all the info. Better come back another day when this has partially set to appreciate it even more.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome - thanks for sharing that and I appreciate that you consider rewatching the video. Thanks!

[@MarceloTezza]

Better video than the other. Though with VR we will be able to have gigantic contrast, with OLED or microleds we will easily surpass 10 stops of dr.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!

[@davidroberts6766]

A really interesting video. I am an amateur photographer, but I shoot both digitally and on film. On any given day, I can use a very expensive camera or a 30 year old point and shoot. I kind of always knew its about a well exposed and composed frame, much more than the means of capture, but now I think I have a better sense of why. Thanks for posting.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much - this means a lot and I am happy that you found it so useful! Also great to read that you are still using both - I think more and more people arrive at the conclusion that both analog and digital have a place!

[@franzscaramelli2651]

Great video!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@ricebug0]

I bought Sigma FP a few month ago that has not highest DR@ISO 100, because it was the only FF camera that has 6stops DR@ISO 12800. I just felt 6stops are all I need for my indoor photography without additional light. You proved I was right and explained why lol. Thank you very much!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome to hear! Thanks for sharing that and welcome to the 6-8 stops is enough group - it is like a cult, once you know you can never forget haha. Had the same revelation ☺️😉

[@philosimot]

That's very enlighting & therefore a highlight of information above the way you should handle photography;-)) LG RR

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Reinhart!

[@avinbarana3015]

Very informative

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@sdrtcacgnrjrc]

Great video. Everything works towards clarity. Wonderful. My only criticism is that the sound effects (with the graphics) are way too loud compared to the voice.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you Tom - also, thanks for the feedback on the sound, this is really important to provide an even better experience in the future.

[@olafzijnbuis]

Very clear explanation! One thing I find very strange... I have a Canon 750D camera and I am very happy with the quality. But... When the camera is set to RAW (and only RAW, not RAW+JPG) the histogram I see and the overexposed marking (flashing black areas) on the backscreen of the camera is based on the Picture Style selected. With RAW I can, of course, select another picture style later when I develop the RAW file. Also, the preview on the back of the camera is based on the selected Picture Style (like: Landscape, Portrait... User Style1...3) I feel that it is reasonable to show the preview on the camera in the selected Picture Style. But I wonder why the histogram is also based on the selected Picture Style. When I program the 3 user styles with 1 = minimum contrast, 2 = medium contrast, and 3 = maximum contrast and take a picture of the same scene with each style there is a huge difference in both the histogram and overexposed indication in the preview. Why do they not have the option to show the RAW histogram? Not a big deal. I just keep the picture style at Standard and sometimes select a different style later. How do you feel about this? Are there other cameras that handle this differently?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for bringing this up - the same can be said for Olympus, Nikon and other cameras I've worked with. My workaround is that I set a picture style with the lowest contrast possible as an approximation. Thanks for the comment!

[@gregsullivan7408]

It might be because a COMPLETELY raw histogram, if displayed using raw light intensity values, will look VERY different to a normal histogram, which is shown in a perceptually uniform (approximately) encoding - i.e - the X axis represents the brightness as a human perceives it, which is very different to a raw light intensity value.

[@jimofmarseille]

Thanks a lot for the time you spend to share your knowledge ! Lots of informations in this video and I have a terrible conclusion : the dynamic range of my brain needs to be stretched a bit yet to synthetize all those datas in real time photography situations... But the good news is that a good photo, on an "artistic" view point doesn't need 24 bits of dynamic range ! Thesmart and sensitive use of limitations is often where the magic happens. I have an "old" Phase One P65+ based system (CCD sensor that can hardly be used over 200 iso where the signal noise ratio really starts to deteriorate), but it records 16 bits raws and it is amazing the amount of data you can recover in highlights or even flat grey profile images. I'm not sure yet (I just got an OM-1 as an small compact system wihich the Phase One is not) that I will be able to recover and play with all the nuances (shades) inside the dynamic range the way I can do it with the P1 system. More seriously, how can we determine the pratical dynamic range of a digital camera body (or maybe there is something I missed in your video) ?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your comment. Indeed, the P65 most likely benefits from the bit depth and deliver more nuanced results. It is an excellent professional tool of you know its limitations. In the video, I deliberately did not cover evaluating the practical dynamic range of a camera. This is something that I'd like to address in a future publication, as it is not as straightforward as one might think. I have a few methods to do that, each with its own focus. Best, Thomas 📸

[@OrelRussia]

Thank yoy for your videos, Thomas! They are really interesting! You mentioned the printing from film but saud nothing about the digital printing. Do, for example, inkjet prints from 16 bit digital files get a similar look to darkroom prints? To my amateur eye it looks like my prints from a good photo printer I own have contain more information than I see on my 4K monitor. At least, it corresponds to representing details. It seems like even small prints (12x18 cm) show almost all megapixels rightaway, not just 8 Mpx that a 4K monitor can show.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Orel, thank you very much for the kind comment and relevant questions! Yes, I did not mention digital printing, but in terms of having limited DR and either compressing or discarding excessive DR, it works exactly the same. In order to get the most out of the 16 bit file, you should go to a good professional photo lab. The problem is very similar like with your monitor, the quality of the printer determines how many steps / aka fine gradation will be printed to the paper. The issue you have experienced with the print showing image defects/lack of IQ more clearly than the monitor: Yes, I agree. I've had the same experience. You just look at prints differently. But, keep in mind that it could also be the printer / lab being of low quality. An 8mp file should print perfectly fine without any visible loss of quality up until A4 or even A3! Hope this helped and welcome to the channel!

[@OrelRussia]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography thank you for reply, Thomas! I guess I expressed myself not very good. What I meant is that the inkjet print looked better than on a monitor. I have a 36 mp camera and I suppose that even a rather small print was able to contain all that pixels.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Ah yes! I was not sure whether your monitor or your printer was the "bottleneck" If you use a high end monitor, it is more "demanding" than your inkjet, therefore the print might look better!

[@ChihYaunCheng]

Curious about the lens in your hand, big glass is catching my eye, guess it is 43 glass as it's seem attached on Olympus E series

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I think I'm not holding a lens in this video - maybe you could you give me the time stamp?

[@1redgate8]

Bit late to the party, but love this vid ❤

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much!

[@josephkraig3368]

Thomas, you presented a well thought out treatise on "Dynamic Range" however you didn't give the complete story. In the studio where we have little in the way of shadows 5 or 6 stops or DR will usually be enough. Outdoors in photographing landscapes when sky is included even 10 stops of DR are not enough. Moving from the Nikon D300 to the D800 for example opened a world where multiple shots to get HDR were not normally needed, 12 stops were often enough, I thought until I started using the D810 and saw closer to 14 stops. I thought I was in heaven with those nearly 14 stops until I started shooting with the D850 which truly approached 15 stops. With the DR of the 850 I still bracket 3 images with 2 stops each but never have to combine them, I just pick the best exposure of the 3 which is nearly always the middle. In studio with lighting or strobes I never worry about proper exposure. I still bracket 3 shots with 2 f:stops each but I don't really need to, I just do it so I never have to go back for fill in shots. It wasn't until I shot with the D700 that I realized I wanted more DR. The 700 had more DR than anything I had seen to that time and it was not equaled until I think the D800. It has now been dramatically surpassed by the D850, Z7 and 9. To each his own I guess but once you get used to having definition in your clouds and shadows in the same exposure you never want to go back. Give me all the Dynamic Range I can have.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Joseph, thank you very much for your extensive and thoughtful comment! Of course, having more DR is always better than having less :-)

[@gerhardwiesinger]

Hello Thomas, Nice summary. In the headline: Why 8 Stops Are Enough, in the video you mention: Why 8 stops are **usually** enough I don't agree with that absolute statement but agree with the relative statement. Example where it isn't enough is a landscape scene with e.g. sun and trees in the shadows. There you have about 18 to 20 stops of light dynamic range of the scene. Therefore you use GND filter (Graduaded Neutral Density filters) to compress the dynamic range of the scene with about 3 stops to get 15 to 17 stops of dynamic range. Still you will loose a lot of dynamic range (e.g. 5 stops) with typical recording devices with 12 stops recording capability. Therefore a camera which is capable of having 14-bit with around 12-stops real world dynamic capturing range in RAW is a must have, also to have enough tonal values for post production. I think it is important to capture the dynamic range as good as possible for today. Technology in printing and screen technology will also improve. Therefore most important is at least for me that capturing the dynamic range as good as possible. And here on digital sensor size is most important to get a higher dynamic range. So full frame has major advantages over MFT and digital medium format over digital full frame. BTW: Search for photonstophotos for measured camera comparision of capturing dynamic range. Greetings from Vienna

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Gerhard! Thank you very much for your comment - I am super happy that you have shared your thoughts, in fact, you've just inspired my next video. Yes, photonstophotos is great, it is the single most reliable source of sensor data! Regarding the major advantage, I'm not so sure whether it is really that major, as you can bracket your shots, which is something that is almost unavoidable when working with 15 stops + scenes. In any case, if you want to get everything in one shot, then you are of course completly right: Having more dynamic range is really useful then! Or you can just use the OM-1's LiveND, which gives you 12 stops of DR with some caveats. But that is also the topic of an upcoming video. As always, thanks for your much appreciated input! Maybe we will cross paths in Vienna at some point :-)

[@jonbarnard7186]

Always informative!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Glad you think so! Thanks!

[@robertwurzinger6487]

Danke für das informative Video! Als Hobbyist habe ich wirklich sehr viel gelernt! Grüße aus Graz. Cheers 👍

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Ah super! Vielen herzlichen Dank!

[@12qwas12as]

Brilliant! What happens when we print a digital file to, say, an inkjet printer? Thanks for the great videos!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks! Actually the same thing - the inkjet print will be able to display a limited amount of nuances and therefore dynamic range. However, you can squeeze any amount of dynamic range into a this limited print DR, but it won't be reproduced "correctly". It is just like the darkroom printing process that I've described in the video.

[@12qwas12as]

And he even answers viewer questions! 😉 Thank you, Thomas!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

🙂

[@oldtvnut]

What I got out of this is that 6 to 8 stops of gradation are sufficient for acceptable visual quality of a final presentation. Then the usable photographic dynamic range of a sensor is the number of stops between noise and white clipping (the engineering dynamic range), minus the 6 to 8 stops needed in the displayed output. Therefore, a sensor (electronic or film) having an engineering dynamic range of 12 stops can accomodate a lighting (and printing adjustment) range of 4 to 6 stops and still have 8 stops of gradation in either the light, mid OR dark areas of the scene in the adjusted image if the adjustment is universal, or in all three by use of dodging and burning, tone masking, or tone mapping. Edit: I'd like to add that negatives that could be successfully printed in the past only with dodging and burning, can often produce excellent results if scanned and subjected to universal adjustment of the compression S curve by use of Shadow and Highlight sliders.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, you are correct! However, most digital sensors don't deliver 12 stops of super usable DR, most of the times it is more or less 8 stops of high fidelity DR. Agree regarding the scanning! Thanks for the comment!

[@BobDiaz123]

Great video, I think we become obsessed with specifications and forget how the real world works. The test should be, does this look good or not.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely - this is exactly the point, thanks for sharing that!

[@SMGJohn]

As I watched the video and you bring up the two images, it makes me think about how much I grown to hate HDR looks, and some might say there times high dynamic range are necessary. The only area I can think of it as important is journalistic work and winter photography in which you will struggle with controlling exposure for the darker areas and the brighter areas much more than even a daylight scene. HDR look in my own opinion also removes a lot of character an image has, in both cases your examples showed very atmospheric and interesting images, perhaps not true to life but whats so interesting in replicating what we see everyday? It seems to me, most photographers are more interested in creating interesting images instead. And this is probably why, my most favourite pictures I ever taken, have been with Canon 400D and Olympus XZ1, both of which are absolutely horrible today, but to me, they create a look, that nothing modern, can replicate. And seems to reinforce the fact that many hardcore Canon users are complaining their newer R5 and R6 are not producing as pleasing images as their older cameras.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your very thoughtful and relevant comment. I completely agree with what you stated. Having limited DR like with the two cameras you mentioned can be like built in image processing. I'll call it the slide film effect... Thank you very much again!

[@mikafoxx2717]

You could do the same with a newer camera, you just need to clip everything outside of those 6 stops of range to get realistic contrast. In the video he says screens do uo to 10 stops pf dynamic range but that's maximum. Standard dynamic range monitors with dim lighting would get up to 6 stops of dynamic range from a good screen. Most screens arent even 8 bits at the panel. HDR standards increase the 100 nits (which might be as high as 2-300 max on sdr screens) to 1, 4, or possibly 10k nits of brightness. Todays best monitors (under 7 kilobucks) can only do 2000 nits, and 10 bits, which is.. 10 stops, and 10 stops of tonal range, precisely. We use perceptual quantization so that each bit is utilized to the closest match to our visual sensitivity curve. We also get larger color gamut with purer spectrum colors on these new displays, but still they don't cover the whole picture, or even what consumer DSLR raw files capture, ten years ago. HDR photos on an HDR screen do look proper, because it is truly 8 stops or more, with property contrast, not 10 squished down into a muddy mess.

[@mortenthorpe]

In my experience, when shooting outdoors - mostly my style - harsh light and consequently shadows, are far more of an issue to getting better photos… two tools come in handy here - flash for fill, and a diffuser to soften hard incoming light… either makes loads of a difference to the end image… much more so, than whether shot using my awesome Fuji GFX or a lesser Fuji X-H1, Nikon Z6 II etc.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing that! I absolutely agree - while digital medium format can capture more dynamic range, it cannot magically change the light and contrast in the scene itself. As you've said, you need flash or a diffuser to do that! Thank you very much for this great contribution!

[@RoderickJMacdonald]

Thank you. Could you add a discussion of HEIC? Does this storage format have any practical advantage when viewing, for example, on current 4K televisions?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Roderick! A very relevant question. I probably glanced over it, as I almost never use this format, although it is a relevant file format. To answer your question: 1) HEIC supports bit depth up to 16 bit. So everything regarding gradation and "storable" dynamic range is as I've stated about the 16-bit TIFF. 2) 4k TV: The main benefit of a 4k TV is the increased resolution. This does not necessarily mean that you will get a wider dynamic range. From what I researched, I would assume that you still get around 10 stops equivalent depending on viewing conditions. So a HEIC would definitely cover that, better than a JPG does. Would you see a significant difference - probably only when comparing the JPG and HEIC side by side and probably also only in the brightest parts. 3) Is HEIC superior to JPG in general: Absolutely. Hope this answered your question - thanks for bringing this up!

[@RoderickJMacdonald]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography thank you Thomas. Your answer is clear. Since my principle sharing and viewing is on a television, there is no point in changing formats at this time. I will always have the original raw files if things change in a decade.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely! I'd say you are safe with JPG at the moment

[@jfphotography69]

Another excellent presentation Thomas, well done.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks!

[@lotharschmidt8663]

L. Schmidt Glückwunsch, Sie haben die Zusammenhänge zwischen DR bei der Aufnahme eins Objekts und dem Physiologischen Eindruck sehr gut und m.E. treffend dargestellt. Ein Punkt fehlt noch: Wo ist der Sinn von Aufzeichnung im RAW-Format? ....................... Warum ist der DR sowohl von Analogfilm als auch eines Digital-Sensors so viel höher, wenn das doch garnicht ankommt? Der Grund ist ja eigentlich einfach: Der DR bei der Aufnahme muss im Verarbeitungsprozess reduziert werden auf 8 Bit, also 8 Blendenstufen. Das ist das dynamische Auflösungsvermögen des menschlichen Auges. Bei einer Analogaufnahme macht das in einem ersten Schritt der Film über seine Emulsion. Der zweite Schritt erfolgt dann in einer Belichtungsmaschine oder mit Hilfe eines menschlichen Laboranten. Mit einem digitalen Sensor (wenn er denn nun nicht umschaltbar sein sollte, was mittlerweile aber Standard ist) muss der gesamte Objektlichtumfang detektiert werden können, um "alles" einzufangen. In beiden Fällen ist Kompression erforderlich, um auf 8 Bit bei Dias oder Bildschirm zu kommen bzw. 6 Bit und weniger bei Fotopapier oder Druck. Digital geschieht es schon direkt nach der Aufnahme, um den Datenumfang zu reduzieren und das Ergebnis ansehen zu können. Dazu wird automatisch erst mal komprimiert (JPEG). Will man das umgehen, speichert man die Rohdaten in "RAW" ab. Dann hat man aber als Benutzer selber die Arbeit des Laboranten bzw. der Kamera zu leisten. So bedeutet es Aufwand und gleichzeitig mehr Flexibilität. Bei den Digitalkameras erfolgt die Vorverarbeitung von 14 Bit zu 8 Bit (Moderner geht es auch "besser") direkt und automatisch in der Kamera, kann aber doch graduell an die Aufnahmesituation angepasst werden (Motivprogramme, HDR-Aufnahme, geschmackliche Einstellungen von Chrominanz und Luminanz). Nach dieser Vorverarbeitung ist die Auflösung natürlich begrenzt und nicht mehr verschiebbar. Man verliert also durch diese Vorverarbeitung Information und damit Beeinflussungsmöglichkeiten. Und man muss sich VOR der Aufnahme entscheiden, was man möchte. So muss der Benutzer also auswählen zwischen Automatisch Praktisch Gut mit Kompromissen und "Freie" Gestaltungsmöglichkeit mit maximalem Aufwand. Ein guter Kompromiss scheint mir zu sein: Abspeichern der Aufnahmen automatisch sowohl in RAW als auch JPEG. Direkte Betrachtungsmöglichkeit und Entscheidung, ob Bearbeitung in RAW nötig ist, dann evtl. Weiterarbeit in RAW. Hier wäre mein Wunsch an Sie als kompetenten Fachmann: Ein Video genau zu dem Thema: Vorteile / Nachteile RAW / JPEG und Hinweise, wann was sinnvoll erscheint. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Dr. rer. nat. Lothar Schmidt

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen Dank für den umfassenden Kommentar und das überaus positive Feedback! Ihrer äußerst präzisen Zusammenstellung pflichte ich natürlich vollumfänglich bei. Ich denke auch, dass ein RAW + JPEG Workflow die beste Lösung ist. So gut wie immer bewahre ich die RAW-Dateien auf, immerhin lässt sich mit der entsprechenden Software des Herstellers ein exakt gleiches JPEG wieder erzeugen. Solange es der Speicherplatz zulässt, würde ich auch so verfahren. Persönlich sortiere ich allerdings immer stark aus und habe daher nicht übermäßig viele RAW Dateien. Je nach Kamera kann ja die Dateigröße durchaus erheblich sein. Die Software Ihres Kameraherstellers sollte grundsätzlich gratis verfügbar sein und diesen Workflow ermöglichen. Dies war gewissermaßen die kurze Antwort - bis ich dem Thema ein Video widmen werde - danke für diese Anregung! Beste Grüße aus Wien und danke nochmals für ihren Beitrag!

[@brentschmogbert]

Danke für Ihre Ausführungen. Prof. Dr. Dr. med. liz. jur B.Schmogbert

[@griffith500tvr]

I read that the next series of sensors will have dynamic ranges of 20-25 stops. On paper modern current generation sensors give in excess of 15, according to you that gives a discernable DR of 8, what will a sensor of on paper 25 stops give in real termes? I am confused. Canon R5II 25 stops apparently....

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, I know it is confusing. To keep it simple, look at photonstophotos.com and take the numbers from there. Everything else is just the engineering DR that manufactures love to throw around. One more thing: even if a camera has 100 stops, you cannot do anything with them, bc images with more than 8 stops compressed are usually ungodly abominations that you cannot really look at. At this point, you can pretty much keep your camera until it breaks

[@griffith500tvr]

Question, why is it that, when I see a well taken photo with a film camera on Facebook, I get a sense that it is film and not digital even though I see the image digitally on my computer? In reality the dynamic range or graduation should have been reduced because I see a digital copy and not a developed photograph. Is it maybe more to do with the vintage lenses usually used when taking a film photograph and I should get the same effect when using old glass in a modern digital camera? I use vintage lenses on my Canon 6d and I am not totally sure about this effect, at least from my own experience.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for this great question! I think the answer lies in (1) vintage glass - as you've stated but also (2) the different gradation that analog film has. This is probably the reason why I am such a huge fan of slide film. The way everything is rendered - aka the highlight/shadow/midtone tone value distribution combined w/the color response - it is just different to digital. It is fair to assume that the combination of these effects are what gives us the film look many - including myself - like so much! Thanks for this great comment!

[@janw.jensen2490]

Have you printed medium format film from the 1960s or 50s? From the time when film used a lot of silver (and a lot of silver in the paper too). Oh, those beautiful "blacks" in the prints. :-)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Unfortunately I have not! I've tried some contemporary emulsions with high silver content like Adox Silvermax. From these limited experiences, I can say: yes, they are special!

[@luzr6613]

Even without your saying so, I'd have guessed 'Vienna'. Excellent overview - many thanks.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha 😆 I have to hide my accent better 😉 thank you very much!

[@fintonmainz7845]

I'll probably watch this a dozen times

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Awesome! That is great to read!

[@Mlaahd]

Hallo Thomas, Super Video, sehr gut erklärt, vielen Dank! Ich fotografiere sowohl digital als auch analog und mir ist aufgefallen, dass Film mehr Dynamik anbietet bei Highlights und digital bei Schatten. Ist es auch Deine Erfahrung? In dem Sinne, bringt es mehr Dynamik Range wenn Filme im TIFF Format eingescannt sind als im JPEG? Wie ist Deine Erfahrung damit? Danke im Voraus und viele Grüße

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen Dank, das freut mich sehr zu lesen! Hinsichtlich Dynamik in Highlights und Shadows - ja, da hast du völlig recht - digital kann mit Unterbelichtung besser leben als mit Überbelichtung und umgekehrt gilt das für Analog. Zu TIFF und JPG: Es ist ein bisschen so wie mit der fiktiven 1-bit Kamera aus dem Video. Wenn du einen guten Scanner verwendest, ist auch der gesamte Dynamikumfang in der JPG-Datei enthalten, allerdings wesentlich weniger fein abgestuft als in einer TIFF-Datei. Wenn du also ein sehr dichtes Negativ mehr anpassen möchtest, also zB. die Belichtung oder Kontrast verändern möchtest, dann ist auf jeden Fall die TIFF-Datei besser geeignet. Mein Workflow beim Scannen - den ich später hier am Channel vorstellen möchte - geht von einer linearen TIFF-Datei (sämtliche Anpassungen wie Helligkeit, Farbkorrektur, usw.) auf JPG. Dann lösche ich allerdings meist die TIFF Datei, um Speicher zu sparen. Außerdem kann ich das Negativ bei Bedarf einfach erneut scannen. Viele Grüße und danke für Deine interessante Frage!

[@Mlaahd]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Antwort 😀 Bis zum nächsten Video! Viele Grüße aus Frankfurt

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Dankeschön! Liebe Grüße aus Wien, ich freue mich!

Idk, i want to have as much dynamic range as possible, that's it then i can optimize it to rec709 or rec2020. And there is the "usable stops above the noise floor" ...

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely - the more the better! Especially for video - that is probably the reason why shooting with Kodak Vision 3 is still very rewarding, as it holds highlight detail extremely well! Regarding noise floor: yes! That is why I tend to state that with digital we are looking at 6-8 stops high fidelity and then a few stops more of total photographic DR. Most of the DR in the shadows does not really provide great quality, unfortunately

[@stefanostefani4273]

Nice!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks!

[@1957PLATO]

Although I don’t have a technical mind, this video was an eye opener and very likely saved me from buying the latest and greatest gear. You Sir, have a new follower

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! Although it might sound differently, I am also not really focused on technical issues, only to the point where it matters in practice. And just like you mentioned, figuring out if the latest and greatest is really needed or even "greater" in a meaningful way, can be a quite practical issue. Thank you very much for subscribing, and welcome to the channel!

[@BenuthBasnet]

the photo raises my Dynamic Range up to 15 stops. 13:44

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha - I guess it is the magic of the analog print... or maybe something else entirely ;-)

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

No it’s not. The final image you look at of course has a limited DR you are able to view. But for high contrast scenes, you want to capture the dark areas and then push them in editing to make the image more pleasing. High DR sensors are very desirable to have

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Always keep in mind that when you push more DR into a DR limited medium, you will always (!) get the dreaded HDR look. If that's your thing, then your statement is understandable. Apart from that, more DR is also desirebale for those who cannot expose correctly. So yes, more DR is better (never said anything else) but usually way less than you might assume is enough.

[@michaeltuffin8147]

As someone who has been involved with photography for 40+ years, I agree 8 stops is enough. However, the gearchasers and trolls will ceaslelly attack the facts.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much! Great to hear that from someone with extensive experience in the field. Best, Thomas

[@dogvandog]

I thought it's new trailer for HITMAN: Freelancer video game. (anyway very good explanation)

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha - you did not see the back of my head 😉 Thanks, made me laugh 😂

[@coin777]

Why do You have a grill connected to the camera?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I'm sorry, what? Haha 😆

[@BarryCarlton]

Fascinating stuff, at least for my inner geek. Makes me want to resurrect my darkroom.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Haha, go for it Barry! Why not! Darkroom printing is cool (and geeky)