Contrast range and Nikanon or Canikon debate

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

pixby - 30 Aug 2005 00:37 GMT

From a Photographers point of view, a camera is just a tool. The
sharper the chisel, the neater the cut, so to speak. PhotoShop is the
workbench we put our images on to craft them after we harvest the raw
materials.

OK...
So I have a bunch of Canon gear and a lone Nikon camera with just one
lens. I predominately shoot weddings but do a lot of landscapes too. One
thing I know is that Photoshop has a couple of stops of additional
contrast range available through it's "shadow/highlights" filter which
goes a long way towards evening up the disadvantage DSLRs have when
compared to the range of film.

I can always find some detail in black trousers against a white dress
with Photoshop from my 20D and 1D files. I don't like Canon's idea of
skin tones but that's why I bought a Nikon a few weeks ago.

So here's one of the things I have found when comparing the two... I
reckon Nikon's new 'bayer' sensor doesn't have as wide a contrast range
as the Canon gives me, having regard for the Photoshop recovery I use.
Magnificent in ever way but I'm not able (after 2 weeks of trying) to
expand the contrast range as far as I can from a Canon image by using
Photoshop after the shoot. Has anyone else noticed this?

Signature

Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Nixon - 30 Aug 2005 02:03 GMT

> So here's one of the things I have found when comparing the two... I
> reckon Nikon's new 'bayer' sensor doesn't have as wide a contrast range
> as the Canon gives me, having regard for the Photoshop recovery I use.
> Magnificent in ever way but I'm not able (after 2 weeks of trying) to
> expand the contrast range as far as I can from a Canon image by using
> Photoshop after the shoot. Has anyone else noticed this?

Are you trying to pull it out in the RAW conversion, or in Photoshop
proper? If the latter, you're at the mercy of whatever you did in the
RAW conversion step, which may or may not have clipped your shadow
detail away. If it did, then it's gone, and that's it. If you're
shooting to JPEG, well, don't do that.

You want to be doing an adjustment like that in Camera Raw, where you
have access to everything the camera recorded. Also, if the trousers
are black, err on the side of overexposure by a third or two-thirds of
a stop; yeah, I know that's supposed to be wrong, but you'll be
surprised and delighted to see just how much highlight detail the
thing records and how much headroom you've got. Provided you're using
*uncompressed* RAW; compressed RAW achieves the compression by losing
detail in the highlights. Don't try this with a D70. The difference
is significant.

Signature

Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 31 Aug 2005 01:49 GMT

>So here's one of the things I have found when comparing the two... I
>reckon Nikon's new 'bayer' sensor doesn't have as wide a contrast range
>as the Canon gives me, having regard for the Photoshop recovery I use.
>Magnificent in ever way but I'm not able (after 2 weeks of trying) to
>expand the contrast range as far as I can from a Canon image by using
>Photoshop after the shoot. Has anyone else noticed this?

The limiting factor is going to be the noise level, and the difference
between the channels in sensitivity. Some of the Nikon models differ by
almost a stop and a half between RAW color channels.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

pixby - 31 Aug 2005 03:15 GMT

>>So here's one of the things I have found when comparing the two... I
>>reckon Nikon's new 'bayer' sensor doesn't have as wide a contrast range
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> between the channels in sensitivity. Some of the Nikon models differ by
> almost a stop and a half between RAW color channels.

The main area I've had trouble with is black and dark blue clothing.
Deep shadows have some detail I can recover although it appears as you
say, a noise factor as to how much can be recovered.

Signature

Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 31 Aug 2005 03:21 GMT

>The main area I've had trouble with is black and dark blue clothing.
>Deep shadows have some detail I can recover although it appears as you
>say, a noise factor as to how much can be recovered.

Where are the highlights?

Have you tried with lower-than-stated exposure indices?

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

pixby - 31 Aug 2005 03:37 GMT

>>The main area I've had trouble with is black and dark blue clothing.
>>Deep shadows have some detail I can recover although it appears as you
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Have you tried with lower-than-stated exposure indices?

I'm about to do that today.

Signature

Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Reply to this Message