Why Dynamic Range Is My Favorite, and Why I Couldn't Care Less About Megapixel Count and ISO

Why Dynamic Range Is My Favorite, and Why I Couldn't Care Less About Megapixel Count and ISO

Over the years, camera companies have been going head to head in the battle for the best camera sensor. This battle has always focused around the amount of megapixels a camera has to offer, and as of lately, how high the ISO can go. Because of this most consumers, including a significant amount of photography veterans, think that megapixel count is the end-all be-all of sensor technology, with ISO following up as a close second. At this point in the game though, I wish the sensor battle would switch gears and focus more on the dynamic range.

 

What is Dynamic range?

To sum it up, dynamic range is basically the amount of light the sensor can capture when taking an exposure. In order to understand this, it helps to imagine a pixel on your sensor as a bucket. This bucket is being filled up with light as you take an image. When the bucket overflows with light, you are left with clipped highlights; likewise if the bucket does not gather enough light, you are left with clipped shadows. These clipped areas will be seen in the frame as solid white (clipped highlights) or solid black (clipped shadows) blobs that have zero detail. There is obviously a little more to it, but that’s the quick basics of it.

The below image shows an over dramatized example of this. The red areas represent the clipped highlights and the blue areas represent the clipped shadows. I obviously edited the image to look like this just to show what these loses in detail look like. Also, keep in mind that these clipped areas will look worse in print then they do on a screen.

You can see that the image has clipped highlights and shadows by looking at the histogram. Because the graph is pushed up against both end points, we know we are losing detail. 

 

Megapixel and ISO

When I say that I could care less about megapixel count and ISO range, I do not mean they are useless features, I just think that they have reached a point where they don't need to be as heavily developed. When I upgraded cameras, I specifically did not want one of the super high megapixel superstar cameras. I simply didn’t want to deal with that large of a file or the storage space that accompanies it. It definitely has its uses in certain aspects of photography, but the majority of people can do just fine with much less. As for ISO, I love the direction this is going and I do love the ability to shoot in lower light; however, It’s pretty rare that I’m in a situation where I’m at a high ISO limit and I’m not already planning to use my flash anyway. For what I do, low light is normally terrible light. It’s not that I can’t shoot in it, it’s that it is just not the look and feel I’m going for.

 

Why you should care

The reason this has become so apparent for me lately is due to my recent upgrade to the Nikon D750. This camera does not have the best dynamic range on the market, but it is only .3Evs away from it (according to DXOMark). When I first got this camera I was editing my files like I did with my old Sony A900 and I quickly realized how much more room I had to push the files. The detail hidden within the shadows of these files is amazing. Looking back at the bucket example, if you fill up the bucket to the point that it overflows, you get clipped highlights. Clipped highlights and shadows are unfixable (for the most part). However when dealing with this much dynamic range, we can fill the bucket right up to the point of clipped highlights and because there is so much info left in the shadows, the shadow detail can be brought back in post.

 

Here is an example, the below image was shot exposing for the grass. Imagine there is an interesting subject here that I want to be exposed properly. Since I exposed for the grass though, the sky now has blown highlights. This can be seen by dragging the exposure slider in Lightroom all the way down. With the exposure all the down, you can now see the solid white blobs of white that cannot be recovered.

Now let’s look at an image where I exposed for the sky instead. Because the sky is where all the bright highlights are, I no longer have the unrecoverable white blobs in the clouds and the sun has much better definition.  

The trick here, is that the shadows within the second image are not clipped. This is because of the high dynamic range that the sensor offers. What I did was fill the bucket right to the point that it was overflowing, which also filled up the shadows with as much detail as possible before losing detail in the highlights. I have basically taken in as much detail as possible without clipping on either side. Now with some basic adjustments within Lightroom, I can bring back detail from those shadows. Below is an example of bringing back shadow detail compared to trying to bring back highlight detail (unrecoverable clipped highlights). You can easily tell which is which.  

The above examples are extreme cases, but it gives you a good idea of the possibilities. When we take this into the real world, you can see the benefits that dynamic range has to offer.

Let’s bring it together

In conclusion, I’m not saying that megapixel count and ISO are pointless.  I just could care less about these, because from this point in time moving forward, they will always be equal or greater than what they are today. That’s why dynamic range is my favorite. It has the most potential to affect your final image with future improvements. The process I used to recover shadows in the examples above, do have their drawbacks, such as added noise (depending on how far you push the file), but imagine shooting in full sun and having full shadow detail without the need for extreme post production and added noise.

 

Has an improved sensor improved your photography? What is the next advancement you would like to see?  

Jason Vinson's picture

Jason Vinson is a wedding and portrait photographer for Vinson Images based out of Bentonville, Arkansas. Ranked one of the Top 100 Wedding photographers in the World, he has a passion for educating and sharing his craft.

Log in or register to post comments
80 Comments
Previous comments

It is! Basically it lets you sample your shadows at a higher ISO (like 800 or 1600) but expose your highlights at the base ISO (160 for me) all within one raw file. Pretty amazing!

I assume its like an in camera HDR image then where its taking multiple images and combining them into one? or is this done with a single shutter actuation?

Yes it is a single shutter operation, thing is, you need to process the file using a ML software, it will become a dng file and then you can play with the thing. My EOS 500D/ Rebel T1i became a 15 megapixel 13EV beast hahahah

Thank you for this post. Thank you so hard.

When I was researching my first DSLR, I compared features of my 35mm film camera, Canon A-1 and F-1N to the current crop of DSLRs.
Shooting full frame since 1980, I wanted 28mm to be 28mm and 50mm to be 50mm. Sure, it would be nice to cheat on the beneficial side of longer reach for telephoto reach, but I would be cheated by a 28mm becoming a 45mm. Full frame is what I preferred over APS.
The ISO of the F-1N goes from 6 to 6400, whereas the A-1 goes from 6 to 12,800; anything above that was a bonus.
Next was frames per second. I have the respective motor drives for the A-1 and the F-1N which advance film at six frames per second. That is comparable to the Canon 5D Mk III. Sure, I would love to have the blazing fast FPS of the 1Dx. Could I afford the 1Dx? Hell no! And I wouldn't need the speed all the time.
The 5D Mk III turned came out to be the best match for what I have and use.

This image shows a little bit of what you're talking about, when comparing to Canon
It's taken from this page: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/7
It's a dark image shot with ISO100 and them brightened in post. Show how much you can brighten up the dark areas of an image, without losing detail.

Being completely self taught, I quickly learned this was the most useful feature, & haven't gone back to JPEG since. Another cool feature is the DRO setting (dynamic range optimizer) if I know I won't have time to edit in post.

Queue all the people saying "Overrated; if you just exposed properly it doesn't matter," or "it's just a crutch," or "this just contributes to the lost Art of photography because you don't have to worry about exposure anymore."

Because that's what I get every time I talk about Nikon/Sony DR with a Canon user.

I must admit when I was a Canon shooter DR wasnt a feature I gave much weighting to. Megapixels and ISO performance seemed like much bigger factors. Now I've moved to using a D750 and D810 I've realised the difference in Nikon RAW files vs Canon RAW files is nearly the same difference as comparing Canon RAW with Canon jpeg files.

i used to believe this, until i used the canon 6d

Jason, way to go avoiding the sticky spider webs of MP's and ISO.

Here's a dynamic range example from one of my own model portfolio shoots way back employing hot window-light.

http://lifeascinema.blogspot.com/2013/04/helga-in-suburbs.html

I couldn't agree more with DR being the foremost and next frontier to conquer.... After learning about Dynamic Range (hell, just being a photographer) some years back , I've appreciated what the human eye can do...the depth of field, and dynamic range...I just hope to be alive the day these senor manufacturers figure that one out.....of course none of us would be able to afford that equipment. ...And Yes, I know we have HDR but it's definitely not the same

I'm sure there are better bodies out there now but I love the dynamic range on my D800. I shoot mostly landscapes and it opened up a whole new world for me. Although I do crop on occasion I don't really feel good about doing so, perhaps less pixels would make me more considerate about my framing. I'd say that DR is what I use most in my day to day shooting, the rest is a nice plus.

according to DXOmark, the D800 is still number 4 in best dynamic range.

Jason, when you say "exposed for the sky" in your test image did you use spot metering for the clouds or blue sky, or just point the camera up to lock exposure?

All those options would work, but I just flipped on live view and dialed in my exposure in tis specific example.

I'm a Canon 6D and P1 Aptus II 5 (Mamiya platform) user. I borrowed a D750 for a day of portrait shoots. The most important thing for me is color/skin tones and hitting focus on the near eye. I've never had to use more than 1 stop of shadow recovery for what I do so DR is unimportant beyond that. The Nikon was amazing for focus. Not one, I repeat, not one out of 220 shots with 4 models missed focus. Smashing show there. However, I couldn't get over the difficulty I had of getting the skin tones even close to what I like. The Canon and P1 are perfect right out of camera. Why is that? I would switch right now if I could figure out how to get my people to not look like wax.

Try tweaking "Camera Calibration" (lightroom / camera raw) and use it as a default preset when you import.

I concur with the desire for high dynamic range. I rarely am wishing for more megapixels with my 5D Mark III. But the ability to pull Nikon-style detail out of shadows makes me consider switching. (I've been an EOS shooter since 1987, yes, 87.) I hope Canon is preparing to enter the modern DSLR age with the Mark IV. I can't imagine having to buy new lenses and learn a new user interface.

Great article! I love my D750s and use the dynamic range to my advantage. One thing that is tough with this technique, is color. When I underexpose to keep highlight detail, and recover shadows, I find that I have to play with skin tones a lot more to get them right. There is usually a purplish tint that does not seem to be fixed by simply adding green. Any tips on the post processing part of this equation?

When it comes to ISO count, I'm somewhat biased: I get wet palms (G.A.S, not what you're thinking...) when seing those insanely high ISO values the new models are capable of shooting almost clean images.
On the other hand, I'm afraid to leave my base ISO for sacrificing data.
Then I have to remind me than I'm acting like Unca Scrooge: Having for the sake of having. None of the detail in question will be visible in any print size I currently do. And I won't be having my work printed in door size and scrutinized by art gallery buyers at nose lenght's distance Anytime Soon.
However, what everybody and their near blind Aunt Ninny will notice is a blurred image for too slow a shutter speed. And that's post card print size.
The other thing is dynamic range: I do come from an age of yonder where we shot on analog sensor material, called film. I always marvelled that there was so much more detail and information on the negative (the analog RAW, prior to edit) than I was able to get on the print.
Nowadays, I have to hustle to squeeze most of the image into the dynamic range the sensor would give me, that's kind of frustrating.

Are we getting to the point in camera technology where dynamic range can start replacing ISO? ISO is essentially adding luminence digitally, but with a 16 bit depth raw file, wouldn't it be better to do it in post and use the processing power of your computer do the work rather than in camera with ISO?

I received some requests for a translation, but don't know how to embed the comparatives in the article... can you help me?

PS: the translation will have credits and link to here, don't worry! ;) It's for the www.fotografia-dg.com

Sorry Alexandre, we don't really allow Fstoppers content to be re-posted like that. The people wanting a translation are more then welcome to use google translate and that should do a fairly decent job. Enough to at least the meat of the article. Sorry again for not being able to help.

You should check out the new Nikon D850 scheduled to be released sometime next summer. High ISO and a boost to 45MP BUT the most exciting thing is 12 stops of dynamic range - almost certainly a 16 bit sensor. This may be the most exciting advance in DSLR technology since we switched from film.

Great article Jason. I totally agree with you. Only a side note that I want to ask you to comment on: I am starting my wedding photography soon and I am thinking starting with DX cameras to keep costs low (I can buy two new d7200 at the price of a d750). The d7200 for example has the exact dynamic range until before iso 800 to the d750 (check dxomark). Being able to support the d7200 with flash guns to keep iso at the 100-400 region means that I would have at my disposal a very powerful combo. That also make the d7200 great backup camera for wedding photographers or giving them extra reach when they might neeed to.

Regards
Alex

I'm no familiar with the Nikon crop sensors, but your setup sounds like a very viable option.

Thanks for the immediate reply. I start my wedding photography soon and your articles were great and very close to my intuition. Reading you helped me get confidence on what I want to try. My lat "enemy" is to feel confident to try a wedding with two primes.
Alex