NX200 DR?

Forums: 
Nothing to complain about, even at 400 ISO! From this to this in LR: IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi/http://1.static.img-dpzen.com/files/g/TS560x560~2286645.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi/http://4.static.img-dpzen.com/files/g/TS560x560~2286644.jpg)

Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.

I dont NX200 is short of DR. IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903233877.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903263883.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903293886.jpg) Jupiter 8 50mm f2.0

Eric did a pseudo-scientific comparison to D7000 some months back: http://forums.dpzen.com/forums/post/41212769 Looked pretty good to me. But I rarely shoot RAW because of the annoying processing times "SmartRange" generally works OK for me when I want to preserve highlights.

Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
> I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. - Well, I am glad you are of a different persuasion! > it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots. - This was a deliberate, carefully composed shot of a scene that looked wonderful in real life. The sensor is thankfully flexible enough to preserve all the nuances that were there.

tolleknolle wrote:
Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
> I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. - Well, I am glad you are of a different persuasion! > it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots. - This was a deliberate, carefully composed shot of a scene that looked wonderful in real life. The sensor is thankfully flexible enough to preserve all the nuances that were there.
I get the feeling you have read something into my comments which I honestly did not mean. I just meant that if you look at the original shot it does look kind of dull, I wasn’t suggesting you hadn’t seen the potential yourself or questioning your ability. If you look at my gallery you’ll see similar processing in lots of my photos, I wasn’t making comments via fictitious friends.

i use the nx200 a lot. I do find the range quite good but not outstanding, i shoot raw and highlights can blow out where i expected the could be recovered. jpg is a different matter though, i have had need to use jpg on some occasions and even with careful ev control the highlights have been lost. I'm not moaning about it because i dont see it as an issue, just an observation. But all that been said, i find the range more than enough (as with all modern cameras) If a shot is correctly exposed and loss occurs then it is usually best left lost, unless you like the clown puke effect. some shots made up from jpg below. nx200 medium format stylee IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903333890.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903353892.jpg)

Bpaulhome wrote:
i use the nx200 a lot. I do find the range quite good but not outstanding, i shoot raw and highlights can blow out where i expected the could be recovered. jpg is a different matter though, i have had need to use jpg on some occasions and even with careful ev control the highlights have been lost. I'm not moaning about it because i dont see it as an issue, just an observation. But all that been said, i find the range more than enough (as with all modern cameras) If a shot is correctly exposed and loss occurs then it is usually best left lost, unless you like the clown puke effect. some shots made up from jpg below. nx200 medium format stylee IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903333890.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattachesi//201409231903353892.jpg)
Nothing short amazing. How you did that? Mamiya lens and Brenizer method, or just medium format lens? Btw. how easy is to manual focus with NX200? Aand.. every tried NX10 or so for manual focus?

Brenizer & pentax 50/1.4 about 30 shots

Super. I'd like to look into that.

Ian Leach wrote:
tolleknolle wrote:
Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
> I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. - Well, I am glad you are of a different persuasion! > it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots. - This was a deliberate, carefully composed shot of a scene that looked wonderful in real life. The sensor is thankfully flexible enough to preserve all the nuances that were there.
I get the feeling you have read something into my comments which I honestly did not mean. I just meant that if you look at the original shot it does look kind of dull, I wasn’t suggesting you hadn’t seen the potential yourself or questioning your ability. If you look at my gallery you’ll see similar processing in lots of my photos, I wasn’t making comments via fictitious friends.
PAX. No offence was taken or meant.

Thanks, Ian

Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
I think what is misunderstood is the difference from a dull looking well composed image to that of a really dull with poorly composed or totally flat image. HDR can make a nicely composed image better and at the same time makes a purposely dull image look nice or acceptable. I'm not against post-processing since it is essential to one's work. I just don't like the deliberate practice of overdoing things and the impression that a real dull image to be a masterpiece due to heavy post-processing. I have seen abstract photography work done with certain level of post-processing which are really great since one could see the purpose of what was being illustrated or emphasized and not a way to hide what clearly is just a poor image.

Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow.
I don't consder the image posted to be "engaging". Fixing under exposed photos does not increase the quality of the subject capture nor improve the composition or lighting. Those elements are what photography is about - not lifting shadows on greatly under exposed snapshots.
As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.

RedFox88 wrote:
Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow.
I don't consder the image posted to be "engaging". Fixing under exposed photos does not increase the quality of the subject capture nor improve the composition or lighting. Those elements are what photography is about - not lifting shadows on greatly under exposed snapshots.
As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
In fairness to the original poster, he had only three options in this circumstance. He could expose for the foreground but the sky would be completely lost. He could take an HDR which would need a tripod and no wind; it looks like there is movement in the grass. The last option is the one he took which was to expose for the sky and then pull back the foreground with processing. This is a perfectly acceptable solution given the circumstances and the DR of the sensor has allowed for it. Unfortunately I did not word my original comment well, I was trying to say that some people feel this is not acceptable when in fact it is a good solution in such cases.

In fairness to the original poster, he had only three options in this circumstance. He could expose for the foreground but the sky would be completely lost. He could take an HDR which would need a tripod and no wind; it looks like there is movement in the grass. The last option is the one he took which was to expose for the sky and then pull back the foreground with processing. This is a perfectly acceptable solution given the circumstances and the DR of the sensor has allowed for it.
That is precisely right - or I could have used a split ND to pull the sky in, but I did not have it with me and anyway the concave line of the trees is not ideal. Anyway, the shot is not even exposed for the sky but straddles an awkward middle line, possibly the worst of both worlds. I fired off without any great hope and was pleasantly surprised when both highlights and shadows yielded rich detail. Hence my post.

RedFox88 wrote: I don't consder the image posted to be "engaging".
I posted the image as an example of NX200's DR.
Fixing under exposed photos does not increase the quality of the subject capture
Working with RAW files is part of post-processing.
nor improve the composition or lighting. Those elements are what photography is about - not lifting shadows on greatly under exposed snapshots.
This was a carefully composed scene. The file is not underexposed. The lighting was natural.

tolleknolle wrote:
RedFox88 wrote: I don't consder the image posted to be "engaging".
I posted the image as an example of NX200's DR.
Fixing under exposed photos does not increase the quality of the subject capture
Working with RAW files is part of post-processing.
nor improve the composition or lighting. Those elements are what photography is about - not lifting shadows on greatly under exposed snapshots.
This was a carefully composed scene. The file is not underexposed. The lighting was natural.
Carefully composed does not make an image attractive or noteworthy. This image is one you should not defend yourself on the content or artistic values, but use it for your ability to brighten shadows only. There are nicer things to look at. Yes the photo was under exposed as you posted the original. A camera meters for midtones and you chose to under expose and try to save any highlights.

This image is one you should not defend yourself on the content or artistic values, but use it for your ability to brighten shadows only.
I defended the image from being called a snapshot by pointing out that it was a deliberate composition. I posted the image as an example of DR and not on its artistic merits. Post-processing is integral to digital photography and cannot be dismissed in a condescending manner as an "ability to brighten shadows".
Yes the photo was under exposed as you posted the original. A camera meters for midtones and you chose to under expose and try to save any highlights.
Multi-segment metering averages results across the frame. This was a compromise it suggested.
| There are nicer things to look at. By all means.

Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
Tell that to Ansel Adams who is well known for spending hours and hours in post processing an image to get the look that he wanted. The nature of his post processing was fairly similar to what the OP's example showed.

random78 wrote:
Ian Leach wrote: Being a technology geek I think this sort of thing is great but I have purist photography friends who aren’t happy with the direction photography is going. I think they preferred it when there were fewer people were able to produce engaging images. They think fixing photos in software to this level is cheating but I think you just have to go with the flow. As for the DR of Samsung’s new sensor, you can only really know by scientific test, I’ve done the same with my NX10 photos and that cameras sensor is not that good for DR or noise. Still I like that image and it just goes to show what can be hiding in very dull looking shots.
Tell that to Ansel Adams who is well known for spending hours and hours in post processing an image to get the look that he wanted. The nature of his post processing was fairly similar to what the OP's example showed.
I don't think you have understood my comment. I'm saying some people don't like heavy processing but I think it's a perfectly acceptable solution.

Yep, dodging, burning, masks and every trick they or their professional printers could come up with. What used to be available to very few is now at the fingertips of great many. But Ansel Adamses are still few and far between...

I really like the second shot!

Great shot! I learned as well that a shot like that can have a great dramatic impact, more how you saw the scene in person, or maybe how you remember seeing the scene. That type of processing can really bring a shot to life, and as you say, I don't feel the dull drab photograph captures the scene appropriately. That is a limitation with the imaging sensor and not a new trend in photography or anything. If it bothers some traditional photographers so be it. Modern 35 mm film bothered some photographers as well (large format photographers). Whatever, there will always be people stuck in their ways (and there isn't anything wrong with that), but things change over time, and that can also be good. I feel the DR of the NX200/20/1000/etc are good enough where I don't have to worry about it much. With the NX10 I had to worry about it more. You don't have quite the range to push the shadows that you do on the 20 MP camera. The Sony might technically have more, but I don't really find the extra that useful, as there is only so far you can push process and still have an interesting looking picture. With the 14.6 MP sensor cameras I found I had to do 3 shot HDR to control noise more, but with the 20 MP sensor cameras I found I didn't have to in order to get what I wanted. Each person will be a bit different in this regard. Eric

viking79 wrote: I don't feel the dull drab photograph captures the scene appropriately.
Yep. The scene looked great to human eye, simply because the brain can register the entire dynamic range. The processed file actually brings out the real feeling much better than the flat unprocessed one.
If it bothers some traditional photographers so be it. Modern 35 mm film bothered some photographers as well (large format photographers). Whatever, there will always be people stuck in their ways (and there isn't anything wrong with that), but things change over time, and that can also be good.
Agreed.
I feel the DR of the NX200/20/1000/etc are good enough where I don't have to worry about it much. With the NX10 I had to worry about it more.
Yep. Agreed.
With the 14.6 MP sensor cameras I found I had to do 3 shot HDR to control noise more, but with the 20 MP sensor cameras I found I didn't have to in order to get what I wanted.
Yep. A big relief. Thanks for the comment, Eric

wow, gorgeous, could you post the settings you used in lr or post a tutorial on how to get an hdr image from a single raw pic?? thanks

tecnoworld wrote: wow, gorgeous, could you post the settings you used in lr or post a tutorial on how to get an hdr image from a single raw pic?? thanks
Thanks for the comment! Well, with a hopeless exposure like that you first have to stop yourself from binning the file. Next of course you want to see how much can be saved. Hence both "Recovery" and "Fill Light" go up to 100. This kills contrast, which you redeem by pushing "Blacks" to 40. Then you realise that midtones are washed out and bring them in by pulling "Exposure" back to -1.15 stops. This brings all the tonalities into the range but the image looks flat. So you go into the "Tone Curve" and push "Lights" to +90. This burns the sky back out again. You curse, take an "Adjustment Brush" and paint -0.70 EV over the sky, which returns it to wonderful. Then you give the foreground a little bit more separation by running a -0.1 EV brush over it. And you finish it all off by pushing up "Vibrance" until your eyes just about water. Fait accompli. The figures are of course specific to the shot. The best I can say is this: RAW files are very elastic. Just play until it looks right.

thank you very much for the detailed description. the tricky part, for me, is the use of a brush. I seem to not be able to use it precisely, without going on parts of the image in which I didn't want it to take effect. To you have hints about the use of the brush? thanks again!

tecnoworld wrote: thank you very much for the detailed description. the tricky part, for me, is the use of a brush. I seem to not be able to use it precisely, without going on parts of the image in which I didn't want it to take effect. To you have hints about the use of the brush? thanks again!
No problem! I tend to feather my brushes quite a lot, often to the max. 100, so that any changes are gradual and well-blended. After that, if you pressed the Alt key the brush becomes "-" and you can paint out the unwanted areas. And of course you can layer as many brushes as you want. The effects will be adjusted or cancelled out. All the best.

P.S. When I start working I set the brush to some visible setting, e.g. "Exposure" +1 if the area is dark or -1 if it's light, so that I can see what I am doing in real time. Afterwards I can obviously adjust everything to taste.

thank you again! very good hints!

I think the actual exposure for the NX200 sensor is wrong; its always overexposed, the camera seems to do okay with slight underexposure, and slight pushing. The very poor on-exposure highlight DR is a pain though, especially with strobing; I might as well pretend I'm shooting film and not chimp. None of the tonal transitions are smooth with the highlights; even a lowly Pentax K-X or a D3100 does much better here. The way the sensor renders specular highlights is far more concerning than the dynamic range to be honest, and I have a feeling it has to do with the very IR-sensitive nature of the sensor, especially in the context of strobing. EDIT: Samsung needs to use a 'coventional' sensor that actually has good output, and not good output on paper. It seems fixing the very skewed output (skewed towards shadows), does not work; there simply isnt any data there. Blue DR is also, horrible.

amazing post processing !

The range on the nx200 is quite good but not outstanding, this kind of effect can be carried out with just about any modern camera. Technically i guess it is hdr and hdr can be used to make good images, but hdr for hdrs sake will always annoy a lot of people. Take better photos and make them better still, don't take a bad photo and try to find something that isn't there. To suggest that the image isn't important and that is just used to demonstrate a point is just lazy photography and is best restricted to the Sony forum.

paulhome wrote: The range on the nx200 is quite good but not outstanding, this kind of effect can be carried out with just about any modern camera.
Perhaps, although NX20/200 were continuously criticised for sub-par DR and I was glad to find otherwise.
Technically i guess it is hdr and hdr can be used to make good images, but hdr for hdrs sake will always annoy a lot of people.
Yes, hdr for hdr's sake may annoy people. I, however, posted before and after images for the sake of making a completely different point.
Take better photos and make them better still, don't take a bad photo and try to find something that isn't there.
I took a photo, which I do not at all consider bad, and demonstrated an incredible richness of detail in seemingly burnt-out highlights and seemingly blocked-up shadows. Arguably, I found what is there rather than that which is not.
To suggest that the image isn't important and that is just used to demonstrate a point is just lazy photography and is best restricted to the Sony forum.
For one, I am not suggesting that the image is important, other than as an example of NX20s RAW potential. Secondly, I have no idea how demonstrating a valid technical point is lazy photography. And thirdly, I think a lot of Sony forum contributors would take an issue with your statement.

I find the dynamic range of the NX200 to be quite good (at least for my purposes). The HDR capability can be very dramatic. I am not a proponent of the garish tone mapping that is commonly associated with "HDR," but I have found that creating realistic tone ranges in high contrast scenes can be amazing. This is true when using a program like Lightroom 4 (allows 32 bit TIFF files to be fully processed) or stand alone HDR tone mapping program. When I have a lower contrast scene and want to "tone map" only, I've found that a single exposure from the NX200 is more than adequate for some real drama when using the Topaz Lab's Adjust plug-in. I guess my only strong suggestion would be to shoot raw files and to denoise before tone mapping.

aeys wrote: amazing post processing !
Ta! Appreciated.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.