# Better dynamic range than my 5DIII



## vlad (Oct 3, 2012)

Grotto in an iceberg, photographed during the British Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1913
http://beta.natlib.govt.nz/records/22698855

What is this groundbreaking new camera that can get cloud details, snow, and noise-free shadows with plenty of detail in one shot?


----------



## K-amps (Oct 3, 2012)

And to think it was shot with manual exposure with zero feedback; makes it even more special...


----------



## spidyhero (Oct 3, 2012)

it is not the camera but the film/print that matters !!!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 3, 2012)

It's almost guaranteed that that was shot with a large format camera, possibly even using 8" x 10" film. If so, then it's to your 5DIII what a PhaseOne IQ180 is to a cell phone camera.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Sunnystate (Oct 3, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> It's almost guaranteed that that was shot with a large format camera, possibly even using 8" x 10" film. If so, then it's to your 5DIII what a PhaseOne IQ180 is to a cell phone camera.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> b&



Except that negative format has nothing to do with DR that OP is talking about.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 3, 2012)

Could be film, it generally has much better dynamic range than digital.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 3, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > It's almost guaranteed that that was shot with a large format camera, possibly even using 8" x 10" film. If so, then it's to your 5DIII what a PhaseOne IQ180 is to a cell phone camera.
> ...



It does if it's black and white film compared with color digital.

b&


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 3, 2012)

I'll bet its video was crap though.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 3, 2012)

Lol, I don't think that was the answer he was looking for.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 4, 2012)

only better dynamic range on highlight but not shadow... i am too young to know about those type of camera, but talking about latitude, film can handle much more better than digital camera. for example: tri-x - about 9 stops and plus-x - about seven stops, which means that you can pull it back within that given range... but for shadow, digital will win on this perpective... that is the reason why:

1. for film, we should expose for shadow
2. for digital, we should expose for highlight

i am still learning by myself by picking people brains, no schools or paid workshops/tutors  feel free to correct me as if i am wrong. in that case, i can learn more


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 4, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I'll bet its video was crap though.



Yea, it was 1 frame per 10min.

Great foto, interesting discussion. Note: There was probably a very talented guy in a darkroom partially responsible for this awsome photo. Even then, post processing was important.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 4, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I'll bet its video was crap though.



dont worry ML are working on it


----------



## EdB (Oct 4, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> 1. for film, we should expose for shadow
> 2. for digital, we should expose for highlight



For negative film, yes and for B&W negative film the saying is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Color positive film is exposed for the highlights.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

EdB said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > 1. for film, we should expose for shadow
> ...



yes and no... BW film, expose for shadow... Color film, expose for shadow... Color Slides, expose for highlights... Negative film was naturally clear once developed and you burned on the exposure, hence the shadows that so important... slide film was naturally black once developed, so highlights was more important.


----------



## EdB (Oct 7, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...



I'm not sure where you are getting that information from but it's completely off base. Whether the film is black or clear after processing has no relevance to exposing film. The reason you expose chrome film for the highlights is because it has no tolerance. If it is overexposed the highlights are blown and nothing is bringing them back.

Color film benefits from overexposure by reducing grain and providing better color. 

B&W film benefits from overexposure by providing better shadow detail and texture. By controlling development you create better separation in the highlight areas.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 7, 2012)

I'm not convinced that this is greater DR then a 5D3 could handle. It also lacks sharpness, contrast, and does show grain (noise).

Digital DR is better than is commonly assumed. E6 slide films ranged from 6-8 usable stops. C14 print films generally fell into the 10-14 stop range. B&W film had a wide variance depending on emulsion, developer, and development technique: 8-18 stops. Very few people actually pick their film, developer, and technique to get a really wide range out of B&W. And most B&W emulsions will have similar or less DR than a modern DSLR given standard development.

DSLRs are now in the 11-15 stop range when shooting RAW. Perhaps more importantly, there is unparalleled control over the color, contrast, and tonality of the final image, separate from the DR. With film if you wanted a wide DR you had to accept the other characteristics of the film. (Not completely true with film scanners since they open the image to digital processing.)

As to why you expose for highlights or shadows...

* An emulsion layer is a thin but three dimensional space of silver halide crystals of varying size, shape, orientation, and therefore sensitivity. As light strikes the emulsion the most sensitive crystals are altered first. A single crystal will either develop or not, there are no shades of gray at that level. As light continues to fall on the film, some of it strikes crystals which have already changed, adding to the time it takes to alter the least sensitive crystals. Film's sensitivity drops as it is exposed to light. In long exposures we easily observe this and call it reciprocity failure, but it's at play even in the shortest exposures. This is why film has more highlight than shadow range, and a softer roll off at the highlight end.

* Slide film is processed to provide a reversed image. In theory this should give the same DR but with more shadow range. In practice slide films always had less DR because they were engineered to have more contrast and saturation so they looked good when projected.

* Digital sensors build a charge as light strikes the sensor, and there's a hard limit on that charge. When they hit that wall there's no roll off, the photosite simply clips. They have more shadow range than film because they simply have less noise for a given sensitivity, so the soft roll off...and the room for error...occurs on the shadow side.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 7, 2012)

Nice picture, taken very likely with a very large format view camera. Excellent DR could be due to masking work in the lab (likely a contact print). This looks like to be some early 20th century polar expedition of some sort, so making such a picture in these times was some kind of adventure on it's own, considering the equipment used (wood camera and tripod, brass lens and a suitcase of chassis). Resolution and grain are not perfect, but we are here talking about likely 100 years old equipment, nevertheless a great picture, considering the tech available then. IMHO comparison with a 5D3 is like comparing a Ford model T with an Audi A6 (sorry, cars are not my favourite matter).

However, this is to remind us that film still has something to say, especially with large formats. I still use my Linhof Technika 2000 for landscape and architecture as a hobby, and the pleasure I get from it is way beyond the one I ever had from digital work. Once you get good results, the reward is just immense....


----------



## Ryan_W (Oct 7, 2012)

Obviously this is a camera that had at least 19 cross-type AF points. There's just no other explanation for it.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 7, 2012)

This is "*Grotto in an iceberg*", photographed during the British Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1913, 5 Jan 1911 by Herbert Ponting. It is in the collection of the National Library of New Zealand. it's a silver gelatin print, reference number: PA1-f-067-12-04.
Please give the photographer his due credit even if the image is released under the creative commons licence!


----------



## vlad (Oct 26, 2012)

Patrick said:


> This is "*Grotto in an iceberg*", photographed during the British Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1913, 5 Jan 1911 by Herbert Ponting. It is in the collection of the National Library of New Zealand. it's a silver gelatin print, reference number: PA1-f-067-12-04.
> Please give the photographer his due credit even if the image is released under the creative commons licence!



There is a description and a link to more details in the original post. I think the photo is fantastic, and I certainly want to credit its creator.

Definitely an interesting discussion. I think it serves to deflate some of the hubris and tech insanity going around today. Technology keeps advancing, but great images aren't all about latest and greatest tech.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

Its not the camera but the Fleshy, breathing Device behind it is what counts.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 26, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Its not the camera but the Fleshy, breathing Device behind it is what counts.



CameraSatan standing over your shoulder?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 26, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Its not the camera but the Fleshy, breathing Device behind it is what counts.
> ...



Do you mean Nikon? ;D


----------

