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

Please consider supporting the channel, donate a cup of coffee ☕ ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography

"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. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LYAvhujK4nA.html). 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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Wonderfully presented Thomas - love your work 🙏

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🖖

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Thank you for a thoughtful and well-executed presentation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Great video Thomas! Thanks! 👍 Cheers from Portugal.

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.

Always informative!

Great video! Thanks, Thomas.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Great video!

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.

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.

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.

Superb explanation, thankyou

Another excellent presentation Thomas, well done.

gut gemacht. I am glad I found your channel.

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.

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.

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

Bit late to the party, but love this vid ❤

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!

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

Very informative

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?

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

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.

Thanks!

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

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

Nice!

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

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) ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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....

I'll probably watch this a dozen times

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

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

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" ...

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. :-)

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

Why do You have a grill connected to the camera?

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

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

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

Can we talk about how high dynamic range digital cameras made it near impossible to create those beautiful high contrast light-shadow photos that looked so great on film?

Genau so ist es! was nützt einem ein 8K Video, wenn man es sich nicht in voller Auflösung anschauen kann!?

Sehr super erklärt. DAS hätte ich mir gerne auf wienerisch angehört. _,,,,°(*ö*)°,,,,_

8 are good but 14 are better..if you correctly pay attention to noise & banding

Nice small focomat. 2 c was better.

8 stops are enough as long as I can get it at ISO 3200 ;-P