Jrista-I have never used a system that has a 6 stop range. I would be skeptical as to what that would to to the histagram. There simply has to be some damage somewhere....but maybe the raw conversion world has passed me by....I'm running Phase 1-10...I understand that 12 is out now.
Modern digital cameras have over 13 stops of dynamic range, some have over 14 stops. Your standard sRGB computer screen which renders 8-bit color, is only capable of displaying 5-6 stops less dynamic range than the average modern camera. So one way or another, you have to process the signal in order to make it fit within the available dynamic range that the average viewer has. Many older DSLRs had much higher read noise, and also a fair amount of DFPN (dark fixed pattern noise) in the form of banding, blotchy color noise, etc. So, even though they were still 14-bit cameras, you usually couldn't push the shadows as much, you might get 2-3 stops worth of ability to push the signal around (notably, brighten the shadows).
Modern cameras, which really started with the first Sony a7 series cameras that used their full frame Sony Exmor sensors, have significantly more dynamic range. Sony's cameras are better than Canon's...they just seem to have greater color precision/bit depth overall, which translates to better color even in the very faintest signals, and while the Canon R5 significantly stepped up Canon's game, I still think that the Sony a7R III and IV deliver better quality deep shadow signal. Still, the a7R III and IV, and even the older Nikon D810, as well as the Canon R5, on a normalized basis (all images scaled to a standard 8x10 print size at a particular DPI) deliver over 14 stops of viable dynamic range. On your average 8-bit computer screen, that would mean they provide ~6 stops of signal pushing range.
As an astrophotographer, where the only thing we work with is deep, deep, dark shadows, I can attest to the ability to lift very faint signals out of seeming pure black with these cameras. I also use dedicated, thermally cooled monochrome astrophotography cameras. In the past nothing came close to the capabilities of a monochrome astro camera, but the last few years color DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras have come a long way, and they can deliver pretty amazing color even with a single exposure (i.e. which is usually the case with your very wide field milky way photography). Technology is a wonderful thing sometimes!!
This was made with a Canon 5D III, under very dark skies. Signal was very dark, black in many areas, a barely visible dark dark brown where the brightest stars were:
This is about 4 hours of exposure. The 5D III had a little over 12 stops of dynamic range.
This was made with a monochrome camera, and from a stack of images, but the signal was pulled out of an original image that looked to be pure black, save for a handful of white points representing the brightest stars:
The camera used to create this had about 12.5 stops of dynamic range (although, this camera also had exceptionally low read noise, just about 2 electrons worth which is phenomenal, so that helps bring out those really faint signals. Low read noise is often more important than dynamic range when it comes to astrophotography.) Technically speaking, this image would be stretched by stops and stops (and I guess it should be noted that this is more on the order of 24 hours of exposure). Its a non-linear stretch, what you could call signal compression (you are compressing most of the range, which represents only stars, and expanding the darkest few bits of signal). Modern digital cameras have only a few electrons worth of read noise, and much more dynamic range than this, which makes them incredibly capable cameras. You can get images like these with a DSLR or mirrorless camera such as the R5.
As far as CRI, it is my understanding the anything above the 90 range is basically incomprehensible in differences in light color. As long as you maintain the same K temp and stay above 90 CRI, from what I understand the brand is irrelevant in practicality.
I'm going to sound like your grandpa now...In the good old days incandesent bulbs were manufactured to standard that the CRI was always above 90 and most of the time with brands like GE were in the 95's. I wasn't until we began with LED and CFL that CRI became pertinent.
Ok, thanks. That is what I thought, but was having trouble confirming it.
Kelvin Temperature at it's best is 5500 Degrees K. Daylight light bulbs in stores now days can be as much as 6500k. That is a disgusting color of light, not flattering to anything. I have been doing little projects here and there, but just using flash/studio lights. I did do a small project about 500 miles from home with 4100k bulb with CFI in the 80's....they looked just fine. I guess what I am telling you, don't get to caught up in the technical aspects....get close and se what your results are....you will be surprised.
Yeah. I agree...I've never quite been a fan of 6500K. That tries to replicate "daylight" as you mentioned, which accounts for the copious blue light from a blue daytime sky. I've always preferred the neutral to very slightly warm "sunlight" which would be 5500K, and accounts for direct illumination by sunlight. You don't really get any color cast with that temp, but you can usually tell the blue color cast of 6500K.
I was mostly concerned about the CRI with regards to consistency of color. The original lights I bought don't seem to be in stock at the moment...and if I want consistent lighting, I wanted to make sure that if I bought I different brand the color would indeed be correct (i.e. any 5500K CRI 90 light should do).
I actually like 4100K light as well! It is not "orange" or even "yellow" per-se...but it has a real nice warm look and feel do it. I have 4100K bulbs in my bedrooms and family room. Love that soft light!
I am somewhat of skeptic...When I bought my studio we had a portrait studio, a commercial studio in the same building, a color lab, a B&W lab, a Camera store, and Camera repair people. It was fun, truly a zoo, but fun. We had 11 people and me. I came to realize that sometimes we had to make do with this or that. Whether it was because we were waiting on parts in the lab machinery or making my own snoot in the commercial studio. The Camera companies were hard to work with....I closed the camera store in 2010. I felt horrible doing it, but it was not profitable and really never had been. It was more like a hobby than an income. Camera companies didtate prices (MSRP) which is about a 7 to 8% profit. They didn't care if you made money or not, as long as they did. I notified Canon and Nikon I was closing my account and they truly didn't care. Now they are a pittance of what they formally were. 95% of all photos are taken on a cell phone. Our once great industry had a convention that served folks worldwide, with fantastic trade shows. 100,000 attendees. Now that is gone and has been absorbed into CES, I was in las Vegas two weeks ago after CES had just closed and I was told the attendance was 25% of ten years ago. Companies are not as interested in getting you a better product than they are selling you things to survive. Technique always wins or technical....produce high quality images and you will win every time. Do not ignore the technical side, just concentrate on good images. Who cares how you got there.....have good clean and correct exposure and you don't have to worry about metering and under/over adjustment. One more story....In the beginning of my career I shot a Hasselblad 500c. I was poor and it was expensive, I got some decent images and entered a Commercial competition....I felt good about the images as did the other 100 people that entered, I'm sure. We all got smoked by someone no one knew that had a little studio in big town. His photograph was awesome.....I cornered him as struck up a conversation. Here I was with a degree and all the right stuff, ran around with friends that were big in the industry and this kid took that image with two Smith Victor photo floods and a twin lens reflex and not a great one at that.....he had learned from books and this was his first convention.....I changed my opinion of myself and my approach right there.....I will remember that kid until my dying day.....I don't think he ever had great success, I never saw him more than twice after that. But basically that was my epiphany.
Thanks for listening to an old man....I always tryed to use a good marriage of effort and technique. When you get old, try and pay it forward by helping folks, like on this forum.
Yeah, I've heard the same kind of story from others, that camera companies are hard to work with and make profitability extremely hard. I don't think there is a single camera store left around here... There used to be half a dozen at least, plus a scattering of truly specialized and more hard-core camera stores that had old guard guys that knew EVERYTHING about photography, of every kind, from old old film cameras, classic bellows field and landscape large format cameras, to digital (this was over a decade ago now I guess), and had every kind of lighting thing you could imagine (or at least, that was what it seemed like back then). Some of those guys could process any kind of film, enlarge it to just about any size... None of those camera stores exist anymore. Its really sad... I guess that's kind of the same for almost anything these days, though... Online megastores are crushing every mom and pop store they can. I don't think I've seen a bookstore in years. There are no longer any ham radio/electronics stores around, not even Radio Shack (they abandoned and betrayed their true hardcore customer though, in favor of selling cheap phones and crappy batteries, so its not surprising.) There is only one real computer store left around here: Microcenter.
Its really sad what the internet has done to main street these days. And what these huge companies we have now have done to the smaller sellers, sapping up almost any room to be profitable. And of course, what smartphones have done to the photography/camera industry. Its been decimated by it all... Sad thing is, no matter how good they get relative to themselves, the ultra tiny sensors used in smart phone cameras cannot and never will hold a stick to a larger format sensor, or for that matter to larger formats of film. You can only do so much with a tiny fraction of a fingernail's worth of light!
I agree that technique is paramount. That is why I'm doing all this research about lighting. Trying to learn the techniques that work... Having good technology can help too, though. I think, someone who demonstrates great skill with poorer quality technology, would demonstrate phenomenal skill with higher quality technology. Wonder what that kid would have done with your Hassy 500c.
