Jump to content

Dynamic range of the X-T5 in action.


Edp

Recommended Posts

I was reviewing some more of my shots from my recent trip, and I noticed something in one shot that at first I thought was trouble, but turned out to be shocking.  Here are two images....

 

Here's the first - I purposely used the top of the spire to shield the sun, to allow it to halo the top as part of the composition....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I zoomed in to see about cropping it some, I noticed spots, and thought, "wow the lens or sensor got REALLY dirty, and that's a shame.  Wasted shot."  I looked at the other images immediately after and before it, and there were no spots, so I was naturally confused.

 

Zoomed in...

That's when I realized, those aren't dust spots or bad pixels, those are... STARS.  The dynamic range was wide enough that it could pick up the faint starlight that was mixing in with the sunlight, stars that are always in the sky, but normally invisible due to the intensity of the sun.  I am impressed with the ability of the sensor in the X-T5 to resolve these details.

post edit - the compression when posting the image ruins the details, sadly.  I may post another one REALLY zoomed in to show it better....

Edited by Edp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is better....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shooting raw at base iso of 125, which would give the widest dynamic range; correct me if I’m wrong but the dynamic range setting only applies for film simulations…. Otherwise I’m not sure.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Edp said:

I was shooting raw at base iso of 125, which would give the widest dynamic range; correct me if I’m wrong but the dynamic range setting only applies for film simulations…. Otherwise I’m not sure.   

Whether the DR setting affects raw files or not has been argued in many places, but it does affect the raw files, Adobe joins those saying it does:

https://petapixel.com/2021/02/15/understanding-fujifilm-high-dynamic-range/

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/fujifilm-hdr-raf-support.html

so, just to be safe, make sure to keep it set at the default unless you intend to use it.

edit: p.s. I meant to say, There is an EXIF tag setting that tells you the DR setting that was in place when the shot was taken. If you do not have a tags reader/editor, there are several sites that will tell you what they are, I think @Greybeard still does this.

Edited by jerryy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Jerry.  I hadn't messed with that setting, so I'd assume it was at a default.  I opened the file with Fuji's RAW Studio, and this was the EXIF it's reporting, is this what you'd expect to see?

 

I see dynamic range stating "100%"

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

The articles you linked all seem related to HDR, and embeddment of extra images - I don't shoot HDR (not really interested in it), so it seems a normal RAW file isn't really affected by that setting?

Edited by Edp
Link to post
Share on other sites

HDR is what some folks are referring to when the DR (dynamic range) setting is changed from 100 to 200 or higher, the shadows are boosted and the highlights are lowered. As long as you stay at DR 100, the files will be regular sized and un-affected. The DR setting is what I believe itchy is asking about.

p.s. Shooting in IR comes up every now and then, maybe your and @Ninon’s collaboration can pull together some info into one place (hope, hope).

Edited by jerryy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jerry, I'll certainly keep that in mind.  So many settings.... lol.  I went back into the camera, and it's at "100"

I definitely want to look into an iR camera.  I did it a few times in the old film days, and it fell off the radar of rabbit holes for me to fall into with digital.  My wallet is already whining. 😛

Edited by Edp
Link to post
Share on other sites

@jerryy I looked at the EXIF file, and noticed something that maybe you'd explain - The "INITIAL DATE AND TIME OF CAPTURE" time stamp (I was in Spain, but the camera settings were left on NYC/east coast TZ - lol) is notably different than at the bottom, "FILE TIMESTAMP" that's BEFORE the image capture datestamp.  All I can think of is WTF, did I discover time travel?  I have no idea why they are different, as in before the image date. It was copied to an iPad for backup storage, but that was on accurate local Spain time when I did it, and that TZ is forward of NYC.  Confused.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there is roughly a six hour time difference. Barcelona is currently six hours ahead of U.S. right coast time due to daylight savings time, so the iPad may have tried to adjust for the GMT offsets.

Edited by jerryy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool shot.  I'm curious, at the time, could you see the stars with your eyes or is this a case where the camera was willing to stare into bright light where your eye would not.  I wonder if it would have been possible using an ND filter of similar to slow the shutter speed low enough to get star tracers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sky was far too bright either directly or when the sun was blocked to see the stars with the naked eye.  I didn’t see them in the viewfinder set either.   I wasn’t aware they would be visible and wasn’t part of the shot I was anticipating, and initially thought they were artifacts in the image.   

Edited by Edp
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...