I decided to use Frye's method to test my Nikon D200 DSLR's dynamic range. Not that I'm a spring chicken in this regards. I have tested its dynamic range a couple of times, using methodologies of both Dick Dickerson/Sylvia Zawadzki and Lee Varis. Both showed the dynamic range was 7 stops, Zones II through VIII. But I could not figure how much I could "push" this range.
The Short Story
I learned two results from Frye’s test. First, my D200 had a “comfortable” dynamic range of 7 stops. Nothing new here. However, the second finding was that I could push the dynamic range, within certain tolerances for detail loss and noise, to 8 stops, from Zone I ⅔ to VIII ⅔.
My Testing
I took 2 tries to achieve a testing state that allowed proper data analysis. The first test run that resulted in a template (see below) I could use to record the data. I could then process images in a logical manner in LR5, and analyze results.
Setting up Control Environment
The basic test for dynamic range for DSLR users requires a set of exposure of a fixed target (a textured wall) to create a background of detail for eleven zones of exposure (Zones 0 - X). Note, this test centered on dynamic range only, not color or color-shifts.
I set up my control environment:
- RAW capture of Nikon NEF files was used at the D200’s native ISO 100 resolution.
- D200 totally on manual focusing, exposure control and 5600K white balance.
- Camera with lens shade, locked down on a carbon-fiber tripod.
- Stucco wall target selected in the shade, on a cloudless morning.
- Testing done within 10 minutes, so the light did not change within that time.
Step 1: Capturing Images
I measured my Zone V exposure with my D200’s spotmeter at four different points, manually. The wall was evenly lit, so the exposure I started with at Zone V was f5.6 @ 1/160, ASA 100. Notice that although the charts were placed in the middle of the image, they had no bearing on the placed exposure for Zone V.
To record my findings, I created a spreadsheet with Image #, Speed, Zone and Observations (see below). Image # is needed to easily reference which image one views, either in LR5 or, more importantly, on the camera’s back view screen. Note that the Stouffer Zone System Chart (the smaller one on top) reflects my fence, in back of the camera, which is why the zones have a mountain shape.
Step 2: Importing Images into LR5
I imported my images into LR5 (2012 Process), setting Contrast = -33 to eliminate the extra contrast LR5 adds in. See Frye’s article above. For more information get his recent ebook Landscapes in Lightroom 5. (I don't receive anything from this plug; I just enjoy his writing.)
Step 3: Process RAW Files in LR5
All RAW files look about the same on
the monitor, so I had to determine how to tell images apart. The
spreadsheet below helped, as well as a
judicious use of colors and star ratings, just so I could quickly identify the
main zones (0, I, II, III, V, VII, VIII, IX, X). Note, Frye provided
a shortcut by not having to shoot all the intermediate zones between 3
and 7. Most cameras, especially if they are DSLRs, easily have dynamic
range of 5 zones, so testing was shorter by not having to test those
middle zones. Thank you, Michael.
Frye suggest using the Exposure
Slider first, to bring up the exposures to Zone V. For example the
placed Zone 7 Exposure (over exposed 2 stops), required the Exposure
slider to be moved two stops to the left (exposure slider, -2.0):
I attempted to make the RAW image processed exposures like Zone V. I repeated this for all my exposures, relative to how far away each was from Zone V.
Step 4: Compare Images
My main visual comparisons were between major Zones, in the stucco detail.Step 4: Compare Images
V versus VII
V versus VIII
V versus III
V versus II
Example: V versus VIII (using LR5 at 100%):
Step 5: Analyze Data for a “Comfortable” Dynamic Range
See Data Table below
My first conclusion was that my "Comfortable" Dynamic Range was at 7 Zones, from II - VIII. Perhaps I could push things.
* I thank Michael Frye for his insight: “The sample you showed at Zone 1 2/3 shows some noise, but, assuming this is a 100% view, not really that much. Remember that 100% is highly magnified, and you would have to make quite a large print to see that noise. And, that's before applying any noise reduction (unless I missed something in skimming your PDF). And, remember that you're rarely going to take a Zone 1 2/3 shadow and lighten it up to Zone 5. Try lightening it to about Zone 3, and apply some noise reduction (especially color noise reduction), and see what you think. While the quality won't be the same as if you'd exposed it at Zone 3, you may find that you can still get usable shadow detail out of darker shadows than Zone 1 2/3.”
Step 6: Analyze Data to See How Far My “Comfortable” Range Could be Pushed
Because of my conclusion in Step 5, I pair-wise tested adjacent zones above VIII and below II to see how far up or down I could expand my 7 Zone “Comfortable” range. So I compared
VIII versus VIII ⅓
VIII ⅓ versus VIII ⅔
VIII ⅔ versus IX
II versus I ⅔
I ⅔ versus 1 ⅓
I stopped at these comparisons, because it became obvious from the vast reduction of detail and great amount of noise from an expanded dynamic range, that no further comparison of extra zones would be productive.
Step 7: Using Highlight and Shadow Sliders in Place of the Exposure Slider
For my pushed dynamic range, I then tried to use the Highlight and Shadow sliders (once resetting the Exposure of each image back to zero). I particularly centered my attention on the Images on Zone 2 and 8, my “comfortable” dynamic range. These sliders are hopeless, by themselves, to affect exposures in the outlying zones. I’m not saying they can’t affect a normal picture with zones slightly less than 2 and or more than 8, but those zones will be only slightly affected by only the highlight slider, as far as preserving detail and maintaining noise. Other tone controls might have to be judiciously applied, to restore detail and reduce noise.
Step 8: Review Images on DSLR Back Screen to See When Blinkies and Dark Areas Appear
Blinkies start to appear on the white spots of the Stouffer Zone Chart in Zone 7 ⅓ and by Zone 8 exposure appeared on the white wall. This would mean that when I see blinkies on the camera back, and I desire detail where there are blinkies, I have between ⅔ and 1 stop maximum I will be able to extract some detail, but with some increase in noise.
Black Areas (Zone II) appear about when the histogram of the D200 is about 1/16 of the way from the left. This means I will be able to extract very little detail without a large commensurate hit in noise, if that part of the histogram shows up with any significance. I must not wait until the histogram butts up to the right, before worrying. My worrying should start before--by considering more exposure (or increase ISO, as long as I don’t go above 400 for the D200).
Conclusion
Frye’s test works nicely for my camera. I learned more from his workflow than previous dynamic range tests, and my main learning will be for my next (new) camera. I will be able to run a similar test, with confidence. Of course, I would expect a much wider dynamic range for that DSLR.
PS: A more detailed PDF of my testing is available. Please contact me at the Comment link below with your request.
Step 6: Analyze Data to See How Far My “Comfortable” Range Could be Pushed
Because of my conclusion in Step 5, I pair-wise tested adjacent zones above VIII and below II to see how far up or down I could expand my 7 Zone “Comfortable” range. So I compared
VIII versus VIII ⅓
VIII ⅓ versus VIII ⅔
VIII ⅔ versus IX
II versus I ⅔
I ⅔ versus 1 ⅓
I stopped at these comparisons, because it became obvious from the vast reduction of detail and great amount of noise from an expanded dynamic range, that no further comparison of extra zones would be productive.
Step 7: Using Highlight and Shadow Sliders in Place of the Exposure Slider
For my pushed dynamic range, I then tried to use the Highlight and Shadow sliders (once resetting the Exposure of each image back to zero). I particularly centered my attention on the Images on Zone 2 and 8, my “comfortable” dynamic range. These sliders are hopeless, by themselves, to affect exposures in the outlying zones. I’m not saying they can’t affect a normal picture with zones slightly less than 2 and or more than 8, but those zones will be only slightly affected by only the highlight slider, as far as preserving detail and maintaining noise. Other tone controls might have to be judiciously applied, to restore detail and reduce noise.
Step 8: Review Images on DSLR Back Screen to See When Blinkies and Dark Areas Appear
Blinkies start to appear on the white spots of the Stouffer Zone Chart in Zone 7 ⅓ and by Zone 8 exposure appeared on the white wall. This would mean that when I see blinkies on the camera back, and I desire detail where there are blinkies, I have between ⅔ and 1 stop maximum I will be able to extract some detail, but with some increase in noise.
Black Areas (Zone II) appear about when the histogram of the D200 is about 1/16 of the way from the left. This means I will be able to extract very little detail without a large commensurate hit in noise, if that part of the histogram shows up with any significance. I must not wait until the histogram butts up to the right, before worrying. My worrying should start before--by considering more exposure (or increase ISO, as long as I don’t go above 400 for the D200).
Conclusion
Frye’s test works nicely for my camera. I learned more from his workflow than previous dynamic range tests, and my main learning will be for my next (new) camera. I will be able to run a similar test, with confidence. Of course, I would expect a much wider dynamic range for that DSLR.
PS: A more detailed PDF of my testing is available. Please contact me at the Comment link below with your request.
