Blown out Highlights, Fx vs. Dx

Rick M

Senior Member
Have users of both formats found Fx to be significantly better than Dx in handling highlights? I've read that is the case, just wondering how much the difference is. An example is the photo below, even with tonemapping / HDR / exposure compensation, sometimes blown out highlights are hard to avoid. Wondering how much going Fx would help.

Thanks for any input!


DSC_0037_2344_tonemapped.jpg
 
Last edited:

pedroj

Senior Member
Hi Rick, I can't help with FX...As far as I can see there are not to many blown highlights in this...The few that are there could easily be toned down in PS with the magnetic tool and levels...Nice pic...
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Thanks Pedroj! I find I get allot of blown out highlights in these waterfall pics and was wondering if it is significantly less of an issue with FX.
 

navcom

Senior Member
FX sensors have a bit more dynamic range depending on which cropped sensor you are comparing too. Yes, they can help with highlights. I saw this posted online...not sure if it was here or not but it's a good explanation of dynamic range differences between a FF and a cropped sensor.

Jeff
 

Eye-level

Banned
This is one area where I think film smokes even the best of digital cameras. With film you have much smoother "gradual" transitions if you will not just blown out all harsh white straight to color like digital sensors do.

I would think FX does a better job than DX because of the typically added dynamic range and the bigger pixels.
 

Eye-level

Banned
Let me add please...

One probably can learn post production digital well enough as to be able to make the transition from highlights to the other tones just as good if not better than film...or at least the "effect" of it. Those FX cameras you all are toting around and that software you have are extremely capable tools if you are smart enough to exploit them. Especially nowadays...welcome to digital. :)
 
Last edited:
Top