>>4438103> If you shoot jpeg. If you overexpose an image without clipping and -1 in a raw editor, it looks the same as a normally exposed image if it were shot at a lower ISO. Except it doesn't. There's a few reasons for this. Gamma, demosaicing, OECF function, etc.
Gamma: RAW files are mostly linear, but when you gamma correct, you end up "compressing" the higher values and expanding the lower values.
Demosaicing: If a color channel or neighboring pixels are clipped, demosaicing has to assume it's an error. It will correct that by desaturating nearby pixels. To prevent banding, it'll do this to an extent to even non-clipped pixels. Essentially the closer to white something is, the more desaturated demosaicing makes it.
So if you want better tonality (especially as the texture of something becomes important), you want tot keep it out of the higher ranges of dynamic range. Keep things that are actually supposed to be white or near white in the top stop or two of dynamic range.
>>it really means you have 12 stops>No, it's 14-16.Take your 14-16 stop advertised dynamic range and look at photons to photos or such other actual measurements of stops and it'll likely, realistically, measure 12 stops.
>>4438106Zone system is still relevant in digital photography.
The point of the Zone system was to manage representation of the tones of a scene, despite the limitations of the representation (film realistically had 10-12 stops of dynamic range, you could get much, much more, but that became expensive, time consuming, and tedious. Was easier to just use the zone system).
As digital sensors still aren't limited, and actually do have similar limits to film, Zone system remains relevant. The limits are different -- ie. it was more important to protect shadows on film, and more important to protect highlights on digital, but the system to help us manage it all still applies.
