Chris Barker wrote:
>Hmm, not bad Moose ;-)
>
Thanks.
>You've now got me doing this with a shot of my own: 2 digital shots, one
>exposed for the sky and the subject underexposed, the other the reverse.
>
As Winsor said, this was done from one shot, not two. I think that is
simpler to do than the 2 shot approach in that the high and low end
portions match exactly, pixel for pixel, when overlaid and that isn't
likely to be the case with 2 shots, no matter how carefull one is.
>I am experimenting with layer blending options ... it's no good: I shall have
>to read the manual for CS!
>
I'm not sure about layer blending. I simply selected the flowers from
the first image and copied them to a new layer, then copied that layer
over to the second image, where it overlaid the blown out portion of
that image.
>I disagree about its being better than slide. You could treat scanned
>slide film the same way could you not?
>
Yes you can treat it the same, and if you take 2 shots with different
exposures, you can do almost anything. However, slide film captures
between 1 and 2 stops less total brightness range than those 6mp
sensors, so you can't get the same result from 2 different scan
exposures of a single slide. I know you disagree, but those who have
done measurements do come up with greater latitude for current consumer
DSLRs than for slide film. I'm not saying one or another medium is
better, but they are different. And the total range of subject
brightness mapped to the range of film density from as clear to as
opaque as it can get on slide film is less than the total range of
subject brightness these DSLRs map into their 12 bit luminance range.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|