Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
> Digital photoshopping that I was talking about is merging multiple
> images with different exposures. I'm not oppose to any kind of image
> manipulation and thinking it's a cool technology. After viewing
> Graham's images, wow, the sky and earth can live peacefully together,
> I don't see how my e300 can produce such results without merging
> images.
I can't imagine that it can't.
Most of Graham's images aren't of subjects with extremely great
brightness range. That kind of images should certainly be within the
range of a properly exposed RAW file from an E-500. Until quite
recently, Graham was using an older scanner probably capable of no more
dynamic range than the E-500.
Using multiple images to capture very wide dynamic range is a great
tool, but one that's actually needed for only a very few subjects. I
think a lot of people are using it on images where it's not needed, just
because it's a hot item and fun to try out. Don't let their enthusiasm
mislead you about what can and can't be done with more conventional
image processing.
I've done some limited film vs. digital comparisons that address your
area of concern early in my first use of a DSLR. This is the most
direct, with green land and big sky and clouds
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/FilmvsDigi/FvD01.htm>. I don't claim any
compositional or subject quality to compete with Graham's best, but it
is the same sort of subject matter and even the same film he uses for
his colour shots.
There may be a way to get the creamy white and greater subtle tonal
detail of the digital image in the film image, but I've not found it. At
the least the grain gets in the way. In any case, I think you can see
that they are essentially equal in their ability to capture the whole
range of brightness of the scene. In fact, neither one was particularly
pressed to do so. Overall, I prefer the DSLR image. The E-300 is a later
design than the 300D (and with greater resolution), and I just don't
believe it has any less RAW capture brightness range.
It's likely you could capture an image like this rather well in JPEG -
IF - you have all the parameters set right (Lots of experience needed!)
and get the exposure just right too. The beauty of RAW is that it not
only has greater exposure latitude than JPEG, but it allows the image
parameters to be altered at will back at the computer.
So if you aren't getting what you want out of RAW files and your
converter, why might that be? One possibility may be not fully
understanding how to use the converter. Unless you tell it something
else, it will simply apply all the same settings, compression, clipping,
curves, etc. as would have been done for a JPEG as the camera was set.
So even though you may be outputting to 16-bit files, the damage is done
in the RAW processing before it is output. If you use the RAW converter
as a duplicate of the internal camera processor, yo get the same results.
As far as I know, all Raw converters provide sliders to adjust the white
point (often labeled 'exposure'), black point (often labeled 'shadows')
and center point (often labeled 'brightness'). These are essentially the
same as the three adjustments on a Levels Control in an image editor,
although they often interact with each other somewhat. Some converters
also provide more or less powerful means to adjust the curve, which is
nice (with some, an editor isn't needed at all for many/most shots), but
all you really need are the three basic adjustments. Using the
histogram, you adjust these three to avoid losing highlight and shadow
detail and get relatively balanced looking image brightness.
It's important to note that a full range image of many subjects without
curves adjustment will look quite flat and lifeless. That's really not a
problem, as you will bring it to life in the editor, unless it makes you
think something has gone wrong, and you stop there. Here's a little
tutorial I did with a B&W image Jonas Otter posted
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/BW/Tut01bw.htm>. A
lovely scene, but the scanner output was very flat looking and
unbalanced towards shadows. Some rearrangement of the histogram and the
image takes on a whole new quality. Here's a color example of bringing
the flat output image from a RAW converter to life
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/Damriscotta/Damariscotta.htm>.
I'm not proposing that you will need to do something as extensive as
these examples for most shots, only that it is possible.
I'm sure the E-300 IS capable of the kind of results you are looking
for. Look at what I did with 8-bit JPEG images of brightly lit, high
contrast outdoor subjects from my F30, even where I wasted some of the
8-bits with underexposure. You, however, will have to learn how to do
it. Quality images are created by photographers who learn the skills
needed to use their camera and darkroom equipment, film, digital, or
mixed, to get the results they want. Graham has taken years and many,
many images to learn to do what he does so well.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|