> 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.
I guess I'm spoiled by the E-1 and A1. The "usable" dynamic
range is pretty much as good as any color film I've ever used.
Note, I said "usable". With some films, you have more dynamic
range, but it's highly compressed in the toe/shoulder. The
normal straightline section of digital is typically longer than
film.
> 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.
During RAW file conversion I am able to get far more dynamic
range--if I choose to. There's a lot of information there should
I want to use it. Doing HDR type of merges is nothing brand
new--I've even used it for scanning film to pull every nuance of
shadow detail out of Velvia.
However, the dynamic range of the Olympus cameras is already
outstanding. I can't speak for Canon or Nikon cameras here, but
I do know that there is all sorts of moaning on the Internet
about the limited dynamic range of a few very popular models.
Shooting towards a low sun is probably the only time that I'm
getting far more contrast than a single capture can adequately
capture. For these type of shots, I'll bracket and combine them.
This is pretty infrequent, though. Going back over last
season's Porcupine Mountains pictures, there was only two
pictures that I regret not bracketing.
The key to survival in the high-contrast world is to shoot RAW.
With outstanding converters, such as RawShooter (RIP), you can
extract every ounce of information out of the latent image. The
best part, is that you can revisit it over and over again as
though you are reprocessing the film with a different developer
and/or time.
Speaking of such, this weekend I was working on a Bond Falls
photograph for a customer. They wanted a picture in B&W.
(different one, Wayne) OK, no problem. I opened it up in RSE and
moved sliders around till I got the image I wanted. Once
converted I only had to open it up in an editor to apply a
little LCE to give it some additional edge, sharpening and
cropping. That's it. Hmm, well, there were a few little special
touches added, but that's "artist' prerogative" stuff. Since it
was taken with an E-1, I didn't even need to clone out any dust
spots. Start to finish was less than 1/2 hour. That's from the
moment I opened the image in RSE to the point where it was
uploaded to the lab for printing. On Wednesday the customer will
have a 30" signed print hanging on his wall. In the chemical
darkroom, it would have taken me a little longer. ;) The best
part is, if the photo really looks as good in print as I think
it will, I'll be able to order up extras literally in seconds.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|