AG Schnozz wrote:
> 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.
>
That's the major thrust of what I was trying to say.
> "Digital photoshopping that I was talking about is merging multiple
> images with different exposures..... 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 was directly responding to Komtanoo's preceding comments.
> 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.
>
Yes, I've done it quite a bit with the 8-bit JPEGs out of cameras
without RAW capability. But I've never found it necessary with DSLR RAW
image files. Sure, I've lost highlights, beyond what can be recovered in
RAW processing, through missing the exposure, but if I had done my job,
the RAW file would have contained all the tonal range I needed. I seem
to find it hard to get myself to bracket enough. :-)
> However, the dynamic range of the Olympus cameras is already
> outstanding.
My point exactly, Komtanoo is giving up on his E-300 way too easily.
> <snip more interesting stuff>
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|