Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> They're all more better now.
OMG, now we're all starting to sound like Walt in his hillbilly guise?
Thanks, though, glad you liked what I did.
One of the benefits of a list like this is that I get to see lots of
images that result from lots of different cameras, films, sensor
systems, scanners, software, etc. It's given me opportunities to ask
myself questions about the posted results and go in and find at least a
few answers. This has given me the opportunity to learn much more than
if I could only play with my own images.
One thing I think I've learned is that many apparent problems with
exposure latitude and lost highlight and/or shadow detail are a result
of misunderstanding of what is in the image data, not equipment/software
failures as such.
Ever have some B&W film developed and printed a the drug store way back
when? Get absolute junk back? I sure did. Take it into the darkroom and
something wholly different came out. The dumb, standardized process of
development and printing was completely insensitive to the subject and
the human vision system.
I'm thinking this is akin to the issues Ansel Adams and others addressed
so brilliantly with the Zone System. It's still all about two things at
bottom.
1. Knowing the dynamic range of your film/sensor so as to use it to
capture the range of subject brightness you want. This is really much
easier with DSLRs, if one is willing to learn how to read a histogram
beyond just whether highlights are blown, although even that is much
more than Ansel & Co. had.
2. Knowing how to process the latent/raw image so as to put the various
tonal zones where they belong in the final output.
So the old tools of choice of film, developer, concentration,
development time, agitation, paper type and contrast, dodging, burning,
pre-flashing, split contrast techniques, more processing choices for the
paper, etc. are replaced by a bunch of hardware and software tools.
Personal preferences and issues of nostalgia, resistance to change, etc.
etc. aside, the overall goal is still the same. And the techniques are
really pretty closely related, although accomplished in very different
seeming environments and specific actions.
> But San Rocco I think has the most dramatic difference. It took a nicely
> backlit crop of hair and then attached a real boy underneath it. :-)
>
Thanks, I actually backed off a bit on that one to avoid accentuating
his odd, two tone skin color any more. A person entirely in shadow is
much easier than one partially in and out. Hmmm, I wonder if the skin
thing is light from a reflection off something shiny?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|