Dnia 28-06-2007 o 07:47:44 Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> However, there is more cloud/highlight detail than shows in your posted
> version. Actually, there's more shadow detail, as well, but I rather
> like the semi silhouette trees. Whatever the combination of film and
> scan, the top highlights are all squished together up at the top of the
> histogram, but may be coaxed to show themselves, making the big white
> blob of the upper left much more interesting.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Lato/Clouds.htm
How did you manage to do that? I've uploaded new version of the image
(http://grabun.com/zdjecia/lato/05.html) with more highlight detail but
still the definition of top left cloud in the image you postprocessed
reveals much more detail. Did you Photoshop's dodge/burn?
> If you look at the first histogram, you might say "Oh, look at that
> tall, thin line at the right, the highlights are all blown as one value
> at the top." And sometimes that is the case, but here, there is a lot of
> tonal detail available up there.
Odd. There's no clipped highlights in the original scan:
http://grabun.com/tmp/hist.png
The same is with websized version.
I do agree, however, that there's much more tonal detail in the picture
one would expect. Pity I have images scanned to JPG's in 8-bit color
range. I scanned the slide with Epson 4490 to 16-bit TIFF but the result
is far from perfection.
> #3 puzzles me. I an see the subject making a very nice, subtle print if
> the full brightness range is captured. The single slide shot doesn't do
> it, though. It's possible to bring up the shadows, but they are too
> noisy, which loses subtle tonal graduations and the highlights have lost
> too much detail.
> This is a shot for low contrast color neg film like Portra NC slightly
> overexposed or for a tripod and two shots exposed for highlights and
> shadows respectively on slide film or any digital but those with the
> lowest noise and highest dynamic range, then combined in post.
I totally agree with what you say with just a tiny reservation: I am not a
big fan of postprocess in general; I used to be in times when I took
pictures with E-1 and played with them in GIMP/PWP but now when I rarely
use digital cameras restricting myself to slides I try to avoid PP as much
as possible. Having a flatbed scanner, it's impossible to avoid it
completely but I try hard to limit PP just to a slight correction on
contrast and color balance.
> Moose
Moose, thanks a lot for so deeply detailed analysis; I do appreciate your
input and looking forward to hearing more advices from your side.
--
Używam klienta poczty Opera Mail: http://www.opera.com/mail/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
