You lost me here. Explain: "I simply set ACRS to retain all the
detail in the RAW file within the output range. I then processed that
one image as usual."
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> AG Schnozz wrote:
>>> Interesting article here:
>>> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/
>>> 2007/08/digital-bw-the-.html
>>>
>> I read that article and a couple things caught my eye. #1, he admits
>> that it's still a work in progress in he hasn't reached nirvana yet.
>> #2, the process is really convoluted to get these types of digital
>> B&W images.
>>
> I wish to take exception to one thing in the link that started this thread.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> "Although it was not something I was especially looking for when I first
> bought...., its increased dynamic range in color work was the most
> apparent improvement over 35mm slide film. ..., but the estimated three
> stops more dynamic range that RAW files gave me over slide film was an
> unexpected revelation....
>
> All this was apparent immediately, using single exposures in RAW, but
> making multiple adjustments of that one file for highlights, midtones
> and shadows, that were then combined in Photoshop with adjustment layers
> and layer masks."
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> I have read this idea in several places and have explored the
> possibilities. I have come to the firm conclusion that this extra effort
> is never necessary if you convert to 16 bit and work in 16 bit.
>
> I think it is a result of not knowing how to use ACRS to control and
> maintain dynamic range. I've made a little example. This little
> waterfall with cave beneath combines direct sun Summer on falling water
> with the depth of a cave at the bottom of a small canyon - a pretty wide
> dynamic range. Simply converting it using the ACRS defaults gives blown
> highlights and lost shadow detail. Rather than do two more conversions
> at higher and lower exposures, I simply set ACRS to retain all the
> detail in the RAW file within the output range. I then processed that
> one image as usual.
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/hdrq/hdr1.htm
>
> For the moment, don't argue with my personal choice of tonalities, I did
> what I did in the rock face, even clipping some shadows intentionally,
> for the dramatic effect I wanted there. Look at the tonal detail in the
> highlights, for example in the tree leaves, and shadows, as in the cave
> depths. They are simply all that is in the RAW file, I've looked, and
> don't require all that extra fussing around with multiple conversions.
>
> So this guy may be a pro in that he sells his stuff, but he's an amateur
> who doesn't know all his tools in ACRS/PS, is doing something the hard
> way, and advocating that others work too hard, as well.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|