siddiq@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I think .3 is too little, I have a difficult time with which is which.
> ... makes three files to merge, considering how much range there is from
> light to dark, and merge in post.
>
I agree with Chuck. Proposing bracketing and HDR is an example of
mis-diagnosis of image tonality. The entire range of brightness in the
subject has been captured in the one, 0EV shot. That's not at all
surprising, as the scene is actually rather low in contrast, ranging
from black to light gray.
I see HDR images being made all the time where nothing beyond a single,
properly exposed image was needed. When an image looks dull, flat, the
first place to look is at the histogram, not to HDR. There are indeed
subjects that will benefit from bracketing and combining to capture the
whole brightness range, but it seems to me that they are a rather small
minority of those to which HDR is being applied.
The other amusing thing is when people convert three (or more?) output
images from one RAW file, then combine them to capture more brightness
range. In reality, RAW files are 12 or 14 bit. RAW converters are
capable of reading all thos bits at once and outputting 16 bit files.
They have a greater tonal range than the input, so everything in the RAW
file is available in one conversion. Adjusting the RAW converter to
avoid clipping shadows or highlights beyond what are already lost in the
RAW file gets all that's in that RAW file in one pass.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that HDR apps are used to get all sorts
of effects beyond simply extending the natural looking dynamic range of
the subject. Some I like, some not, but HDR software is obviously a fun
thing to use in that way.
But if one is looking for a reasonably natural rendition of a wide
dynamic range subject, first check the histogram. Adjust EV and reshoot
as necessary. Then learn how to process images without HDR. I've
bracketed a lot of images, thinking I would need to combine them. To
date, that hasn't been the case. Especially with contemporary DSLRs,
there is a wide dynamic range available, enough for the vast majority of
subjects.
Even with a simple, JPEG output only digicam, you might be amazed what
is in the image that isn't obvious. I took 2 or 3 shots of this one, but
only needed one for the finished product.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1140a.htm>
I shot to the right to retain highlights, low ISO for low noise, then
bring up the shadows. It was all there in one shot. There are a few
other examples in this gallery.
Much the same problem is shown in some of your shots that I messed with,
especially the food shots and the two of women with bright backgrounds
behind them.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Others/Siddiq>
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|