On 8/23/2011 8:58 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> ...
> I noticed what looked like blown highlights in your image but didn't
> actually measure it.
I don't know what this image has been through, but just a peek at the histogram
won't answer the question. The high end
looks just fine, even when restricted to small, bright areas. However, the
highlights have clearly been blown at some
point, then dragged down with something that works much like the PS Highlight
tool.
> If the highlights are blown adding LCE will not worsen the situation... you
> can't get brighter than pure white.
Although the latter part is a true tautology, the first part isn't true. It's
entirely possible to drive even more near
the top highlights into clipping.
> If you'll send me the raw image I'll see if I can recover any more of the
> highlights using PS5 than you were able with Raw Therapee.
As you said before, it's not just the highlights; the whole mid range is flat.
It's possible to bring it to life without
worsening the highlights. I've added an intentionally poorly done version where
the previously blown highlights show
their true lack of color.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/Autumn-Little-Hagley2_filtered-800.htm>
> Yes, I do remember your "grouching about the inability of digital to
> cope with highlights."
Oh my yes.
> But one might just as well complain about slide
> film's inability to cope with highlights. It's not digital that's at
> fault, it's the photographer who's at fault for neglecting the proper
> use of a new tool.
Exactly!
> Digital behaves much more like slide film than
> negative film and even gives you much more dynamic range than slide film
> ever did... so it's actually better at shadows/highlights than slide
> film.
Yes. I am of the firm opinion that many of those situations about which Brian
complained could easily have captured and
displayed the whole brightness range using proper exposure and technique with
the same cameras. Even some of the web
JPEGs could be adequately corrected.
> It also gives you an easily viewed histogram that tells you if
> the highlights will be blown or not. In fact, the info display on the
> E-510 will also show you blinking underexposed shadow areas and blinking
> overexposed highlight areas. See page 67 of your manual.
>
> All of the tools you require are easily accessible. Your only problem
> is to convince yourself that digital is different, not inferior, and
> learn to use the tools provided.
I know, it's hard to take a shot intentionally that looks underexposed in the
mid tones on the LCD and JPEGs. Still,
sometimes that's exactly the right thing to do to retain highlight detail and
color.
Also, digital cameras have decreased dynamic range at higher ISOs. It's also
generally true, at least to date, that
sensors with higher pixel density tend to have poorer DR. Using a 4/3 camera at
high ISO on a high DR subject is making
things harder than may be necessary. The same subject, shot at ISO 100 using a
tripod might have given you less trouble.
The smaller sensor 60D that I've been using lately has slightly less DR than
the 5D, and I'm having to adjust my
technique to adapt.
D. R. 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/
|