On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:47 AM, Moose wrote:
> 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
Fascinating, thanks for the explanation, will have to actually try
next time, instead of out of camera JPGs!
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|