Brian Swale wrote:
> The image was already highly modified.
>
> The foreground field vegetation should have been a greyish straw colour,
> after many weeks of frost. But the high contrast due to the sun and snow,
> gave the digicam a difficult time of it.
>
> I am about to upload yet another image which is the original modified only
> by several resizings and mild sharpening; and you will see what I started out
> with. I had decided to show the hills and snow, and the rest could fend for
> itself.
>
I didn't play with color or saturation at all. Colors that were already
there may have become more obvious.
The less processed one is actually quite a bit easier to work with.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/Waikerikeri-valleyo.htm>
As to the ability of the camera to deal with colour accurately, I see in
the EXIF that the WB is set to Custom. I don't know how you have that
set, but suspect a simple Daylight setting might have given better
colour. Any setting that adjusts to "correct" color will tend to lose
the special quality of the light.
As to the brightness range, there is no way shooting in JPEG is likely
to capture it all effectively on many digicams. Some aren't so bad, as
they compress, rather than clip. Here, though, much of the sky is hard
clipped, with large areas pure white.
I've never used an E-3, but I imagine that, like other contemporary
DSLRs, shooting to the right in RAW at ISO 100, here probably -2/3 to -1
EV, would capture the whole range. It would require bringing up the
shadows in conversion or post to get a pleasing result.
Or, if working on a tripod, one could simply exposure bracket and
combine sky from one with land from the other.
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/
|