Hmm, not bad Moose ;-) You've now got me doing this with a shot of my
own: 2 digital shots, one exposed for the sky and the subject
underexposed, the other the reverse. I am experimenting with layer
blending options ... it's no good: I shall have to read the manual for
CS!
I disagree about its being better than slide. You could treat scanned
slide film the same way could you not?
Good night all
Chris
On 12 Aug 2004, at 11:31, Moose wrote:
> I keep finding things I want to understand better so I can use my
> equipment more knowledgeably and effectively. So I've heard a bit of
> discussion on the list and maybe even the slightest occasional
> disagreement, about the effective exposure range of DCs vs film. So I
> had a good opportunity to try out the range of a DSLR with my D300. A
> surprise gladiola came up late in an odd location. In the afternoon,
> it was lit from behind by direct sun, while the background was mostly
> in fairly deep shade.
>
> I exposed "to the right" to preserve the highlights. I took the shot
> mostly for the flowers and wanted to retain tonal detail in the subtle
> detail of the petals. In the RAW conversion, I lowered the exposure
> setting until no highlights appeared to be lost. Worked very nicely,
> too, and really threw everything else in the dark, for a very dramatic
> image.
>
> Now, a couple of days later, I got curious and I tried to see how much
> detail was there in the shadows. I reconverted from RAW, this time
> increasing the exposure setting to retain as much of the shadow detail
> as possible. This time, the flowers were completely blown to white
> outlines. I then treated it as I had done the first one, LCE, curves
> and sharpening. Although shot at 200 iso, which has almost no noise at
> middle and high levels, the low exposure levels have a fair amount of
> noise, but it's amazing how much detail and color is there to be
> found. The blue is detail of the railing of my front porch.
>
> I then did a very quick and dirty combination of the 2 images into 1
> to put the whole brightness range into one image. It definitely looks
> a bit fake, as I took no trouble to merge the edges, but that's not
> the point, anyway. Nor do I think it is a particularly attractive
> image, odd tonal juxtapositions, but it demonstrates what I want to
> show.
>
> So I don't know what the whole range is in stops, but it's certainly
> much greater than any slide film I've ever used
> <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/CRW_0195x3.jpg>.
>
> Moose
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
