Moose, thanks much for your comment & experiments. I'll give another
try to produce good landscape with my E-300. ;)
-kem
On 7/31/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
> > Digital photoshopping that I was talking about is merging multiple
> > images with different exposures. I'm not oppose to any kind of image
> > manipulation and thinking it's a cool technology. After viewing
> > Graham's images, wow, the sky and earth can live peacefully together,
> > I don't see how my e300 can produce such results without merging
> > images.
> I can't imagine that it can't.
>
> Most of Graham's images aren't of subjects with extremely great
> brightness range. That kind of images should certainly be within the
> range of a properly exposed RAW file from an E-500. Until quite
> recently, Graham was using an older scanner probably capable of no more
> dynamic range than the E-500.
>
> Using multiple images to capture very wide dynamic range is a great
> tool, but one that's actually needed for only a very few subjects. I
> think a lot of people are using it on images where it's not needed, just
> because it's a hot item and fun to try out. Don't let their enthusiasm
> mislead you about what can and can't be done with more conventional
> image processing.
>
> I've done some limited film vs. digital comparisons that address your
> area of concern early in my first use of a DSLR. This is the most
> direct, with green land and big sky and clouds
> <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/FilmvsDigi/FvD01.htm>. I don't claim any
> compositional or subject quality to compete with Graham's best, but it
> is the same sort of subject matter and even the same film he uses for
> his colour shots.
>
> There may be a way to get the creamy white and greater subtle tonal
> detail of the digital image in the film image, but I've not found it. At
> the least the grain gets in the way. In any case, I think you can see
> that they are essentially equal in their ability to capture the whole
> range of brightness of the scene. In fact, neither one was particularly
> pressed to do so. Overall, I prefer the DSLR image. The E-300 is a later
> design than the 300D (and with greater resolution), and I just don't
> believe it has any less RAW capture brightness range.
>
> It's likely you could capture an image like this rather well in JPEG -
> IF - you have all the parameters set right (Lots of experience needed!)
> and get the exposure just right too. The beauty of RAW is that it not
> only has greater exposure latitude than JPEG, but it allows the image
> parameters to be altered at will back at the computer.
>
> So if you aren't getting what you want out of RAW files and your
> converter, why might that be? One possibility may be not fully
> understanding how to use the converter. Unless you tell it something
> else, it will simply apply all the same settings, compression, clipping,
> curves, etc. as would have been done for a JPEG as the camera was set.
> So even though you may be outputting to 16-bit files, the damage is done
> in the RAW processing before it is output. If you use the RAW converter
> as a duplicate of the internal camera processor, yo get the same results.
>
> As far as I know, all Raw converters provide sliders to adjust the white
> point (often labeled 'exposure'), black point (often labeled 'shadows')
> and center point (often labeled 'brightness'). These are essentially the
> same as the three adjustments on a Levels Control in an image editor,
> although they often interact with each other somewhat. Some converters
> also provide more or less powerful means to adjust the curve, which is
> nice (with some, an editor isn't needed at all for many/most shots), but
> all you really need are the three basic adjustments. Using the
> histogram, you adjust these three to avoid losing highlight and shadow
> detail and get relatively balanced looking image brightness.
>
> It's important to note that a full range image of many subjects without
> curves adjustment will look quite flat and lifeless. That's really not a
> problem, as you will bring it to life in the editor, unless it makes you
> think something has gone wrong, and you stop there. Here's a little
> tutorial I did with a B&W image Jonas Otter posted
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/BW/Tut01bw.htm>. A
> lovely scene, but the scanner output was very flat looking and
> unbalanced towards shadows. Some rearrangement of the histogram and the
> image takes on a whole new quality. Here's a color example of bringing
> the flat output image from a RAW converter to life
> <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/Damriscotta/Damariscotta.htm>.
>
> I'm not proposing that you will need to do something as extensive as
> these examples for most shots, only that it is possible.
>
> I'm sure the E-300 IS capable of the kind of results you are looking
> for. Look at what I did with 8-bit JPEG images of brightly lit, high
> contrast outdoor subjects from my F30, even where I wasted some of the
> 8-bits with underexposure. You, however, will have to learn how to do
> it. Quality images are created by photographers who learn the skills
> needed to use their camera and darkroom equipment, film, digital, or
> mixed, to get the results they want. Graham has taken years and many,
> many images to learn to do what he does so well.
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
when you were born, a problem was solved
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|