On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> <snip>
> That all said, let's deal with a specific example where I'm perfectly
> content with lens-based filters. Sunset/sunrise skies. This is a
> situation where I'm trying to keep the ground from going pitch black
> while keeping the sky from blowing out.
Troublesome, for sure. I tend not to want too much detail in the
foreground because I like the colors in the sky and would rather have
them than ground detail. Not to mention I think too much detail
(sometimes _any_ detail) doesn't look natural. For the past couple of
years, I've been shying away from sunrise/sunset shots where the
camera's pointed at the rising/setting. I get my kicks pointing a bit
off center to try to get the color and texture and directionality of
the light, and also the rocks or water or lighthouse or boat or
whatever has struck my fancy. Was it here that someone said sunrise/
sunset shots are the most entered type of shots in photography
contests, and the least likely to win?
> 1. On-lens Gradient Filter. This is one of those rough tools that get
> you close, but further tweaking may be required. To use a cooking
> parallel, this is like salting the food while cooking--it gets you
> close, but people will still use salt and pepper for individual tastes
> at the table.
Good analogy. Sometimes close is enough. Working with film, I would
agree that the filter would be the way to go. That's why I've got a
Cokin set gathering dust. Used it a lot when I was doing 4x5 work.
Working with high-end digital, I'd be more likely to go with shadow/
highlight to recover just enough detail in the foreground to show the
presence of a foreground. Not much more than that.
> 2. Multishot HDR. Works great under many situations, but does require
> extensive post-production time to perform. What takes a few seconds
> with the camera now takes many minutes in front of the computer.
I'm not a big fan of HDR, except, as you note, for architectural work,
and a few situations where it makes a striking enough difference in
the scene to be considered artistic unto itself. I know some HDR
shooters who swear by it. But I think it's kind of an addiction, one
I've avoided so far. <g> That said, I know a guy in Boston who does
HDR, and he's got a shot of the inside of an old boat house with a
ramshackle lobster boat that is nothing short of gorgeous. Just when I
get to disrespecting HDR, I see a shot that blows me away, and I
understand why people do it.
> 3. Shadow/Highlight Recovery, curves adjustment and post-processing
> tonal adjustment. This is the usual axe that I choose to wield. With
> the E-1, I've got a few stops more latitude than the usual digital
> bear, so I've gotten spoiled by that and exploit it heavily. Come to
> think of it, I've gotten so spoiled that I have tremendous difficulty
> doing my usual methods with other cameras. But if you have to make
> wide swings in adjustment, this is like adding salt to food after it's
> cooked--it takes a whole lot more than if it was added while cooking
> and the flavor just isn't quite the same.
Good thing I've already eaten. <g> One trick with shadow/highlights is
to use it aggressively, then mask and fill with black and reveal only
portions of what you've done, leaving the rest closer to darkness.
I've been amazed time and again at what the D3 will reveal with shadow/
highlights, but there's a real trick to using all those sliders to
keep a more natural look. Sometimes you can't, and it's time to move on.
> Doing darkroom work, I'm reminded that my tonal adjustment tend to be
> a bit more heavy-handed than what most people do. I'm dodging and
> burning, shucking and jiving my way through prints to the point where
> sometimes there is little that resembles the original work print.
I've long since left the wet darkroom, so it's a non-issue for me. I
have done it, probably could do it again, but choose not to. Nothing
against it. I really enjoy seeing what the wet shooters are doing, and
sometimes I realize I won't get that kind of shot with digital. But by
and large, digital does what I need done. The trick, as I've said
before, is to work very hard to get that exposure close to correct to
begin with so the manipulation remains in the realm of the reasonable.
Like the Buddha said, the middle path. <wink>
> <snip>
> Besides, I like breathing stop bath and fixer.
Sometimes I can still smell the fixer, and frankly, I do miss it. But
not enough to dive back in, though if you promise not to tell anyone,
I've occasionally given some thought to doing 4x5 contact prints. All
the pleasures and smells of the wet darkroom, but no need for an
enlarger and all those pesky gynormous trays. <g>
--Bob Whitmire
www.bobwhitmire.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|