[Phot - 7D] - white on white

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Browne, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Mar 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Scott W Guest

    Hey Alan,

    Great photo, how are you liking being in the digital world?

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thanks. It has its positives, such as that image. Exposure is still
    not going as I expect, but at least I don't have to wait a day for the
    film to come back.

    I shot another pair of images. One that pleases me, but has a major
    area of blow out. One that is exposed perfectly, but loses its visual
    impact... oh, hell I'll post them, hang on a second...

    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/PICT0966S.jpg looks better
    overall to me, but the snow is blown out on the log.

    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/PICT0967S.jpg doesn't blow out,
    but overall is a bit dreary looking.

    Like slide, not very tolerant of wide latitude scenes.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Scott W Guest

    I like the second one much better, you might try printing it, often a
    photo that does not look great on the screen will look surprisingly
    good in a print.

    It would be very easy to edit the second photo bring up the brightness
    over all but keeping the one area from blowing out.

    Are you shooting raw? Shooting raw should extend you latitude by a
    noticeable amount, you still have to have care about the highlights but
    not as much.

    It takes a while to get used to shooting digital, it is not like
    shooting negatives at all, with film I found it almost impossible to
    expose so much that I lost the highlights, but very easy to loose
    detail in the shadows, with digital it is just the opposite, very easy
    to blow out the highlights but easy to get good detail in the shadows.

    At this point if I where to go back to shooting film I would have to
    retrain myself as to how to expose correctly.

    Your photos are looking very good, I don't think you are going to
    have much problems with learning how to get the most out of your new
    camera, have fun.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I am shooting RAW as well as JPG. (Which means these JPG' photos are
    slightly compressed). OTOH, Elements 3.0 only works 8 bits/color depth.
    I haven't explored this fully yet.
    I'm used to shooting slide which has a narrow lattitude. While digital
    behaves similarly in may respects, it is different.
    fun? Oh yeah!! Thanks for your comments/suggestions.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Ken Ellis Guest

    It's a lovely photo Alan. The exposures are fine and good detail. I
    saw a photo by Richard Brown of a snow owl (w/w) and he says
    to actually lower the stops and shoot lighter than you normally
    would ( un-intuitive for me) but his works.

    There are some changes alot of us make in photoshop that
    alter the colors a bit and their saturations. Fine photo as is.
    Will take a look at the other urls you posted subsequent exchange.

    btw..picked up from a previous thread your reference to f-calc.
    DL'd and am reading the INF pages currently. Thanks again.

    rgds

    Ken
     
    Ken Ellis, Mar 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Scott W Guest

    Elements 3.0 will work with 16 bits/color, With some limits, like no
    layers.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Mar 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Ed Ruf, Mar 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thank you. In the woods I was exposing as if it were slide film. Even
    there I'm not that happy with it. More experimenting to do.
    Well, regarding the first image (birchbark on snow) if you take it into
    photoshop and look at the info, you'll notice first off that the blue
    channel is very high all over, including in the whites of the bark. The
    sky was intensely blue overhead and that's what fills the shaddows.

    The only changes I made to that image were cropping, levels (very slight
    to bring up the red in the back of the bark) and USM.
    Glad you picked it up. If you go in the help pages, the equations are
    there. Just remember that the units are always the same (eg: if the
    CoC is in mm, then the distances are in mm too.)

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Sorry, I meant 2.0 above (which I have), not 3.0. I'm waitng for the
    local "Bureau en Gros" (Staples) to get its E 3.0's in (english
    version). I don't use layers very much, so no prob.

    Further, the RAW plugin for the 7D is supposedly better in E 3.0 than
    the Monolta supplied version.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    how are you liking being in the digital world?


    Here's another from Thur. 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4TC . Cropped. A bit soft.
    From my kitchen across into my back neighbors yard. There were gusts
    of wind at the time so it took several shots to get a reasonably sharp
    one and exposure had to be bracketed. (Or I could have run out there
    with an incident meter).

    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/PICT0873SM.jpg

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    Ken Ellis Guest

    Well, yeah... so if your looking to check cam - output - my
    mistake.
    right..that's the point. Actually sometimes l'll use a layer ontop of
    a tan tone with light opacity to warm. The other thing is to desat
    or - better yet - a little color replacement. But here we're farther
    afield from cam output . I find when i take pics of the snow..
    often i may get a blue or a grey...where that wasn't my impression
    at the time i shot...but that in my head. So that's what i would
    try to reproduce..albeit perhaps innacurate.
    I appreciate the advice.
    Ta Alan
    Ken
     
    Ken Ellis, Mar 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    RSD99 Guest

    FWIW:
    A Contrast Mask would probably do either (or both) of those images a *lot*
    of "good."




     
    RSD99, Mar 20, 2005
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    ThomasH Guest

    Indeed, and this makes the Fuji S3 so promising with their
    larger dynamic range through 14bit per pixel. I often prefer
    to underexpose scenes with bright details to prevent this
    so typical "all max. white spot" on the image. Later the
    image can be brightened by applying some gamma adjustment,
    what provides satisfactory results and yet preserves some
    texture in highlights.

    The magnificent image of the birch bark shows a different
    problem with the blue cast on snow, but here film might have
    the same issue. It is sometimes not easy to make the snow
    appear pure white, as our brain want us to believe it is!
    However, I love this gentle blue in your image!

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Mar 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    Patrick Guest

    Patrick, Mar 20, 2005
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Patrick Guest


    You have to lift the shadows in PhotoShop and underexpose a little so as to
    not blow things out, as in your second example. It's part of the digital
    thing.

    One thing I find about digital is that shadow detail is better, or at least
    the detail is recoverable in PhotoShop.


    Patrick
     
    Patrick, Mar 20, 2005
    #18
  19. Alan Browne

    Colin D Guest

    Hello Alan,
    In the interests of defending digital photography {:), I took the
    liberty of downloading your second shot and running it through Elements
    3 to see what shadow detail was lurking in the black depths of your
    image.

    Here is the result:

    http://www.pbase.com/colin_d/inbox

    Let's see slide film do that.

    regards, Colin.
     
    Colin D, Mar 20, 2005
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    This is a point of discussion. Walking in the woods (again today) under
    a brillant blue sky one can't help notice that the shaddows are blue.
    The soft shaddows even have darker blue shaddows in them.

    AFAIAC the blue is natural and should remain. Unless it is a person in
    the shot, then I'd slap on Mr. 81A.

    I agree about he S3, but I don't have Nikon lenses...

    If you shoot in the sunlight on slide film (say Sensia, EliteChrome 100
    or E100S), the shaddows will be blue and the whites will be dazzling
    white. (Like in the two shots above... the white is white and the
    shaddows in the back are blue).
    Thanks.

    It's all natural (I did poke the red in birchbark shot a tad). In soft
    shaddow areas there will even be hard shaddow areas that are a deeper
    blue. This is the same on film. I'll post a couple in the coming day
    or so.

    I should have elements 3.0

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.